Federal Register Vol. 81, No.116,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 116 (June 16, 2016)

Page Range39175-39539
FR Document

81_FR_116
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 39537 - Honoring the Victims of the Attack in Orlando, FloridaPDF
81 FR 39278 - Sunshine Act Meeting; NoticePDF
81 FR 39298 - In the Matter of Enterprise Energy, Inc., Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 39252 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 39277 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 39176 - Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2015-16 Crop Year for Tart CherriesPDF
81 FR 39196 - Final Priorities and Definitions-Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program-Short-Term Projects and Long-Term ProjectsPDF
81 FR 39253 - Applications for New Awards; Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad ProgramPDF
81 FR 39263 - Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not To Sue Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as Amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986; In Re: Ely Copper Mine Superfund Site, Located in Vershire, VermontPDF
81 FR 39262 - Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Payment of Past Response Costs: Lincoln Park Superfund Site, Canyon City, Fremont County, ColoradoPDF
81 FR 39312 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the NuStar Burgos Pipeline Projects Presidential Permit Applications Review, Hidalgo County, TexasPDF
81 FR 39313 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: ECA Exchange Student SurveysPDF
81 FR 39262 - Pyridate; Receipt of Applications for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public CommentPDF
81 FR 39195 - Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port ZonePDF
81 FR 39187 - Special Local Regulations; Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations UpdatePDF
81 FR 39184 - Special Local Regulation; Cumberland River, Mile 190.5 to 194.0; Nashville, TNPDF
81 FR 39314 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemption-in Pierce County, Wash.PDF
81 FR 39193 - Safety Zone; Annual Firework Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port ZonePDF
81 FR 39194 - Safety Zones, Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound ZonePDF
81 FR 39191 - Special Local Regulation; Ohio River Mile 791.0 to 795.0, Evansville, INPDF
81 FR 39317 - Tenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228) Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Unmanned Aircraft SystemsPDF
81 FR 39269 - Announcement of the Award of Two Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grants Under the Unaccompanied Children's (UC) ProgramPDF
81 FR 39481 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Rights in Technical Data and Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions (DFARS Case 2012-D022)PDF
81 FR 39249 - National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning RulePDF
81 FR 39247 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 39289 - Duke Energy; Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
81 FR 39287 - Duke Energy; Catawba Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
81 FR 39266 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10477, Parkway Bank, Lenoir, North CarolinaPDF
81 FR 39283 - Duke Energy; H.B. Robinson Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
81 FR 39278 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested Extension: Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 39267 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 39291 - New Postal ProductsPDF
81 FR 39252 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 39285 - Duke Energy; Brunswick Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
81 FR 39281 - Duke Energy; McGuire Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
81 FR 39281 - Faster Administration of Science and Technology Education and Research (FASTER) Community of Practice (CoP)PDF
81 FR 39280 - Large Scale Networking (LSN)-Joint Engineering Team (JET)PDF
81 FR 39280 - Large Scale Networking (LSN)-Middleware and Grid Interagency Coordination (MAGIC) TeamPDF
81 FR 39175 - Asian Longhorned Beetle: Update List of Regulated ArticlesPDF
81 FR 39247 - Implementation of Revised Lacey Act ProvisionsPDF
81 FR 39324 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 39268 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 39279 - Meetings of Humanities PanelPDF
81 FR 39320 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 39317 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of an Approved Information Collection: Designation of Agents, Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight ForwardersPDF
81 FR 39318 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 39213 - Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; Response to Petition for RulemakingPDF
81 FR 39237 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management in the Gulf of Alaska Trawl Fisheries; Amendment 103PDF
81 FR 39275 - Tribal Management Grant Program; Extension of Due DatesPDF
81 FR 39251 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 39275 - Notice of Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 39183 - Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition 3); Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 39271 - Pediatric Clinical Investigator Training; Public WorkshopPDF
81 FR 39267 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 39249 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 39248 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 39250 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 39264 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 39262 - City of Paterson, New Jersey; Notice of Effective Date of Withdrawal of Notice of IntentPDF
81 FR 39258 - City of Paterson, New Jersey, Great Falls Hydroelectric Company; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 39259 - Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 39259 - Hermiston Generating Company, L.P.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 39261 - LE Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 39260 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 39260 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 39277 - New Date for the October 2016 Customs Broker License ExaminationPDF
81 FR 39291 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 39292 - International Product Change-Global Plus 3 ContractsPDF
81 FR 39274 - Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 39292 - Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 39310 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.7, Opening ProcessPDF
81 FR 39301 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.7, Opening ProcessPDF
81 FR 39299 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Extension of the Exchange's Penny Pilot Program and Replacement of Penny Pilot Issues That Have Been DelistedPDF
81 FR 39308 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Extension of the Exchange's Penny Pilot Program and Replacement of Penny Pilot Issues That Have Been DelistedPDF
81 FR 39294 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.23, Opening ProcessPDF
81 FR 39296 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.24, Opening Process for Non-BZX-Listed SecuritiesPDF
81 FR 39307 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 39303 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Link With EuroclearPDF
81 FR 39314 - Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
81 FR 39315 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
81 FR 39272 - Factors To Consider Regarding Benefit-Risk in Medical Device Product Availability, Compliance, and Enforcement Decisions; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 39306 - Equity Market Structure Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 39276 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 39275 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 39277 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 39276 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 39277 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 39276 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 39266 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 39269 - Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, ‘Biological evaluation of medical devices-Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process”; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 39326 - Hazardous Materials: Information Collection ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 39208 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
81 FR 39261 - Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 39217 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Jetmore, KSPDF
81 FR 39197 - Air Plan Approval; UT; Revised Format for Material Incorporated by ReferencePDF
81 FR 39211 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
81 FR 39236 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
81 FR 39182 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Little Rock, ARPDF
81 FR 39329 - Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant ProgramPDF
81 FR 39505 - Clearing Requirement Determination Under Section 2(h) of the CEA for Interest Rate SwapsPDF
81 FR 39234 - Safety Zone; Verdigris River Mile Marker 444.5 to 443.5PDF
81 FR 39423 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; California Mobile Source RegulationsPDF
81 FR 39218 - Establishing a More Effective Fair Market Rent System; Using Small Area Fair Market Rents in Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of the Current 50th Percentile FMRsPDF
81 FR 39316 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on a Parcel Swap at Belfast Municipal Airport in Belfast, MEPDF
81 FR 39447 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Hospital and Critical Access Hospital (CAH) Changes To Promote Innovation, Flexibility, and Improvement in Patient CarePDF

Issue

81 116 Thursday, June 16, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2015-16 Crop Year for Tart Cherries: Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al., 39176-39182 2016-14333 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39247 2016-14264 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES List of Regulated Articles: Asian Longhorned Beetle, 39175-39176 2016-14248 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39248-39249 2016-14226 Implementation of Revised Lacey Act Provisions, 39247-39248 2016-14247 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Hospital and Critical Access Hospital Changes to Promote Innovation, Flexibility, and Improvement in Patient Care, 39448-39480 2016-13925 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39267-39269 2016-14229 2016-14244 Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grants: Unaccompanied Children's Program, 39269 2016-14267 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Annual Firework Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam and Headgate Dam Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 39193-39194 2016-14273 2016-14274 Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone, 39194-39195 2016-14272 Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 39195-39196 2016-14270 2016-14278 Special Local Regulations: Cumberland River, Mile 190.5 to 194.0, Nashville, TN, 39184-39187 2016-14276 Ohio River Mile 791.0 to 795.0, Evansville, IN, 39191-39193 2016-14271 Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update, 39187-39191 2016-14277 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Verdigris River Mile Marker 444.5 to 443.5, 39234-39236 2016-14034 Commerce Commerce Department See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39251-39252 2016-14233
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Clearing Requirement Determination under the Commodity Exchange Act for Interest Rate Swaps, 39506-39536 2016-14035 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39252-39253 2016-14367 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System PROPOSED RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Rights in Technical Data and Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions, 39482-39503 2016-14266 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

Education Department Education Department RULES Final Priorities and Definitions: Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program—Short-Term Projects and Long-Term Projects, 39196-39197 2016-14304 PROPOSED RULES Student Assistance General Provisions: Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program, 39330-39422 2016-14052 NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program, 39253-39258 2016-14303 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, 39211-39213 2016-14098 UT; Revised format for Material Incorporated by Reference, 39197-39208 2016-14099 Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 39208-39211 2016-14181 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: CA; California Mobile Source Regulations, 39424-39446 2016-13941 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, 39236-39237 2016-14097 NOTICES Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Payment of Past Response Costs: Lincoln Park Superfund Site, Canyon City, Fremont County, CO, 39262 2016-14294 Emergency Exemption Applications: Pyridate, 39262-39263 2016-14288 Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement Under CERCLA: Ely Copper Mine Superfund Site, Vershire, VT, 39263-39264 2016-14296 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class E Airspace: Little Rock, AR, 39182-39183 2016-14071 PROPOSED RULES Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace: Jetmore, KS, 39217-39218 2016-14106 NOTICES Meetings: RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228) Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 39317 2016-14269 Parcel Swaps: Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME, 39316-39317 2016-13935 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39264-39266 2016-14223 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: Parkway Bank, Lenoir, NC, 39266 2016-14260 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Alabama Power Co., 39259 2016-14220 Paterson, NJ; Great Falls Hydroelectric Co., 39258-39259 2016-14221 Combined Filings, 39260-39261 2016-14216 2016-14217 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC, 39261-39262 2016-14148 Hermiston Generating Co., LP, 39259-39260 2016-14219 LE Energy, LLC, 39261 2016-14218 Withdrawals of Intent: Paterson, NJ, 39262 2016-14222 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Designation of Agents, Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders, 39317-39318 2016-14241 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 39318-39320, 39324-39325 2016-14240 2016-14246 Vision, 39320-39324 2016-14242 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 39266-39267 2016-14191 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 39267 2016-14256 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Guidance: Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition 3), 39183-39184 2016-14231 NOTICES Guidance for Industry: Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices--Part 1: Evaluation and Testing Within a Risk Management Process, 39269-39271 2016-14190 Guidance: Factors to Consider Regarding Benefit-Risk in Medical Device Product Availability, Compliance, and Enforcement Decisions, 39272-39274 2016-14200 Meetings: Pediatric Clinical Investigator Training; Public Workshop, 39271-39272 2016-14230 Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 39274-39275 2016-14212 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule, 39249 2016-14265 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

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Establishing a More Effective Fair Market Rent System: Using Small Area Fair Market Rents in Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of the Current 50th Percentile FMRs, 39218-39234 2016-13939 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service; Correction, 39275 2016-14232 Tribal Management Grant Program; Extension of Due Dates, 39275 2016-14235 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39277-39278 2016-14342 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39278 2016-14257 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39278-39279 2016-14401 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 39279-39280 2016-14243 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 39276 2016-14192 National Cancer Institute, 39277 2016-14193 National Eye Institute, 39276 2016-14194 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 39277 2016-14195 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 39275-39276 2016-14196 National Institute of Mental Health, 39276-39277 2016-14197 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; Response to Petition for Rulemaking, 39213-39216 2016-14239 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management in the Gulf of Alaska Trawl Fisheries; Amendment 103, 39237-39246 2016-14237 NOTICES Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 39252 2016-14254 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Faster Administration of Science and Technology Education and Research Community of Practice, 39281 2016-14251 Large Scale Networking—Joint Engineering Team, 39280 2016-14250 Large Scale Networking—Middleware and Grid Interagency Coordination Team, 39280-39281 2016-14249 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Duke Energy; Brunswick Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 39285-39287 2016-14253 Duke Energy; Catawba Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 39287-39289 2016-14261 Duke Energy; H.B. Robinson Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 39283-39285 2016-14258 Duke Energy; McGuire Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 39281-39283 2016-14252 Duke Energy; Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 39289-39291 2016-14262 Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39291 2016-14214 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hazardous Materials, 39326-39327 2016-14187 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 39291-39292 2016-14255 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES International Product Change—Global Plus 3 Contracts, 39292 2016-14213 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Honoring the Victims of the Attack in Orlando, FL (Proc. 9461), 39537-39539 2016-14458 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39249-39250 2016-14227 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39250-39251 2016-14225 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Angelo, Gordon and Co., LP, 39292-39294 2016-14211 Meetings: Equity Market Structure Advisory Committee, 39306-39307 2016-14199 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 39294-39296 2016-14206 Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 39296-39298, 39307-39308 2016-14204 2016-14205 Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 39301-39303 2016-14209 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 39310-39312 2016-14210 Depository Trust Co., 39303-39306 2016-14203 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 39308-39310 2016-14207 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 39299-39301 2016-14208 Trading Suspension Orders: Enterprise Energy, Inc., 39298-39299 2016-14379 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: ECA Exchange Student Surveys, 39313-39314 2016-14289 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: NuStar Burgos Pipeline Projects Presidential Permit Applications Review, Hidalgo County, TX, 39312-39313 2016-14292 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemptions: Union Pacific Railroad Co., Pierce County, WA, 39314 2016-14275 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water, 39315-39316 2016-14201 Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of Water, 39314-39315 2016-14202 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES New Date for the October 2016 Customs Broker License Examination, 39277 2016-14215 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Education Department, 39330-39422 2016-14052 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 39424-39446 2016-13941 Part IV Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 39448-39480 2016-13925 Part V Defense Department, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, 39482-39503 2016-14266 Part VI Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 39506-39536 2016-14035 Part VII Presidential Documents, 39537-39539 2016-14458 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.

81 116 Thursday, June 16, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 301 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0097] Asian Longhorned Beetle: Update List of Regulated Articles AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Interim rule and request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are amending the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) regulations by removing plants of the genus Celtis from the list of regulated articles, which we have determined not to be a host plant of ALB. This action is necessary to relieve restrictions on the movement of regulated articles that are not hosts of ALB. As a result of this action, there are no longer any restrictions on the movement of Celtis spp. plants from areas quarantined for ALB.

DATES:

This interim rule is effective June 16, 2016. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0097.

Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0097, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0097 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Claudia Ferguson, M.S., Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2352; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB, Anoplophora glabripennis), an insect native to China, Japan, Korea, and the Isle of Hainan, is a destructive pest of hardwood trees. It attacks many healthy hardwood trees, including maple, horse chestnut, birch, poplar, willow, and elm. In addition, nursery stock, logs, green lumber, firewood, stumps, roots, branches, and wood debris of half an inch or more in diameter are subject to infestation. The beetle bores into the heartwood of a host tree, eventually killing the tree. Immature beetles bore into tree trunks and branches, causing heavy sap flow from wounds and sawdust accumulation at tree bases. They feed on, and overwinter in, the interiors of trees. Adult beetles emerge in the spring and summer months from round holes approximately three-eighths of an inch in diameter that they bore through branches and trunks of trees. After emerging, adult beetles feed for 2 to 3 days and then mate. Adult females then lay eggs in oviposition sites that they make on the branches of trees. A new generation of ALB is produced each year. If this pest moves into the hardwood forests of the United States, the nursery, maple syrup, and forest product industries could experience severe economic losses. In addition, urban and forest ALB infestations will result in environmental damage, aesthetic deterioration, and a reduction of public enjoyment of recreational spaces.

The regulations in 7 CFR 301.51-1 through 301.51-9 restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of ALB to noninfested areas of the United States.

Section 301.51-2 of the regulations designates certain items as regulated articles. Regulated articles may not be moved interstate from quarantined areas except in accordance with the conditions specified in §§ 301.51-4 through 301.51-9 of the regulations. Regulated articles listed in § 301.51-2(a) have included green lumber and other material living, dead, cut, or fallen, inclusive of nursery stock, logs, stumps, roots, branches, and debris of half an inch or more in diameter of the following genera: Acer (maple), Aesculus (horse chestnut), Albizia (mimosa), Betula (birch), Celtis (hackberry), Cercidiphyllum (katsura), Fraxinus (ash), Koelreuteria (golden rain tree), Platanus (sycamore), Populus (poplar), Salix (willow), Sorbus (mountain ash), and Ulmus (elm). This list of genera is based on scientific literature provided by government officials, scientists, and government and individual researchers from China as well as survey information collected in the United States since discovery of the pest.

On April 27, 2015, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a Federal Order 1 effective on that date to immediately remove plants of the genus Celtis (hackberry) as regulated articles for ALB from the host list. This action responds to research conducted by APHIS indicating that ALB does not complete its life cycle in hackberry trees. Therefore, such trees no longer need to be inspected or considered for treatment, and hackberry can now be moved from areas under quarantine for ALB.

1 DA-2015-22, “Updated List of Regulated Articles for Asian Longhorned Beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) removing Celtis spp. as a host of ALB: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/asian_lhb/downloads/DA-2015-22.pdf.

Immediate Action

Immediate action is warranted to relieve restrictions that are no longer necessary because we have determined that hackberry is not a host for ALB. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register. The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This interim rule is subject to Executive Order 12866. However, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities.

The hackberry is a widespread small- to medium-sized fast-growing tree. It is widely distributed in the eastern United States from the southern New England States through central New York west to North and South Dakota. The range extends south from western Nebraska to northwestern Texas, then east to Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, with scattered occurrences in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.

The hackberry is not valuable as a timber tree. Hackberry wood is heavy, soft, light-yellow, and coarse-grained. It rots easily and therefore is generally undesirable commercially. Occasionally, it is utilized to produce fencing, crates and boxes, or inexpensive furniture, but more commonly it is used as firewood.2 Under industry standards for business size established by the Small Business Administration, most firewood retailers and wholesalers are considered to be small entities.

2http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_ceoc.pdf.

Removal of hackberry from the ALB host list will mean that interstate movement of the wood from ALB-quarantined areas will not require a certificate or limited permit issued by an inspector or by a person operating under a compliance agreement. Firewood wholesalers and retailers and other businesses that move hackberry wood from ALB-quarantined areas will benefit from the interim rule, but the economic effects will be modest.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 301 as follows:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

Section 301.75-15 issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).

§ 301.51-2 [Amended]
2. In § 301.51-2, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words “Celtis (hackberry)”. Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of June 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-14248 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 930 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0063; FV16-930-1 FR] Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2015-16 Crop Year for Tart Cherries AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board) to establish free and restricted percentages for the 2015-16 crop year under the marketing order for tart cherries grown in the states of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin (order). The Board locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and handlers of tart cherries operating within the production area. This action establishes the proportion of tart cherries from the 2015 crop which may be handled in commercial outlets at 80 percent free and 20 percent restricted. In addition, this rule increases the carry-out volume of fruit to 55 million pounds for this season. These percentages should stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns.

DATES:

Effective June 17, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennie M. Varela, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Antoinette Carter, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930, both as amended (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries produced in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the order provisions now in effect, free and restricted percentages may be established for tart cherries handled during the crop year. This final rule establishes free and restricted percentages for tart cherries for the 2015-16 crop year, beginning July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule establishes free and restricted percentages for the 2015-16 crop year. This rule establishes the proportion of tart cherries from the 2015 crop which may be handled in commercial outlets at 80 percent free and 20 percent restricted. In addition, this rule increases the carry-out volume of fruit to 55 million pounds for calculation purposes for this season. This action should stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns. The carry-out and the final percentages were recommended by the Board at a meeting on September 10, 2015.

Section 930.51(a) of the order provides authority to regulate volume by designating free and restricted percentages for any tart cherries acquired by handlers in a given crop year. Section 930.50 prescribes procedures for computing an optimum supply based on sales history and for calculating these free and restricted percentages. Free percentage volume may be shipped to any market, while restricted percentage volume must be held by handlers in a primary or secondary reserve, or be diverted or used for exempt purposes as prescribed in §§ 930.159 and 930.162 of the regulations. Exempt purposes include, in part, the development of new products, sales into new markets, the development of export markets, and charitable contributions. For cherries held in reserve, handlers would be responsible for storage and would retain title of the tart cherries.

Under § 930.52, only those districts with an annual average production of at least six million pounds are subject to regulation, and any district producing a crop which is less than 50 percent of its annual average is exempt. The regulated districts for the 2015-16 crop year are: District 1—Northern Michigan; District 2—Central Michigan; District 3—Southern Michigan; District 4—New York; District 7—Utah; District 8—Washington; and District 9—Wisconsin. Districts 5 and 6 (Oregon and Pennsylvania, respectively) are not regulated for the 2015-16 season.

Demand for tart cherries and tart cherry products tends to be relatively stable from year to year. Conversely, annual tart cherry production can vary greatly. In addition, tart cherries are processed and can be stored and carried over from crop year to crop year, further impacting supply. As a result, supply and demand for tart cherries are rarely in balance.

Because demand for tart cherries is inelastic, total sales volume is not very responsive to changes in price. However, prices are very sensitive to changes in supply. As such, an oversupply of cherries would have a sharp negative effect on prices, driving down grower returns. The Board, aware of this economic relationship, focuses on using the volume control provisions in the order to balance supply and demand to stabilize industry returns.

Pursuant to § 930.50 of the order, the Board meets on or about July 1 to review sales data, inventory data, current crop forecasts, and market conditions for the upcoming season and, if necessary, to recommend preliminary free and restricted percentages if anticipated supply would exceed demand. After harvest is complete, but no later than September 15, the Board meets again to update their calculations using actual production data, consider any necessary adjustments to the preliminary percentages, and determine if final free and restricted percentages should be recommended to the Secretary.

The Board uses sales history, inventory, and production data to determine whether there is a surplus and, if so, how much volume should be restricted to maintain optimum supply. The optimum supply represents the desirable volume of tart cherries that should be available for sale in the coming crop year. Optimum supply is defined as average free sales for the prior three years plus desirable carry-out inventory. Desirable carry-out is the amount of fruit needed by the industry to be carried into the succeeding crop year to meet market demand until the new crop is available. Desirable carry-out is set by the Board after considering market circumstances and needs. Section 930.50(a) specifies that desirable carry-out can range from zero to a maximum of 20 million pounds but also authorizes the Board to establish an alternative carry-out figure with the approval of the Secretary.

In addition, USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” (http://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetable-marketing-orders) specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. This requirement is codified in § 930.50(g) of the order, which specifies that in years when restricted percentages are established, the Board shall make available tonnage equivalent to an additional 10 percent of the average sales of the prior three years for market expansion (market growth factor).

After the Board determines optimum supply, desirable carry-out, and the market growth factor, it must examine the current year's available volume to determine whether there is an oversupply situation. Available volume includes carry-in inventory (any inventory available at the beginning of the season) along with that season's production. If production is greater than the optimum supply minus carry-in, the difference is considered surplus. This surplus tonnage is divided by the sum of production in the regulated districts to reach a restricted percentage. This percentage must be held in reserve or used for approved diversion activities, such as exports.

The Board met on June 25, 2015, and computed an optimum supply of 208 million pounds for the 2015-16 crop year using the average of free sales for the three previous seasons and a desirable carry-out of 20 million pounds. The Board then subtracted the estimated carry-in of 104 million pounds from the optimum supply to calculate the production needed from the 2015-16 crop to meet optimum supply. This number, 104 million pounds, was subtracted from the Board's estimated 2015-16 production of 233 million pounds to calculate a surplus of 129 million pounds of tart cherries. The surplus minus the market growth factor was then divided by the expected production in the regulated districts (228 million pounds) to reach a preliminary restricted percentage of 48 percent for the 2015-16 crop year.

In discussing the calculations, industry participants commented that a carry-out of 20 million pounds would not meet their needs at the end of the season before the new crop is available. To address that concern, the Board recommended increasing the desirable carry-out to 55 million pounds for the 2015-16 season. This change increased the optimum supply to 243 million pounds, reducing the surplus to 94 million pounds.

The Board also discussed whether the substantial reduction of supply in 2012 due to weather was still a factor that needed to be considered in determining optimum supply. Because of the crop loss, sales in 2012-13 reached only 123 million pounds, nearly 100 million pounds less than 2013-14 sales. In the previous two seasons when considering volume regulation, the Board recommended economic adjustments to account for the substantial decline in 2012. The Board again determined that the market required additional tonnage to continue recovering sales and voted to make an economic adjustment of 43 million pounds to increase the available supply of tart cherries. The Board also complied with the market growth factor requirement by adding 19 million pounds (188 million pounds times 10 percent, rounded) to the free supply.

The economic adjustment and market growth factor further reduced the preliminary surplus to 32 million pounds. After these adjustments, the preliminary restricted percentage was recalculated as 14 percent (32 million pounds divided by 228 million pounds).

The Board met again on September 10, 2015, to consider establishing final volume regulation percentages for the 2015-16 season. The final percentages are based on the Board's reported production figures and the supply and demand information available in September. The total production for the 2015-16 season was 249 million pounds, 25 million pounds above the Board's June estimate. In addition, growers diverted 1 million pounds in the orchard, leaving 248 million pounds available to market. Using the actual production numbers, and accounting for the recommended increase in desirable carry-out and economic adjustment, as well as the market growth factor, the restricted percentage was recalculated.

The Board subtracted the carry-in figure used in June of 104 million pounds from the optimum supply of 243 million pounds to determine 139 million pounds of 2015-16 production would be necessary to reach optimum supply. The Board subtracted the 139 million pounds from the actual production of 248 million pounds, resulting in a surplus of 109 million pounds of tart cherries. The surplus was then reduced by subtracting the economic adjustment of 43 million pounds and the market growth factor of 19 million pounds, resulting in an adjusted surplus of 47 million pounds. The Board then divided this final surplus by the actual production in the regulated districts (240 million pounds) to calculate a restricted percentage of 20 percent with a corresponding free percentage of 80 percent for the 2015-16 crop year, as outlined in the following table:

Millions of pounds Final Calculations: (1) Average sales of the prior three years 188 (2) Plus desirable carry-out 55 (3) Optimum supply calculated by the Board 243 (4) Carry-in as of July 1, 2015 104 (5) Adjusted optimum supply (item 3 minus item 4) 139 (6) Board-reported production 248 (7) Surplus (item 6 minus item 5) 109 (8) Total economic adjustments 43 (9) Market growth factor 19 (10) Adjusted surplus (item 7 minus items 8 and 9) 47 (11) Production from regulated districts 240 Percent Final Percentages: Restricted (item 10 divided by item 11 × 100) 20 Free (100 minus restricted percentage) 80

The primary purpose of setting restricted percentages is to attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market is oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially. Restricted percentages have benefited grower returns and helped stabilize the market as compared to those seasons prior to the implementation of the order. The Board believes the available information indicates that a restricted percentage should be established for the 2015-16 crop year to avoid oversupplying the market with tart cherries. Consequently, based on its discussion of this issue and the result of the above calculations, the Board recommended final percentages of 80 percent free and 20 percent restricted by a vote of 16 in favor and 1 against.

During the discussion of the proposed restriction, some members expressed concern regarding competition from imported tart cherry juice concentrate. In particular, some were concerned that the additional volume from imports is not accounted for in the optimum supply formula, thus not capturing overall supply and demand. An economist from Michigan State University is working with the Board to assemble information on tart cherry imports. The Board also voted to establish an import committee to review the data on imports once it is available. Another member asserted that any restriction would adversely impact growers' ability to sell all of their fruit. One member also said that a 20 percent restriction seemed high given the moderate production in 2015.

One member noted that setting the restriction at 20 percent would aid in maintaining price stability, with another member reminding the Board of the importance of the order and volume control in avoiding oversupplying the market with tart cherries. One other member said it was also important to maintain a reserve in case of another crop disaster. Other members stated the demand adjustment and the recommended increased carry-out would put sufficient fruit on the market in the coming year.

After reviewing the available data and considering the concerns expressed, the Board determined that a 20 percent restriction with a carry-out volume of 55 million pounds meets sales needs and establishes some reserves without oversupplying the market. Thus, the Board recommended establishing final percentages of 80 percent free and 20 percent restricted. The Board could meet and recommend the release of additional volume during the crop year if conditions so warranted.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 600 producers of tart cherries in the regulated area and approximately 40 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms have been defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and Board data, annual 2014-2015 tart cherry crop value was $106.745 million. Dividing this figure by the number of producers (600) yields an average annual receipts per producer estimate of about $178,000. Since this is well below $750,000, it can be concluded that most tart cherry producers are small producers, according to the SBA criteria. In 2014, The Food Institute estimated an f.o.b. price of $0.96 per pound for frozen tart cherries, which make up the majority of processed tart cherries. Multiplying tart cherry utilized production of 300.3 million pounds by $0.96 yields a handler-level annual receipts estimate of $288.3 million. Dividing this figure by the number of handlers (40) yields an average annual receipts per handler estimate of about $7.2 million, which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers and handlers of tart cherries may be classified as small entities.

The tart cherry industry in the United States is characterized by wide annual fluctuations in production. According to NASS, tart cherry production in 2012 was 85 million pounds, 294 million pounds in 2013, and in 2014, production was 304 million pounds. Because of these fluctuations, the supply and demand for tart cherries are rarely in balance.

Demand for tart cherries is inelastic, meaning changes in price have a minimal effect on total sales volume as manufacturers do not easily substitute other fruits for tart cherry products. However, prices are very sensitive to changes in supply. Grower prices vary widely in response to the large swings in annual supply, ranging from a low of 7.3 cents per pound in 1987 to a high of 59.4 cents per pound in 2012.

Because of this relationship between supply and price, oversupplying the market with tart cherries would have a sharply negative effect on prices, driving down grower returns. The Board, aware of this economic relationship, focuses on using the volume control authority in the order in an effort to balance supply and demand in order to stabilize industry returns. This authority allows the industry to set free and restricted percentages as a way to bring supply and demand into balance. Unrestricted cherries can be marketed by handlers to any outlet, while a quantity corresponding to the restricted percentage must be held by handlers in reserve, diverted, or used for exempted purposes.

This final rule establishes free and restricted percentages using an increased carry-out volume of 55 million pounds for the 2015-16 crop year under the tart cherry marketing order. This action establishes 2015-16 percentages of 80 percent free and 20 percent restricted. These percentages should stabilize marketing conditions and help improve grower returns by adjusting supply to meet market demand. This action regulates tart cherries handled in Michigan, New York, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The authority for this action is provided for in §§ 930.51(a) and 930.52 of the order.

This rule will result in some fruit being diverted from the primary domestic markets. However, as mentioned earlier, the USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” (http://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetable-marketing-orders) specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. The quantity that is available under this action is greater than 110 percent of the average quantity shipped in the prior three years.

In addition, there are secondary uses available for restricted fruit, including the development of new products, sales into new markets, the development of export markets, and being placed in reserve. While these alternatives may provide different levels of return than the sales to primary markets, they play an important industry role. Restricted fruit is utilized for new products, new domestic markets, and development of export markets. In 2014-15, these activities accounted for 21 million pounds in sales, nearly 14 million of which were exports.

Placing tart cherries into reserves is also a key part of balancing supply and demand. Although the industry must bear the handling and storage costs for fruit in reserve, reserves stored in large crop years are used to supplement supplies in short crop years. The reserves allow the industry to mitigate the impact of oversupply in large crop years, while allowing the industry to maintain and supply markets in years where production falls below demand. Further, storage and handling costs are more than offset by the increase in price when moving from a large crop to a short crop year.

In addition, the Board recommended an increased carry-out of 55 million pounds to reach an optimum supply of 243 million pounds. The recommended demand adjustment of an additional 43 million pounds will make the regulation less restrictive. Even with the recommended restriction, over 300 million pounds of fruit will be available to the domestic market. Consequently, it is not anticipated that this action will unduly burden growers or handlers.

While this action could result in some additional costs to the industry, these costs are more than outweighed by the benefits. The purpose of setting restricted percentages is to attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market (domestic) is oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially. Without volume control, the primary market will likely be oversupplied, resulting in lower grower prices.

The three districts in Michigan, along with the districts in New York, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, are the restricted areas for this crop year with a combined total production of 240 million pounds. A 20-percent restriction means 192 million pounds are available to be shipped to primary markets from these five states. The 192 million pounds from the restricted districts, nearly 9 million pounds from the unrestricted districts (Oregon and Pennsylvania), and the 104 million pound carry-in inventory make a total of 305 million pounds available as free tonnage for the primary markets. This is similar to the 300 million pounds of total utilized production in 2014-15 and is less restrictive than the 12 percent restriction in 2011-12, which made just under 262 million pounds available. Further, the Board could meet and recommend the release of additional volume during the crop year if conditions so warranted.

Prior to the implementation of the order, grower prices often did not come close to covering the cost of production. The most recent costs of production determined by representatives of Michigan State University are an estimated $0.33 per pound. To assess the impact that volume control has on the prices growers receive for their product, an econometric model has been developed. Based on the model, the use of volume control would have a positive impact on grower returns for this crop year. With volume control, grower prices are estimated to be approximately $0.03 per pound higher than without restrictions.

In addition, absent volume control, the industry could start to build large amounts of unwanted inventories. These inventories would have a depressing effect on grower prices. The econometric model shows for every 1 million-pound increase in carry-in inventories, the average grower price decreases by $0.003 per pound.

Consumer prices largely do not reflect fluctuations in cherry supplies. Therefore, this rule should have little or no effect on consumer prices and should not result in a reduction in retail sales.

The free and restricted percentages established by this rule provide the market with optimum supply and apply uniformly to all regulated handlers in the industry, regardless of size. As the restriction represents a percentage of a handler's volume, the costs, when applicable, are proportionate and should not place an extra burden on small entities as compared to large entities.

The stabilizing effects of this action benefit all handlers by helping them maintain and expand markets, despite seasonal supply fluctuations. Likewise, price stability positively impacts all growers and handlers by allowing them to better anticipate the revenues their tart cherries would generate. Growers and handlers, regardless of size, benefit from the stabilizing effects of this restriction. In addition, the Board determined that increasing carry-out to 55 million pounds should provide processors enough fruit in the pipeline to meet market needs going into the next season.

The Board considered some alternatives in its preliminary restriction discussions that affected this recommended action. The first alternative concerned the average sales in estimating demand for the coming season, and the second alternative regarded the recommended carry-out figure.

Regarding demand, the Board began with the actual sales average of 188 million pounds. There was concern, however, that this value, which incorporated the weather-related crop failure of 2012, would result in an over-restrictive calculation. After considering options in the range of 40 million to 62 million pounds, the Board determined that an adjustment of 43 million pounds, would best meet the industry's sales needs. Thus the other alternatives were rejected and the Board recommended the 43 million pound economic adjustment.

Regarding the carry-out value, the Board previously considered a one-year increase above the 20 million pounds specified in the order to 50 million pounds. However, this season, Board members indicated the carry-out should be even higher to facilitate processing at the end of the crop year. Board members suggested a series of options from 35 million to 60 million pounds of carry-out. Some felt the additional fruit is necessary while others were more cautious about having additional fruit on the market at the time of harvest, which may put downward pressure on prices. In conjunction with the demand adjustment, the Board reached a consensus and recommended the Secretary increase the maximum carry-out to 55 million pounds for the 2015-16 season.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0177, Tart Cherries Grown in the States of MI, NY, PA, OR, UT, WA, and WI. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule. One of the public comments received did address the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. A review of that comment is included below as part of the review of all public comments received.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 25, 2015, and September 10, 2015, meetings were public meetings, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2015 (80 FR 78677). Copies of the rule were sent via email to all Board members and tart cherry handlers. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending January 19, 2015, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal.

Nine comments were received during the comment period in response to the proposal. The commenters included both growers and handlers, and all opposed the proposed regulation. Most of the points made by the commenters had been discussed prior to the Board's vote.

All nine comments made reference to imported tart cherries. Five commenters referred to figures retrieved from the Foreign Agricultural Service's Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS) which indicates an equivalent of more than 200 million pounds of cherries were imported into the U.S. in 2014. The data do indicate that imported volume has grown. The data also indicate tart cherry juice concentrate represents by far the largest segment of imports, which according to the data, has experienced tremendous growth beginning in 2012.

Several of the commenters indicated that the proposed volume restriction would restrict their chances of gaining some of the market share attributed to imports. While the domestic industry did experience a significant drop in shipments in 2012 due to a weather-related incident, with the exclusion of that year, shipments of domestic tart cherries have routinely exceeded 200 million pounds. Given the rapid increase in the import volume of tart cherry juice and the level of domestic shipments, the vast majority of imported tart cherry juice is going to new markets not previously served by the domestic industry. At the very least, these new markets serviced by imported tart cherry juice far exceed the estimated 47 million pounds of tart cherries that are restricted by this regulation.

As such, should domestic handlers decide to compete in these new markets, in most cases, restricted cherries could be used and the handler could receive diversion credits under the new market and market expansion provisions provided under the order. Further, the Board recently recommended and USDA approved extending diversion credits for new markets and market expansion from one year to three years, creating even more opportunities to pursue these new markets. Consequently, handlers would have ample opportunity to compete for new markets using restricted cherries while continuing to service traditional markets with free cherries. In addition, should industry efforts cause demand to exceed existing volume, the Board could meet and recommend the release of additional volume.

Two other commenters indicated imported tart cherries should be included as part of the process for calculating free and restricted percentages. Under the order, when computing and determining percentages for recommendation to USDA, the Board is required to give consideration to several factors, including supplies of competing commodities and the economic factors having a bearing on the marketing of cherries. The Board's discussion regarding establishing free and restricted percentages for this season included considerable discussion regarding imported tart cherries. Concerns were raised and discussed regarding the impact of imported tart cherries on the market and how that would impact a restriction. Discussion also included an estimated price point for imported tart cherry juice as a comparison with that for domestic production. It was also indicated that the Board was working to assemble additional information on tart cherry imports, and the Board voted to establish an import committee to review the import data.

However, in the Board discussion, comments were also made regarding the importance of the order and volume control in avoiding oversupplying the market with tart cherries. The importance of maintaining a reserve in case of another crop failure was also expressed. Other Board members also stated the demand adjustment and the recommended increased carry-out would put sufficient fruit on the market for the coming year. After discussing the available information on imported product and considering the concerns expressed, no motion was made to include an additional adjustment to the calculations based on imported fruit.

Two comments stated that restriction has contributed to the loss of market share to imports, with one requesting USDA reconsider the economic impact of this regulation under the RFA with regard to imports. Aside from a reference to the volume of imported tart cherries, neither comment provided any data in support of these assertions. Based on the information from GATS, tart cherry imports increased substantially beginning in 2012. For 2011-12, the season prior to the season with a significant crop loss due to weather, total shipments were 264 million pounds, with 213 million pounds coming from free sales. While the reduced crop for 2012-13 season had total sales of 123 million pounds, in the years following, sales rebounded to 222 million pounds in 2013-14 (no volume restriction) and to 235 million pounds total sales in 2014-15. The free sales for 2014-15 season were actually higher than those for the 2011-12 season at 214 million.

The utilization numbers as reported by NASS have also been increasing from approximately 230 million pounds in 2011 to 290 million pounds in 2013 and to 298 million pounds in 2014. In addition, the NASS numbers show the frozen segment, the largest utilization of domestic tart cherries, increased from 154 million pounds in 2011 to 158 million pounds in 2013 and to 199 million pounds in 2014. The other category as reported by NASS, which includes juice and dried cherries, also experienced higher numbers in 2013 and 2014 as compared to 2011. The 92 million pounds and 66 million pounds utilized in 2013 and 2014, respectively, are substantially higher than the 37 million pounds utilized in 2011.

Further, with the exception of the 2012-13 season, grower prices have been relatively stable. In 2011, NASS reported an average grower price for domestic tart cherries of $0.298. For the years 2013 and 2014, NASS reported average grower prices of $0.359 and $0.355 per pound, respectively. The figures for 2015 are not yet available.

As previously stated, the demand for tart cherries is inelastic, such that changes in price have minimal effect on total sales volume, yet prices are very sensitive to changes in supply. This is demonstrated by the sharp jump in average grower price in 2012 to $0.594 per pound with the substantial decrease in domestic supply. Given that GATS reports tart cherry imports as approximately 217 million pounds in 2012, 130 million pounds in 2013, and 244 million pounds in 2014, there should be some downward pressure on price if this volume was competing directly for the same market serviced by the domestic tart cherry industry. However, this is not reflected in the available numbers. Using the available sales, utilization, and price data, it is difficult to determine what, if any, specific impact imports have had on the market for domestic tart cherries.

Five comments mentioned the financial burden a restriction would place on growers and handlers. The RFA analysis recognizes that the industry bears a cost when keeping product off the market, but also notes that the gains in prices and stability outweigh that cost. Further, placing tart cherries into reserves is an important part of balancing supply and demand. Although there are costs associated with the storage of fruit, reserves allow the industry to mitigate the impact of oversupply in large production years while helping to maintain and supply markets in years where production falls short or when there are crop failures as in 2002 and 2012. Storage costs are more than offset by the increase in price during years with a short crop as evidenced by the average grower price in 2012. As mentioned in the RFA, the restriction is expected to have a positive impact on price.

While none of the comments suggested an alternative percentage for a volume restriction, most suggest that there should be no restriction. The formula used by the Board in recommending the proposed regulation is based, in part, on sales history. The Board has taken steps to recommend putting additional fruit on the market as carry-out both in this action and in the previous season's regulation. In 2014, the Board recommended a carry-out of 50 million pounds yet entered the 2015-16 season with 104 million pounds of unrestricted fruit on the market. In addition, USDA purchased over 20 million pounds of cherry products since 2014 as emergency surplus purchases, and has announced plans to purchase up to 60 million pounds of tart cherry products in 2016.

For the 2015-16 season, the Board recommended an increase in the carry-out to 55 million pounds, made an economic adjustment to add an additional 43 million pounds to available supply, and an additional 19 million pounds were added under the market growth factor. With these adjustments, there are more than 305 million pounds of tart cherries available for free sales for 2015-16. This volume exceeds total sales from 2011-12 of both free and restricted cherries of 264 million pounds, the last season before the crop disaster in 2012. Further, the order provides numerous alternatives for the use of restricted fruit, such as handler diversion, for complying with the recommended restriction. Therefore, as stated in the RFA, it is not anticipated that this action will unduly burden growers or handlers.

Additional concerns raised in the comments pertain to pending litigation or issues not applicable to the proposed rule.

Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comments received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Antoinette Carter at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because handlers are already shipping tart cherries from the 2015-16 crop. Further, handlers are aware of this rule, which was recommended at a public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930

Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tart cherries.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as follows:

PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WISCONSIN 1. The authority citation for part 930 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 930.151 is revised to read as follows:
§ 930.151 Desirable carry-out inventory.

For the crop year beginning on July 1, 2015, the desirable carry-out inventory, for the purposes of determining an optimum supply volume, will be 55 million pounds.

3. Section 930.256 is revised to read as follows:
§ 930.256 Free and restricted percentages for the 2015-16 crop year.

The percentages for tart cherries handled by handlers during the crop year beginning on July 1, 2015, which shall be free and restricted, respectively, are designated as follows: Free percentage, 80 percent and restricted percentage, 20 percent.

Dated: June 13, 2016. Dana Coale, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-14333 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3085; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-2] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Little Rock, AR AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E airspace at Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB), Little Rock, AR. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to closure of the air traffic control tower and associated approaches at Dennis F. Cantrell Field, Conway, AR. Dennis F. Cantrell Field is being removed from the airspace designation and legal description as it is no longer needed to describe the boundaries of Little Rock AFB. This action is necessary to ensure continued safety within the National Airspace System (NAS). Additionally, the geographic coordinates for Little Rock AFB and Saline County Airport, Benton, AR, are being adjusted.

DATES:

Effective 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/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:

Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5857.

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 amends Class E airspace at Little Rock AFB, Little Rock, AR.

History

On March 7, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Class E airspace at Little Rock Air Force Base, AR. The air traffic control tower at Dennis F. Cantrell Field, Conway, AR, has closed thereby removing Dennis F. Cantrell Field from the description for Little Rock AFB, (81 FR 11692), Docket No. FAA-2015-3085. Additionally, geographic coordinates for Little Rock AFB and Saline County Airport, Benton, AR, are adjusted. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by amending Class E airspace at Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB), AR. The air traffic control tower at Dennis Cantrell Field, Conway, AR, has closed, and approaches cancelled. This action removes Dennis F. Cantrell Field, Conway, AR, from the airspace designation and regulatory text for Little Rock AFB, as they are no longer needed to define its boundaries. Additionally, geographic coordinates for Little Rock AFB, are changed from (lat. 34°54′59″ N., long. 92°08′47″ W.) to (lat. 34°55′03″ N., long. 92°08′42″ W.) and Saline County Airport, Benton, AR, coordinates are changed from (lat. 34°33′23″ N., long. 92°36′25″ W.) to (lat. 34°35′25″ N., long. 92°28′46″ W.). These minor adjustments reflect the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW AR E5 Little Rock, AR [Amended] Little Rock AFB, AR

(Lat. 34°55′03″ N., long. 92°08′42″ W.)

Little Rock, Adams Field, AR

(Lat. 34°43′46″ N., long. 92°13′29″ W.)

Benton, Saline County Airport, AR

(Lat. 34°35′25″ N., long. 92°28′46″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface bounded within a 20-mile radius of Little Rock AFB, and within a 22-mile radius of Adams Field Airport and within a 6.3-mile radius of Saline County Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 7, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-14071 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 1 [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0179] Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition 3); Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Notice of availability.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition 3): Guidance for Industry.” The guidance provides updated information pertaining to prior notice of imported food under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) on January 4, 2011. The guidance is intended to help the food industry and others comply with prior notice requirements.

DATES:

Submit either electronic or written comments on FDA guidances at any time.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

Written/Paper Submissions

Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0179 for “Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition 3): Guidance for Industry.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Food and Feed Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angel M. Suarez, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Food and Feed Operations, Division of Food Defense Targeting, Food and Drug Administration, Element Bldg., HFC-180, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857-20993, 866-521-2297.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition 3): Guidance for Industry.” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or on the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Since publication of edition two of the guidance, FDA has issued a final rule requiring the submission to FDA of prior notice of food, including animal feed, imported or offered for import into the United States (November 7, 2008, 73 FR 66294) and, in accordance with section 304 of FSMA, a final rule requiring the name of any country to which an article has been refused entry be reported in prior notices (May 30, 2013, 78 FR 32359). FDA is issuing a third edition of its prior notice guidance to address questions received since publication of the second edition, clarify previous responses, update previous responses as appropriate to reflect the 2008 final rule, and include information about the new prior notice information requirement created by FSMA.

FDA issued the first and second editions of this guidance on December 16, 2003, and May 3, 2004, respectively. Both editions were issued as Level 1 guidance documents under 21 CFR 10.115. Consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulations (21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)), the Agency accepted comments, but implemented the documents immediately because it determined that prior public participation was not feasible or appropriate.

In the Federal Register of March 31, 2014 (79 FR 17947), we made available a draft guidance for industry entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry: Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition 3)” and gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments by May 30, 2014, for us to consider before beginning work on the final version of the guidance. We carefully considered all comments received when preparing the final guidance. No substantive changes were made in finalizing the guidance. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated March 2014.

II. Electronic Access

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

Dated: June 10, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-14231 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0322] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Cumberland River, Mile 190.5 to 194.0; Nashville, TN AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for all waters of the Cumberland River beginning at mile marker 190.5 and ending at mile marker 194.0. This special local regulation is necessary to provide safety for the participants in the “Thunder on the Cumberland” marine event. This rulemaking restricts transits into, through and within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this rulemaking to assess for future and events and similar rulemakings.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 9 a.m. on June 17, 2016 through 6 p.m. on June 19, 2016. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0322 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 rule, call or email Petty Officer Ashley Schad, MSD Nashville, Nashville, TN, at 615-736-5421 or at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Fairchild Racing is conducting power boat races daily beginning on June 17, 2016 through June 19, 2016. The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the scheduled race event, consisting of various sized power vessels with at least 50 participants on the Cumberland River, presents potential navigational safety hazards. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) was notified of this event earlier this year and upon receiving and understanding all the details of the racing event, determined that additional safety measures are necessary to protect participants, spectators, and waterway users during this event. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this special local regulation by June 17, 2016. This rule provides for a comment period and comments received will be reviewed and analyzed to assist the Coast Guard in future rulemakings establishing similar regulatory requirements. The Coast Guard will notify the public and maritime community that this special local regulation will be in effect and of its enforcement periods via broadcast notices to mariners (BNM).

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to establish a special local regulation to protect participants and spectators during the “Thunder on the Cumberland” racing event beginning on June 17, 2016.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential safety hazards associated with a speed-boat race on a navigable waterway present safety concerns for participants, spectators, and other person and vessels on the waterway. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled racing event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a special local regulation which will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. daily from June 17, 2016 through June 19, 2016, for all waters of the Cumberland River beginning at mile marker 190.5 and ending at mile marker 194.0. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels, participants, spectators and other waterway users before, during, and after the scheduled event. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text for this rule appears at the end of this document.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. This special local regulation restricts transit on the Cumberland River from mile 190.5 to mile 194.0, for 8 hours a day for three days in June; Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners will inform the community of this special local regulation and any changes in the planned scheduled so that they may plan accordingly for transits during this short restriction. Vessel traffic may request permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative to enter the restricted area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 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 special local regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves special local regulated area that would prohibit entry to unauthorized vessels. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) 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.

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of future regulations and rulemakings. 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 TFR as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1233

2. Add § 100.35T08-0322 to read as follows:
§ 100.35T08-0322 Special Local Regulation; Cumberland River Mile 190.5 to 194.0, Nashville, TN.

(a) Regulated area. All waters of the Cumberland River beginning at mile marker 190.5 and ending at mile marker 194.0 at Nashville, TN.

(b) Periods of enforcement. This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. daily June 17, 2016 through June 19, 2016.

(c) Regulations. (1) Entry into or transit through this area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the area must request permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.

(d) Informational broadcasts. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for this special local regulation as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

Dated: May 26, 2016. R. V. Timme, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2016-14276 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1039] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is amending and updating its special local regulations relating to recurring marine parades, regattas, and other events that take place in the Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley area of responsibility (AOR). This rule informs the public of regularly scheduled events that require additional safety measures through the establishing of a special local regulation. Through this rulemaking the current list of recurring special local regulations is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. When these special local regulations are enforced, certain restrictions are placed on marine traffic in specified areas.

DATES:

This rule is effective June 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-1039 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 James Robinson, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (502) 779-5347, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley is establishing, amending, and updating its current list of recurring special local regulations codified under 33 CFR 100.801 in Table no. 1, for the COTP Ohio Valley zone.

On January 25, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update (81 FR 3976). During the comment period that ended April 25, 2016, the Coast Guard received information regarding dates for three events from the event sponsors. This information is discussed in this document.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Though we are not providing a full 30-day delay in the effective date, the Coast Guard did provide notice and the opportunity to comment through the NPRM process and is now providing as much notice as possible before the first recurring event enforcement is required on June 19. It is impracticable to provide a full 30-days notice because this rule must be effective June 19, 2016 to accommodate the first event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard's authority for establishing a special local regulation is contained at 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Coast Guard is amending and updating the special local regulations under 33 CFR part 100 to include the most up to date list of recurring special local regulations for events held on or around navigable waters within the Sector Ohio Valley AOR. These events include marine parades, boat races, swim events, and others. The current list under 33 CFR 100.801 requires amending to provide new information on existing special local regulations, include new special local regulations expected to recur annually or biannually, and to remove special local regulations that are no longer required. Issuing individual regulations for each new special local regulation, amendment, or removal of an existing special local regulation creates unnecessary administrative costs and burdens. This rulemaking reduces administrative overhead and provides the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming recurring special local regulations.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

As noted above, we received information regarding three recurring events from the event sponsors during the NPRM comment period. This information requires changes to the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. Those changes are as follows:

Change 1: The sponsor of the Owensboro Air show requested a change to the proposed event date as listed in Table 1, Line 54. Instead of occurring 3 days during the first or second weekend in September, the new date will be published in the final rule as: 3 days during one of the last three weekends in September. This change was requested to enable the Air Show to take place without conflicting with other events occurring in September.

Change 2: The sponsor of the REV3 Triathlon requested a change to the proposed date as listed in Table 1, Line 4. Instead of occurring 1 day during the first or second weekend in May, the new date will be published in the final rule as: 1 day during the third or fourth weekend in May starting in 2016. This change was requested due to scheduling conflicts with other events. This final rule was not published in time for the May 22, 2016 occurrence of this event. Therefore, a temporary final rule for this event was issued on May 20, 2016. That rule is accessible as indicated under ADDRESSES.

Change 3: The sponsor of the Hadi-Shrine/Evansville Freedom Festival Air Show informed the Coast Guard that the proposed expanded date period from 3 to 4 days was no longer needed and the currently published date period of 3 days fits the air show portion of their event. Therefore, the date for this event as listed in Table 1, Line 46 will remain: 3 days during the second or third weekend in June. The event sponsor also informed the Coast Guard that the 2016 occurrence of this event fell on the fourth weekend in June. Therefore, a separate temporary final rule is being issued to establish the necessary special local regulation on June 24-26, 2016. That rule is available as indicated under ADDRESSES.

These requested changes are based on the individual sponsors' efforts to coordinate events alongside others in the local community. In some instances, these changes have been advertised to and planned on by the local community, and minimally impact the dates of 3 events as listed in the NPRM. These revised dates are also considered within the current environmental review. Therefore, the Coast Guard is publishing this final rule with the requested date changes. All proposed new additions to and removals from the recurring list remain the same as in the NPRM.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be minimal, and therefore a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This rule establishes special local regulations limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR part 100 within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. The effect of this rulemaking will not be significant because these special local regulations are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the Federal Register, and/or Notices of Enforcement and thus will be able to plan around the special local regulations in advance. Deviation from the special local regulations established through this proposed rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners will also inform the community of these special local regulations so that they may plan accordingly for these short restrictions on transit. Vessel traffic may request permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative to enter the restricted areas.

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 0 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.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation areas during periods of enforcement. The special local regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are limited in scope and will be in effect for short periods of time. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard COTP will issue maritime advisories widely available to waterway users. Deviation from the special local regulations established through this rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order13132.

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of special local regulations related to marine event permits for marine parades, regattas, and other marine events. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1233

2. Amend § 100.801 by revising table 1 of § 100.801 to read as follows:
§ 100.801 Annual Marine Events in the Eighth Coast Guard District. Table 1 of § 100.801—Ohio Valley Captain of the Port Zone Annual and Recurring Marine Events Date Event/Sponsor Ohio Valley location Regulated area 1. The first Saturday in April University of Charleston Rowing/West Virginia Governor's Cup Regatta Charleston, WV Kanawha River, Mile 59.9-61.4 (West Virginia). 2. 1 day—Saturday before Memorial Day weekend Venture Outdoors/Venture Outdoors Festival Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.25 Monongahela River 0.0-0.25 (Pennsylvania). 3. 1 day—During the last week of April or first week of May Kentucky Derby Festival/Belle of Louisville Operating Board/Great Steamboat Race Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 596.0-604.3 (Kentucky). 4. 1 day—Third or fourth weekend in May REV3/REV3 Triathlon Knoxville, TN Tennessee River, Mile 646.0-649.0 (Tennessee). 5. 1 day—Third weekend in May World Triathlon Corporation/IRONMAN 70.3 Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 463.0-466.0 (Tennessee). 6. 1 day—second weekend in June Chattanooga Parks and Rec/Chattanooga River Rats Open Water Swim Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 464.0-469.0 (Tennessee). 7. 1 day—Third or fourth weekend in June Greater Morgantown Convention and Visitors Bureau/Mountaineer Triathlon Morgantown, WV Monongahela River, Mile 101.0-102.0 (West Virginia). 8. 2 days—First weekend of June Kentucky Drag Boat Association Pisgah Bay, KY Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky). 9. Fourth Sunday in June Green Umbrella/Ohio River Paddlefest Cincinnati, OH Ohio River, Mile 459.5-470.2 (Ohio and Kentucky). 10. 1 day—Fourth or fifth Sunday in September Green Umbrella/Great Ohio River Swim Cincinnati, OH Ohio River, Mile 469.8-470.2 (Ohio and Kentucky). 11. 1 day—One of the last two weekends in September Ohio River Open Water Swim Prospect, KY Ohio River, Mile 588.0-590.0 9 (Kentucky). 12. 2 days—Second or third weekend in September Louisville Dragon Boat Festival Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 603.0-603.5 (Kentucky). 13. 1 day—Third or fourth Sunday of July Tucson Racing/Cincinnati Triathlon Cincinnati, OH Ohio River, Mile 469.3-470.2 (Ohio). 14. 2 days—First weekend of July Kentucky Drag Boat Association Pisgah Bay, KY Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky). 15. 1 day—Second weekend in July Bradley Dean/Renaissance Man Triathlon Florence, AL Tennessee River, Mile 255.0-257.0 (Alabama). 16. 3 days—One of the first two weekends in July Madison Regatta, Inc./Madison Regatta Madison, IN Ohio River, Mile 555.0-560.0 (Indiana). 17. 1 day—Third Saturday in July Pittsburgh Irish Rowing Club/St. Brendan's Cup Currach Regatta Pittsburgh, PA Miles 7-9, Ohio River back channel (Pennsylvania). 18. 1 day—One of the last three weekends in June Louisville Race the Bridge Triathlon Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 601.5-603.0 (Kentucky). 19. 1 day—Fourth weekend in June Team Magic/Chattanooga Waterfront Triathlon Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 463.0-465.0 (Tennessee). 20. 1 day—Fourth weekend in July Team Magic/Music City Triathlon Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 190.0-192.0 (Tennessee). 21. 2 days—Last two weekends in July or first week of August Friends of the Riverfront Inc./Pittsburgh Triathlon and Adventure Races Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-1.5 (Pennsylvania). 22. 3 days—First week of August EQT Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta Pittsburgh, PA Ohio River, Mile 0.0-0.5, Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.6, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-0.5 (Pennsylvania). 23. 2 days—First weekend of August Kentucky Drag Boat Association Pisgah Bay, KY Tennessee River, Mile 30.0 (Kentucky). 24. 2 days—last weekend in September Captain Quarters Regatta Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 595.0-597.0 (Kentucky). 25. 2 days—Second or third weekend in October Norton Healthcare/Ironman Triathlon Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 601.5-604.5 (Kentucky). 26. 2 days—Third full weekend (Saturday and Sunday) in August Ohio County Tourism/Rising Sun Boat Races Rising Sun, IN Ohio River, Mile 504.0-508.0 (Indiana and Kentucky). 27. 1 day—Last weekend in August Tennessee Clean Water Network/Downtown Dragon Boat Races Knoxville, TN Tennessee River, Mile 647.0-649.0 (Tennessee). 28. 3 days—Third weekend in August Governors' Cup/UWP-IJSBA National Championships Charleston, WV Kanawha River, Mile 56.7-57.6 (West Virginia). 29. 2 days—Fourth weekend in July Herd Racing LLC/Huntington Classic Huntington, WV Ohio River, Mile 307.3-309.3 (West Virginia). 30. 2 days—Last weekend in September Fall Records Challenge Committee/Fall Records Challenge New Martinsville, WV Ohio River, Mile 128.5-129.5 (West Virginia). 31. 2 days—Labor Day weekend Wheeling Vintage Race Boat Association Ohio/Wheeling Vintage Regatta Wheeling, WV Ohio River, Mile 090.4-091.5 (West Virginia). 32. 2 days—weekend before Labor Day SUP3Rivers The Southside Outside Pittsburgh, PA Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-3.09 Allegheny River Mile 0.0-0.25 (Pennsylvania). 33. 1 day—Saturday before Labor Day Wheeling Dragon Boat Race Wheeling, WV Ohio River, Mile 90.4-91.5 (West Virginia). 34. 1 day—First or second weekend in September Cumberland River Compact/Cumberland River Dragon Boat Festival Nashville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 190.0-192.0 (Tennessee). 35. 2 days—First or second weekend in September State Dock/Cumberland Poker Run Jamestown, KY Lake Cumberland (Kentucky). 36. 3 days—First or second weekend in September Sailing for a Cure Foundation/SFAC Fleur de Lis Regatta Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 601.0-604.0 (Kentucky). 37. 1 day—One weekend, last half of September Harbor House of Louisville/Ken“Ducky” Derby Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 602.0-604.0 (Kentucky). 38. 1 day—Last weekend in September World Triathlon Corporation/IRONMAN Chattanooga Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 463.0-467.0 (Tennessee). 39. 1 day—Second weekend in September City of Clarksville/Clarksville Riverfest Cardboard Boat Regatta Clarksville, TN Cumberland River, Mile 125.0-126.0 (Tennessee). 40. 2 days—First weekend of October Three Rivers Rowing Association/Head of the Ohio Regatta Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-4.0 (Pennsylvania). 41. 1 day—First or second weekend in October Lookout Rowing Club/Chattanooga Head Race Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 464.0-467.0 (Tennessee). 42. 1 day—Third weekend in November TREC-RACE/Pangorge Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 444.0-455.0 (Tennessee). 43. 3 days—First weekend in November Atlanta Rowing Club/Head of the Hooch Rowing Regatta Chattanooga, TN Tennessee River, Mile 464.0-467.0 (Tennessee). 44. One Saturday in June or July Paducah Summer Festival/Cross River Swim Paducah, KY Ohio River, Mile 934-936 (Kentucky). 45. 1 day—During the last weekend in May Louisville Metro Government/Mayor's Healthy Hometown Subway Fresh Fit, Hike, Bike and Paddle Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 602.0-603.5 (Kentucky). 46. 3 days—Second or third weekend in June Hadi Shrine/Evansville Freedom Festival Air Show Evansville, IN Ohio River, Mile 791.0-795.0 (Indiana). 47. 1 day—Second or third Saturday in July Allegheny Mountain LMSC/Search for Monongy Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.6 (Pennsylvania). 48. 1 day—July 4th Wellsburg 4th of July Committee/Wellsburg 4th of July Fireworks Wellsburg, WV Ohio River, Mile 73.5-74.5 (West Virginia). 49. 1 day—During the first week of July Evansville Freedom Celebration/4th of July Freedom Celebration Evansville, IN Ohio River, Mile 791.0-796.0 (Indiana). 50. 1 day—First weekend in September Louisville Metro Government/Mayor's Healthy Hometown Subway Fresh Fit, Hike, Bike and Paddle Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 602.0-603.5 (Kentucky). 51. 2 days—Third or fourth weekend in July Dare to Care/KFC Mayor's Cup Paddle Sports Races/Voyageur Canoe World Championships Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 601.0-604.0 (Kentucky). 52. 3 days—Fourth weekend in August Kentucky Drag Boat Association/Thunder on the Green Livermore, KY Green River, Mile 70.0-71.5 (Kentucky). 53. 1 day—Fourth weekend in August Team Rocket Tri-Club/Rocketman Triathlon Huntsville, AL Tennessee River, Mile 333.0-334.5 (Alabama). 54. 3 days—One of the last three weekends in September Hadi Shrine/Owensboro Air Show Owensboro, KY Ohio River, Mile 755.0-759.0 (Kentucky). 55. 1 day—First Sunday in August HealthyHuntington.org/St. Marys Tri-state Triathlon Huntington, WV Ohio River, Mile 307.3-308.3 (West Virginia). 56. 2 days—First Weekend in August Buckeye Outboard Association/Portsmouth Challenge Portsmouth, OH Ohio River, Mile 355.3-356.7 (Ohio). 57. 1 day—Sunday before Labor Day Cincinnati Bell, WEBN, and Proctor and Gamble/Riverfest Cincinnati, OH Ohio River, Mile 464.0-476.0 (Kentucky and Ohio) and Licking River Mile 0.0-3.0 (Kentucky). 58. 2 days—First or second weekend in September State Dock/Cumberland Poker Run Jamestown, KY Lake Cumberland (Kentucky). 59. 1 day—One weekend, last half of September Harbor House of Louisville/Ken“Ducky” Derby Louisville, KY Ohio River, Mile 602.0-604.0 (Kentucky). 60. Second Sunday in September Ohio River Sternwheel Festival Committee Sternwheel race reenactment Marietta, OH Ohio River, Mile 170.5-172.5 (Ohio). 61. Second Saturday in September Parkesburg Paddle Fest Parkersburg, WV Ohio River, Mile 184.3-188 (West Virginia). 62. Three days during the fourth weekend in September New Martinsville Records and Regatta Challenge Committee New Martinsville, WV Ohio River, Mile 128-129 (West Virginia). 63. First weekend in July Eddyville Creek Marina/Thunder Over Eddy Bay Eddyville, KY Cumberland River Mile 46.0-47.0 (Kentucky). 64. First or second weekend of July Prizer Point Marina/4th of July Celebration Cadiz, KY Cumberland River, Mile 54.0-55.09 (Kentucky). 65. 2 days, last weekend in May or first weekend in June Visit Knoxville/Racing on the Tennessee Knoxville, TN Tennessee River, Mile 647.0-648.0 (Tennessee). 66. 1 day—Second weekend in September Start 2 Finish/Nashvegas Triathlon Ashland City, TN Cumberland River, Mile 157.0-159.0 (Tennessee).
Dated: May 20, 2016. R.V. Timme, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2016-14277 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0395] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Ohio River Mile 791.0 to 795.0, Evansville, IN AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for all waters of the Ohio River, surface to bottom, extending from mile 791.0 to 795.0. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Evansville, IN, during the Evansville Freedom Festival Air Show. Entry of vessels or persons into this regulated area is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 11:00 a.m., June 24, 2016 through 6:00 p.m., June 26, 2016. This rule will be enforced through actual notice.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0395 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer James Robinson, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 502-779-5347, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On January 25, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update (81 FR 3976). That proposed rulemaking included expanding the date for this event and related special local regulation in the permanent list of recurring events under 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, from 3 days to 4 days during the second or third weekend in June. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action. The NPRM received no adverse comments and the comment period closed April 25, 2016. However, during the comment period for the NPRM, the sponsor of the Hadi Shrine/Evansville Freedom Festival Air Show informed us that the air show portion of the event would continue to take place for only 3 days, including a practice day. Therefore, there is no need to extend the effective period from 3 to 4 days for this event. However, for the 2016 occurrence the festival dates fall on the fourth weekend in June, so this temporary final rule is being issued for the 2016 occurrence only. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM at this time because this temporary final rule is necessary to establish the special local regulation for this year's occurrence beginning June 24, 2016.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule to provide a full 30 days notice is unnecessary as this event is a recurring event advertised to, and planned on, by the local community and waterway users that are familiar with this location on the Ohio River. Delaying this rule would also be contrary to public interest because immediate action is necessary for the safety of life during an air show taking place over this navigable waterway. Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) and information sharing with the waterway users will update mariners of the restrictions, requirements and enforcement times during this event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the air show starting June 24, 2016 will be a safety concern for all waters of the Ohio River, surface to bottom, extending from mile 791.0 to 795.0. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters in the temporary regulated area before, during, and after the Evansville Freedom Festival Air Show.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a special local regulation from June 24 through June 26, 2016. The special local regulation will cover all waters of the Ohio River, surface to bottom, extending from mile 791.0 to 795.0. Transit into and through this area is prohibited from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. each day beginning June 24, 2016 through June 26, 2016. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled air show and fireworks displays. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the special local regulation without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Deviations request will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP Ohio Valley may be contacted by telephone at 1-800-253-7475 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16. Public notifications will be made to the local maritime community prior to the event through the Local Notice to Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation. The temporary special local regulation will only be in effect for approximately seven hours each day. The Coast Guard expects minimum adverse impact to mariners from the special local regulation's activation as the event has been advertised to the public. Also, mariners may request authorization from the COTP Ohio Valley or the designated representatives to transit the special local regulations.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 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 special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting less than seven hours a day that will prohibit entry on all waters of the Ohio River, surface to bottom, extending from mile 791.0 to 795.0. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1233

2. Add § 100.T08-0395 to read as follows:
§ 100.T08-0395 Special Local Regulation; Ohio River between mile 791.0 and 795.0, Evansville, IN.

(a) Special local regulated area. The following area is a temporary special local regulation for all waters of the Ohio River between mile 791.0 and mile 795.0, Evansville, IN, extending the entire width of the Ohio River.

(b) Enforcement. This special local regulation will be enforced from 11:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. each day beginning June 24, 2016 through June 26, 2016. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be provided.

(c) Special local regulations. (1) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the regulated area must request permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM radio channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-7465.

(2) The Coast Guard will patrol the regulated area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander may be contacted via VHF-FM radio channel 16 or by phone at 502-587-8633.

(3) The Patrol Commander may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

(d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the regulated area as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

Dated: May 26, 2016. E.D. Denley, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2016-14271 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0443] Safety Zone; Annual Firework Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Laughlin/Bullhead City Rockets Over the River Fireworks on the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada and Bullhead City, Arizona on Saturday, July 2, 2016 and Monday, July 4, 2016. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for annual fireworks events on the Colorado River within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 2 and July 4, 2016, for Item 2 in Table 1 of § 165.1124.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this publication, call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 for a safety zone on the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada and Bullhead City, Arizona for the Laughlin/Bullhead City Rockets Over the River Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1124, Table 1, Item 2 of that section from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 2 and July 4, 2016. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for annual fireworks events on the Colorado River within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1124, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1124 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 2, 2106. E.M. Cooper, Commander, U. S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2016-14274 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0408] Safety Zone; Annual Firework Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Avi Resort and Casino Independence Day Fireworks display on the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada on Monday, July 4, 2016. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for annual firework events on the Colorado River within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or a designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016, for Item 3 in Table 1 of § 165.1124.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this publication, call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 for a safety zone on the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada for the Avi Resort and Casino Independence Day Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1124, Table 1, Item 3 of that section, from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for annual fireworks events on the Colorado River within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities for the this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1124, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1124 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 2, 2016. E.M. Cooper, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2016-14273 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0476] Safety Zones, Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce four safety zones for fireworks displays in the Sector Long Island Sound area of responsibility on the date and time listed in the table below. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the events. During the enforcement periods, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.

DATES:

The regulation in 33 CFR 165.151 Table 1 will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Jay TerVeen, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound; telephone 203-468-4446, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.151 Table 1 on the following dates and times:

6.1 Barnum Festival Fireworks • Date: June 25, 2016. • Rain Date: June 26, 2016. • Time: 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. • Location: Waters of Bridgeport Harbor, Bridgeport, CT in approximate position 41°9′04″ N., 073°12′49″ W. (NAD 83). 6.2 Town of Branford Fireworks • Date: June 25, 2016. • Rain Date: June 26, 2016. • Time: 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. • Location: Waters of Branford Harbor, Branford, CT in approximate position, 41°15′30″ N., 072°49′22″ W. (NAD 83). 6.3 Vietnam Veterans/Town of East Haven Fireworks • Date: June 25, 2016. • Rain Date: June 27, 2016. • Time: 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. • Location: Waters off Cosey Beach, East Haven, CT in approximate position, 41°14′19″ N., 072°52′9.8″ W. (NAD 83). 7.8 Westport Police Athletic League Fireworks • Date: June 30, 2016. • Rain Date: July 01, 2016. • Time: 8:45 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. • Location: Waters off Compo Beach, Westport, CT in approximate position, 41°06′15″ N., 073°20′57″ W. (NAD 83).

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.151, the fireworks displays listed above are established as safety zones. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR part 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners or marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that these safety zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 3, 2016. E.J. Cubanski, III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2016-14272 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0410] Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks on the waters of San Diego Bay, CA on Monday, July 4, 2016. These safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the southern California annual fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated areas for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated areas without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016 for Item 5 in Table 1 of § 165.1123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this publication, call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for safety zones on the waters of San Diego Bay, CA for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 5 of that section from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for southern California annual fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated areas, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated areas but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1123 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 2, 2016. E.M. Cooper, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2016-14278 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0409] Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Coronado Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks on the waters of Glorietta Bay, CA on Monday, July 4, 2016. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the southern California annual fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016, Item 3 in Table 1 of § 165.1123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this publication, call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for a safety zone on the waters of Glorietta Bay, CA for the Coronado Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 3, from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2016. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for southern California annual fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated areas, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated areas but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1123 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 2, 2016. E.M. Cooper, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2016-14270 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter VI [Docket ID ED-2015-OPE-0134] Final Priorities and Definitions—Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program—Short-Term Projects and Long-Term Projects AGENCY:

Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Final priorities and definitions.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.021A and 84.021B. SUMMARY:

The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education announces priorities and definitions for the Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad (GPA) Program. The Assistant Secretary may use these priorities and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2016 and later years. We intend the priorities and definitions to address a gap in the types of institutions, faculty, and students that have historically benefitted from international education opportunities.

DATES:

These priorities and definitions are effective July 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Reha Mallory, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E213, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7502 or by email: [email protected]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of Program: The Fulbright-Hays GPA Program supports short-term and long-term overseas projects in training, research, and curriculum development in modern foreign languages and area studies for groups of teachers, undergraduate and graduate students, and faculty engaged in a common endeavor. Fulbright-Hays GPA short-term projects (GPA short-term projects) may include seminars, curriculum development, or group research or study. Fulbright-Hays GPA long-term projects (GPA long-term projects) support advanced overseas intensive programs that focus on the humanities, social sciences, or languages.

Program Authority:

22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 662 and 664.

We published a notice of proposed priorities and definitions for this program in the Federal Register on March 10, 2016 (81 FR 12622). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities.

There are no differences between the proposed priorities and definitions and these final priorities and definitions.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priorities and definitions, we did not receive any comments on the proposed priorities and definitions.

Final Priorities Priority 1—Applications for GPA Short-Term Projects From Selected Institutions and Organizations

Applications for GPA short-term projects from the following types of institutions and organizations:

• Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) • Community colleges • New applicants • State educational agencies (SEAs) Priority 2—Applications for GPA Long-Term Projects From Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs)

Applications for GPA long-term advanced overseas intensive language training projects from MSIs.

Types of Priorities

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

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

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

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

Final Definitions

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

Minority-serving institution (MSI) means an institution that is eligible to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).

Community college means an institution that meets the definition in section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)); or an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that awards degrees and certificates, more than 50 percent of which are not bachelor's degrees (or an equivalent).

New applicant means any applicant that has not received a discretionary grant from the Department of Education under the Fulbright-Hays Act prior to the deadline date for applications under this program.

State educational agency (SEA) means the State board of education or other agency or officer primarily responsible for the supervision of public elementary and secondary schools in a State. In the absence of this officer or agency, it is an officer or agency designated by the Governor or State law.

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

Note:

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Regulatory Impact Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dated: June 13, 2016. Lynn B. Mahaffie, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and Innovation, Delegated the Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2016-14304 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0309; FRL-9945-65-Region 8] Air Plan Approval; UT; Revised Format for Material Incorporated by Reference AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule; administrative change.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the format of materials submitted by the State of Utah that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by Utah and approved by the EPA.

DATES:

This action is effective June 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0309. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information 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 the hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. An electronic copy of the State's SIP compilation is also available at https://www.epa.gov/approved-sips.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Utah 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Change in IBR Format

This format revision will affect the “Identification of plan” section of 40 CFR part 52, as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the EPA Region 8 Office.

A. Description of a SIP

Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and achieve certain other Clean Air Act (Act) requirements (e.g., visibility requirements, prevention of significant deterioration). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring network descriptions, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

B. How EPA Enforces the SIP

Each SIP revision submitted by Utah must be adopted at the state level after undergoing reasonable notice and public hearing. SIPs submitted to EPA to attain or maintain the NAAQS must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, schedules and timetables for compliance.

EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet the Act's requirements. If a SIP meets the Act's requirements, EPA will approve the SIP. EPA's notice of approval is published in the Federal Register and the approval is then codified at 40 CFR part 52. Once EPA approves a SIP, it is enforceable by EPA and citizens in federal district court.

We do not reproduce in 40 CFR part 52 the full text of the Utah regulations that we have approved. Instead, we incorporate them by reference or IBR. We approve a given state regulation with a specific effective date and then refer the public to the location(s) of the full text version of the state regulation(s) should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP (see I.F., Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation).

C. How the State and EPA update the SIP

The SIP is a dynamic document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations.

On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA announced revised procedures for IBR of federally approved SIPs. The procedures announced included: (1) A new process for IBR of material submitted by states into compilations and a process for updating those compilations on roughly an annual basis; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the compilations and the CFR; and (3) a revised format for the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures.

D. How EPA Compiles the SIP

We have organized into a compilation the federally-approved regulations, source-specific requirements and nonregulatory provisions we have approved into the SIP. These compilations may be found at https://www.epa.gov/approved-sips. In addition, we maintain hard copies of the compilation which are updated periodically.

E. How EPA Organizes the SIP Compilation

Each compilation contains three parts. Part one contains the state regulations that have been approved, part two contains the source-specific requirements that have been approved as part of the SIP (if any), and part three contains non-regulatory provisions that have been approved. Each compilation contains a table of identifying information for each regulation, each source-specific requirement, and each nonregulatory provision. The state effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent revision to a particular approved regulation. The table of identifying information in the compilation corresponds to the table of contents published in 40 CFR part 52 for the state. The EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for ensuring accuracy and updating the compilations.

F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation

EPA Region 8 developed and will maintain the compilation for Utah. An electronic copy of the compilation is contained at https://www.epa.gov/approved-sips. SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are also available for inspection at the following locations: 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, and the EPA Region 8 Office, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.

G. The Format of the New Identification of Plan Section

In order to better serve the public, EPA has revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section in 40 CFR part 52 and included additional information to clarify the elements of the SIP.

The revised Identification of plan section for Utah contains five subsections:

1. Purpose and scope (see 40 CFR 52.2320(a));

2. Incorporation by reference (see 40 CFR 52.2320(b));

3. EPA-approved regulations (see 40 CFR 52.2320(c));

4. EPA-approved source-specific requirements (see 40 CFR 52.2320(d)); and

5. EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutory provisions, control strategies, monitoring networks, etc. (see 40 CFR 52.2320(e)).

H. When a SIP Revision Becomes Federally Enforceable

All revisions to the applicable SIP are federally enforceable as of the effective date of EPA's approval of the respective revision. In general, SIP revisions become effective 30 to 60 days after publication of EPA's SIP approval action in the Federal Register. In specific cases, a SIP revision action may become effective less than 30 days or greater than 60 days after the Federal Register publication date. In order to determine the effective date of EPA's approval for a specific Utah SIP provision that is listed in 40 CFR 52.2320 (c), (d), or (e), consult the volume and page of the Federal Register cited in 40 CFR 52.2320 for that particular provision.

I. The Historical Record of SIP Revision Approvals

To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and to provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, we are retaining the original Identification of plan section (40 CFR 52.2324). This section previously appeared at 40 CFR 52.2320. After an initial two-year period, we will review our experience with the new table format and will decide whether to retain the original identification of plan section (40 CFR 52.2324) for some further period.

II. What EPA is doing in this action?

This action constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to reformat the codification of the EPA-approved Utah SIP.

III. Good Cause Exemption

EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon a finding of “good cause” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This action simply reformats the codification of provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law.

Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Likewise, there is no purpose served by delaying the effective date of this action.

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 Utah regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rules are discussed in previous actions taken on the state's rules.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in federal and approved state programs. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding and established an effective date of June 16, 2016. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This change to the identification of plan for Utah is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Utah SIP compilation had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” reorganization action for Utah.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: May 31, 2016. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart TT—Utah
§ 52.2320 [Redesignated as § 52.2324]
2. Section 52.2320 is redesignated as § 52.2324, and in newly redesignated § 52.2320, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 52.2324 Original identification of plan.

(a) This section identifies the original “Air Implementation Plan for the State of Utah” and all revisions submitted by Utah that were federally approved prior to March 1, 2016.

3. Add § 52.2320 to read as follows:
§ 52.2320 Identification of plan.

(a) Purpose and scope. This section sets forth the applicable State Implementation Plan for Utah under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410 and 40 CFR part 51 to meet national ambient air quality standards or other requirements under the Clean Air Act.

(b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to March 1, 2016, was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is incorporated as submitted by the state to EPA, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register. Entries for paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with EPA approval dates after March 1, 2016, will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

(2) EPA Region 8 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State Implementation Plan as of March 1, 2016.

(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129; and 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.

(c) EPA-approved regulations.

Rule No. Rule title State effective date Final rule citation, date Comments R307-101. General Requirements R307-101-1 Foreward 11/8/2012 81 FR 4959, 1/29/16 R307-101-2 Definitions 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 Includes nonsignificant change on 7/9/2013. R307-101-3 Version of Code of Federal Regulations Incorporated by Reference 8/7/2014 81 FR 4957, 1/29/16 R307-102. General Requirements: Broadly Applicable Requirements R307-102 General Requirements: Broadly Applicable Requirements 11/8/2012 81 FR 4959, 1/29/16 R307-105. General Requirements: Emergency Controls R307-105-01 Air Pollution Emergency Episodes 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-105-02 Emergency Actions 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-107. General Requirements: Breakdowns R307-107 General Requirements: Breakdowns 7/31/2012 79 FR 7067, 2/6/14 R307-110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan R307-110-01 Incorporation by Reference 12/6/2012 80 FR 54237, 9/9/15 R307-110-02 Section I. Legal Authority 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-03 Section II. Review of New and Modified Air Pollution Sources 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-04 Section III. Source Surveillance 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-05 Section IV. Ambient Air Monitoring Program 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-06 Section V. Resources 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-07 Section VI. Intergovernmental Cooperation 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-08 Section VII. Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-09 Section VIII. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 6/16/2006 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-110-10 Section IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part A, Fine Particulate Matter 9/5/2002 67 FR 78181, 12/23/02 R307-110-11 Section IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part B, Sulfur Dioxide 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-12 Section IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part C, Carbon Monoxide 12/2/2004 70 FR 44055, 8/1/05 Only includes provisions incorporated from Section IX, Parts C.6 (Provo), C.7 (Salt Lake City), and Part C.8 (Ogden). R307-110-13 Section IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part D. Ozone 5/2/2007 73 FR 5122, 9/2/08 R307-110-14 Section IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part E, Nitrogen Dioxide 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-15 Section IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part F, Lead 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-16 Section IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Flouride 9/15/1998 79 FR 11325, 2/28/14 R307-110-17 Section IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H, Emissions Limits 9/5/2002 67 FR 78181, 12/23/02 R307-110-19 Section XI. Other Control Measures for Mobile Sources 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-20 Section XII. Transportation Conformity Consultation 5/2/2007 73 FR 51222, 9/2/08 R307-110-21 Section XIII. Analysis of Plan Impact 5/2/2007 73 FR 51222, 9/2/08 R307-110-22 Section XIV. Comprehensive Emission Inventory 9/18/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-23 Section XV. Utah Code Title 19, Chapter 2, Air Conservation Act 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-24 Section XVI. Public Notification 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-25 Section XVII. Visibility Protection 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-26 Section XVIII. Demonstration of GEP Stack Height 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-27 Section XIX. Small Business Assistance Program 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-30 Section XXII. General Conformity 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-31 Section X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part A, General Requirements and Applicability 12/6/2012 80 FR 54237, 9/9/15 R307-110-32 Section X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part B, Davis County 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-110-33 Section X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs, Part C, Salt Lake County 10/7/2004 70 FR 44055, 8/1/05 R307-110-34 Section X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County 5/18/2004 70 FR 66264, 11/2/05 R307-110-35 Section X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber County 11/4/2004 70 FR 52467, 9/14/05 R307-110-36 Section X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part F, Cache County 11/7/2013 80 FR 54237, 9/9/15 R307-110-37 Section XXIII. Interstate Transport 12/6/2012 81 FR 4959, 1/29/16 R307-115. General Conformity R307-115-01 Determining Conformity 2/8/2008 73 FR 51222, 9/2/08 R307-130. General Penalty Policy R307-130-01 Scope 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-130-02 Categories 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-130-03 Adjustments 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-130-04 Options 7/13/2007 73 FR 16543, 3/28/08 R307-150. Emission Inventories R307-150-01 Purpose and General Requirements 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-150-02 Definitions 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-150-03 Applicability 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-150-04 Sulfur Dioxide Milestone Inventory Requirements 9/4/2008 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-150-05 Sources Identified in R307-150-3(2), Large Major Source Inventory Requirements 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-150-06 Sources Identified in R307-150-3(3) 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-150-07 Sources Identified in R307-150-3(4), Other Part 70 Sources 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-150-08 Exempted Hazardous Air Pollutants 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-165. Emission Testing R307-165 Emission Testing 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-170. Continuous Emission Monitoring Program R307-170-01 Purpose 4/1/1999 68 FR 26210, 5/15/03 R307-170-02 Authority 4/1/1999 68 FR 26210, 5/15/03 R307-170-03 Applicability 4/1/1999 68 FR 26210, 5/15/03 R307-170-04 Definitions 1/5/2006 71 FR 64125, 11/1/06 R307-170-05 General Requirements 1/5/2006 71 FR 64125, 11/1/06 R307-170-06 Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Specific Sources 4/1/1999 68 FR 26210, 5/15/03 R307-170-07 Performance Specification Audits 2/8/2008 73 FR 51222, 9/2/08 R307-170-08 Recordkeeping 4/1/1999 68 FR 26210, 5/15/03 R307-170-09 State Electronic Data Report 1/5/2006 71 FR 64125, 11/1/06 R307-201. Emission Standards: General Emission Standards R307-201 Emission Standards: General Emission Standards 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-202. Emission Standards: General Burning R307-202 Emission Standards: General Burning 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-203. Emission Standards: Sulfur Content of Fuels R307-203 Emission Standards: Sulfur Content of Fuels 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-204. Emission Standards: Smoke Management R307-204-01 Purpose and Goals 12/31/2003 78 FR 4071, 1/18/13 R307-204-02 Applicability 12/31/2003 78 FR 4071, 1/18/13 R307-204-03 Definitions 7/7/2011 78 FR 4071, 1/18/13 R307-204-04 General Requirements 4/7/2006 78 FR 4071, 1/18/13 R307-204-05 Burn Schedule 7/7/2011 78 FR 4071, 1/18/13 R307-204-06 Small Prescribed Fires (de minimis) 7/7/2011 78 FR 4071, 1/18/13 R307-204-07 Small Prescribed Pile Fires (de minimis) 7/7/2011 78 FR 4071, 1/18/13 R307-204-08 Large Prescribed Fires 7/7/2011 78 FR 4071, 1/18/13 R307-204-09 Large Prescribed Pile Fires 7/7/2011 78 FR 4071, 1/18/13 R307-204-10 Requirements for Wildland Fire Use Events 7/7/2011 78 FR 4071, 1/18/13 R307-206. Emission Standards: Abrasive Blasting R307-206 Emission Standards: Abrasive Blasting 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-221. Emission Standards: Emission Controls for Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills R307-221-01 Purpose and Applicability 1/7/1999 74 FR 1899, 1/14/09 R307-250. Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program R307-250-01 Purpose 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-02 Definitions 11/10/2008 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-03 WEB Trading Program Trigger 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-04 WEB Trading Program Applicability 11/10/2008 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-05 Account Representative for WEB Sources 11/10/2008 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-06 Registration 11/10/2008 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-07 Allowance Allocations 11/10/2008 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-08 Establishment of Accounts 11/10/2008 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-09 Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting 11/10/2008 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-10 Allowance Transfers 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-11 Use of Allowances from a Previous Year 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-12 Compliance 11/10/2008 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-250-13 Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone 12/31/2003 77 FR 74355, 12/14/12 R307-301. Utah and Weber Counties: Oxygenated Gasoline Program R307-301-3 Average Oxygen Content Standard 9/10/2001 67 FR 59165, 9/20/02 R307-302. Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties: Residential Fireplaces and Stoves R307-302-01 Definitions 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-302-02 No-Burn Periods for PM10 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 Except R307-302-2(4). R307-302-03 No-Burn Periods for Carbon Monoxide 9/15/1998 70 FR 66264, 11/2/05 R307-302-04 Violations 9/15/1998 70 FR 66264, 11/2/05 R307-303. Commercial Cooking R307-303 Commercial Cooking 4/10/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-305. Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties and Ogden City, and Nonattainment Areas for PM 10 : Particulates R307-305 Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties and Ogden City, and Nonattainment Areas for PM10: Particulates 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-307. Road Salting and Sanding R307-307 Road Salting and Sanding 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-310. Salt Lake County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity R307-310-01 Purpose 5/13/2002 67 FR 44065, 7/1/02 R307-310-02 Definitions 2/8/2008 73 FR 51222, 9/2/08 R307-310-03 Applicability 5/13/2002 67 FR 44065, 7/1/02 R307-311. Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity R307-311 Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity 3/5/2015 80 FR 28193, 5/18/15 R307-312. Aggregate Processing Operations for PM 2.5 ; Nonattainment Areas R307-312 Aggregate Processing Operations for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 Except R307-312-5(2)(a) which is conditionally approved through February 25, 2017. R307-312-5(2)(a) R307-312-5(2)(a) 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 Conditionally approved through February 25, 2017. R307-325. Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: General Requirements R307-325 Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: General Requirements 3/9/2007 78 FR 59242, 9/26/13 R307-326. Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum Refineries R307-326 Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum Refineries 3/9/2007 78 FR 59242, 9/26/13 R307-327. Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum Liquid Storage R307-327 Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum Liquid Storage 3/9/2007 78 FR 59242, 9/26/13 R307-328. Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage R307-328 Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage 6/7/2011 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 Except R307-328-4(6) which has been conditionally approved through February 25, 2017. R307-328-4(6) R307-328-4(6) 6/7/2011 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 Provision is conditionally approved through February 25, 2017. R307-335. Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations R307-335 Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations 1/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-340. Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating Processes R307-340 Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating Processes 3/9/2007 78 FR 59242, 9/26/13 R307-341. Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt R307-341 Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt 1/16/2007 78 FR 59242, 9/26/13 R307-342. Adhesives and Sealants R307-342 Adhesives and Sealants 8/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-343. Emissions Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations R307-343 Emissions Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 5/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-344. Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings R307-344 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-345. Fabric and Vinyl Coatings R307-345 Fabric and Vinyl Coatings 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-346. Metal Furniture and Surface Coatings R307-346 Metal Furniture Surface Coatings 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-347. Large Appliance Surface Coatings R307-347 Large Appliance Surface Coatings 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-348. Magnet Wire Coatings R307-348 Magnet Wire Coatings 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-349. Flat Wood Panel Coatings R307-349 Flat Wood Panel Coatings 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-350. Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatings R307-350 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatings 2/3/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-351. Graphic Arts R307-351 Graphic Arts 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 Except R307-351-2 and R307-351-4. R307-351-2 Applicability 10/8/2014 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-351-4 Standards for Rotogravure, Flexographic, and Specialist Pring Operations 2/15/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-352. Metal Container, Closure, and Coil Coatings R307-352 Metal Container, Closure, and Coil Coatings 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-353. Plastic Parts Coatings R307-353 Plastic Parts Coatings 5/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-354. Automotive Refinishing Coatings R307-354 Automotive Refinishing Coatings 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-355. Control of Emissions From Aerospace Manufacture and Rework Facilities R307-355 Control of Emissions from Aerospace Manufacture and Rework Facilities 2/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-355-5 Emission standards 2/15/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-356. Appliance Pilot Light R307-356 Appliance Pilot Light 1/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-357. Consumer Products R307-357 Consumer Products 8/1/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 Except R307-357-4. R307-357-4 Standards 5/8/2014 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-361. Architectural Coatings R307-361 Architectural Coatings 10/31/2013 81 FR 9343, 2/25/16 R307-401. Permit: New and Modified Sources R307-401-01 Purpose 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-02 Definitions 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-03 Applicability 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-04 General Requirements 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-05 Notice of Intent 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-06 Review Period 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-07 Public Notice 10/3/2013 81 FR 4959, 1/29/16 R307-401-08 Approval Order 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-09 Small Source Exemption 1/1/2011 79 FR 7070, 2/6/14 R307-401-10 Source Category Exemptions 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-11 Replacement-in-Kind Equipment 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-13 Plantwide Applicability Limits 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-14 Used Oil Fuel Burned for Energy Recovery 2/8/2008 79 FR 27190, 5/13/14 R307-401-15 Air Strippers and Soil Venting Projects 2/7/2013 81 FR 4957, 1/29/16 R307-401-16 De minimis Emissions From Soil Aeration Projects 6/16/2006 79 FR 27190, 5/13/14 R307-401-17 Temporary Relocation 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-18 Eighteen Month Review 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-19 Analysis of Alternatives 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-401-20 Relaxation of Limitations 6/16/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-403. Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas R307-403 Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-405. Permits: Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD) R307-405-01 Purpose 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-02 Applicability 2/5/2009 81 FR 4957, 1/29/16 R307-405-03 Definitions 1/1/2011 79 FR 7070, 2/6/14 Except (2)(a), (b), (f), (5), and (6). R307-405-04 Area Designations 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-05 Area Redesignation 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-06 Ambient Air Increments 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-07 Ambient Air Ceilings 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-08 Exclusions from Increment Consumption 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-09 Stack Heights 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-10 Exemptions 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-11 Control Technology Review 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-12 Source Impact Analysis 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-13 Air Quality Models 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-14 Air Quality Analysis 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-15 Source Information 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-16 Additional Impact Analysis 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-17 Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas: Additional Rquirements 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-18 Public Participation 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-19 Source Obligation 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-20 Innovative Control Technology 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-21 Actuals PALs 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-405-22 Banking of Emission Offset Credit in PSD Areas 9/7/2007 76 FR 41712, 7/15/11 R307-406. Visibility R307-406 Visibility 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-410. Permits: Emissions Impact Analysis R307-410-01 Purpose 6/6/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-410-02 Definitions 6/6/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-410-03 Use of Dispersion Models 6/6/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-410-04 Modeling of Criteria Pollutant Impacts in Attainment Areas 6/6/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-410-06 Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques 6/6/2006 79 FR 7072, 2/6/14 R307-413. Permits: Exemptions and Special Provisions [R307-7] Exemption from Notice of Intent Requirements for Used Oil Fuel Burned for Energy Recovery 11/15/1996 67 FR 35442, 5/20/02 Recodification not approved. R307-413-7 Exemption from Notice of Intent Requirements for Used Oil Fuel Burned for Energy Recovery 9/15/1998 71 FR 7679, 2/14/06 R307-414. Permits: Fees for Approval Orders R307-414 Permits: Fees for Approval Orders 12/17/2000 72 FR 4641, 2/1/07

(d) EPA-approved source-specific requirements.

Rule title State effective date Final rule citation, date Comments Hill Air Force Base Ozone NAAQS Approval Orders: Air Quality Approval Order for Remodeling BX Service Station (7/12/1979) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 Approval Order for Hydrazine Exhaust Incinerator, Davis County (2/5/1985) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 Approval Order for Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility, Davis County (2/20/1986) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 Approval Order for Paint Booth, HVAC Modification, Standby Generators, and Fuel Storage Tanks, Davis County (7/18/1983) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 BAQE-026-88, Approval Order for Paint Spray Booth in Building 1913 and Solvent Spray Booth in Building 1915, Davis County (1/20/1988) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 BAQE-039-91, Approval Order for Building 1701—Dip Tank, Bake Oven, Paint Booths, Davis County (2/7/1991) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 BAQE-353-88, Approval Order for Two Cold Solvent Cleaning Tanks in Building 2013, Weber County (7/21/1988) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 BAQE-525-88, Approval Order for Structural Repair and Maintenance Facility, Davis County (10/13/1988) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 BAQE-669-88, Approval Order for Paint Distillation Unit in Building 514, Davis County (12/20/1988) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 Construction Approval Order (6/27/1978) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-0103-93, Modified Approval Order for Aircraft Purge System Near Building 287, Davis County (2/11/1993) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-067-95, Modified Approval Order to DAQE-1006-94, Paint Booth Consolidation (1/31/1995) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-068-95, Support Document for Approval Order DAQE-067-95 (1/30/1995) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-0719-93, Approval Order for Air Permit for Emergency Power Generators, Davis County (8/20/1993) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-0752-93, Modified Approval Order for: A. Replacement Boilers in Buildings 1624, 1904, 2104, 2203; B. Paint Spray Booth in Building 751; C. Carbon Brake Coating Process in Building 507; Davis County (8/27/1993) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-1134-95, Approval Order for Setup Chemical Milling Process Line in Bldg 238, Davis County (12/7/1995) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-1171-92, Approval Order for Emergency Generators and Media Blast Booth, Davis County (1/4/1993) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-163-96, Approval Order for Medium Pressure Water & Chemical Paint Stripping of Aircraft, Davis County (2/9/1996) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-167-92, Approval Order for JP-4 Tank Throughput Limitations (2/19/1992) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-403-95, Approval Order for Construction of Two Boilers Each in Buildings 1590 and 1703, Davis County (5/8/1995) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-416-92, Approval Order for Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge Dryers, Building 577, Davis County (4/28/1992) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-775-95, Approval Order to Modify AO for Engine Test Facilities, Davis County (8/30/1995) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-824-94, Approval Order For Used Oil Burner/Boiler Permit Modification, Davis County (9/29/1994) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-860-95, Your Letter of 6 September 1995, Phase II Vapor Recovery at Building 454 (9/20/1995) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-894-91, Approval Order; Wording Change to Approval Order Dated June 22, 1988, Davis County (11/25/1991) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-915-94, Change of Jet Fuel from JP-4 to JP-8 (10/18/1994) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 Salt Lake County Ozone NAAQS Approval Orders: DAQE-0063-94, Pacificorp Gadsby Power Plant, Approval Order for SIP Change, Title V Major (2/3/1994) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-300-95, Olympia Sales Company, Approval Order Revised to Meet the Ozone Maintenance Plan, Salt Lake County, Toxic Major Title V Major (4/13/1995) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 DAQE-433-94, Kennecott Utah Copper—Utah Power Plant, Approval Order for RACT Analysis, Salt Lake County, Title V Major (5/27/1994) 3/4/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997

(e) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions.

Rule title State effective date Final rule citation, date Comments Section I. Legal Authority 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section II. Review of New and Modified Air Pollution Sources 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section III. Source Surveillance 1/1/2003 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 IV. Ambient Air Monitoring Program Section IV.A. Introduction 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section IV.B. Air Quality Surveillance Network Design 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section IV.C. Network Description 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section IV.D. Data Reporting 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section IV.E. Episode Monitoring 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section IV.F. Annual Review 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section V. Resources 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section VI. Intergovernmental Cooperation 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section VII. Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes 1/1/2003 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section VIII. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 6/16/2006 76 FR 41712, 7/15/2011 IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources Section IX.A.1. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Area Designation Background 8/14/1991 59 FR 35036, 7/8/1994 Section IX.A.2. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), PM10 Concentrations 8/14/1991 59 FR 35036, 7/8/1994 Section IX.A.3. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Utah County 9/5/2002 67 FR 78181, 12/23/2002 Section IX.A.4. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Salt Lake County—Magna 8/14/1991 59 FR 35036, 7/8/1994 Section IX.A.5. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Salt Lake Nonattainment Area 8/14/1991 59 FR 35036, 7/8/1994 Section IX.A.6. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Control Strategies 9/5/2002 67 FR 78181, 12/23/2002 Section IX.A.7. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Maintenance 9/5/2002 67 FR 78181, 12/23/2002 Section IX.A.8. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Contingency Measures 9/5/2002 67 FR 78181, 12/23/2002 Section IX.A.9. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Annual Average 9/5/2002 67 FR 78181, 12/23/2002 Section IX.A.10. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Transportation Conformity 9/5/2002 67 FR 78181, 12/23/2002 Section IX.A. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Appendix A—Emission Limitations and Operating Practices (Davis and Salt Lake Counties) 9/5/2002 67 FR 78181, 12/23/2002 Section IX.B. Sulfur Dioxide 1/1/2003 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section IX.C. Carbon Monoxide 2/25/2000 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section IX.C.6. Carbon Monoxide, Provo 5/18/2004 70 FR 66264, 11/2/2005 Section IX.C.7. Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Provision for Salt Lake City 12/2/2004 70 FR 44055, 8/1/2005 Section IX.C.8. Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Provisions for Ogden 1/4/2005 70 FR 54267, 9/14/2005 Section IX.D. 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Provisions for Salt Lake and Davis Counties 1/3/2007 78 FR 59242, 9/26/2013 With exceptions identified in document. Section IX.E. Nitrogen Dioxide 2/25/2000 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section IX.F. Lead 2/25/2000 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section IX.G. Fluoride 2/25/2000 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section IX.H.1. Fine Particulate Matter (PM10), Emission Limits and Operating Practices (Utah County) 9/5/2002 67 FR 78181, 12/23/2002 X. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Section X.A. General Requirements and Applicability 12/5/2012 80 FR 54237, 9/9/2015 Section X.B. Davis County 2/14/1997 62 FR 38213, 7/17/1997 Section X.C. Salt Lake County 10/7/2004 70 FR 44055, 8/1/2005 Section X.D. Utah County 5/18/2004 70 FR 66264, 11/2/2005 Section X.E. Weber County 11/4/2004 70 FR 54267, 9/14/2005 Section X.F. Cache County 11/6/2013 80 FR 54237, 9/9/2015 Section XI. Other Control Measures for Mobile Sources 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XII. Transportation Conformity Consultation 5/2/2007 73 FR 51222, 9/2/2008 Section XIII. Analysis of Plan Impact 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XIV. Emission Inventory Development 2/25/2000 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XV. Title 19, Chapter 2 Utah Code Annotated, 1993 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVI. Public Notification 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 XVII. Visibility Protection Section XVII.A. Introduction 2/25/2000 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVII.B. Background 4/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVII.C. Visibility Protection 4/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVII.D. Visibility Monitoring 2/25/2000 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVII.E. New or Modified Source Analysis of Visibility Impact 2/25/2000 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVII.F. Existing Source Visibility Impact and BART 4/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVII.G. Regional Haze 4/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVII.H. Long Term Plan to Show Progress Toward Improved Visibility 4/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVII.I. Visibility Progress Report 4/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVII.J. Policy of the Air Conservation Committee Concerning the Protection of Scenic Views Associated with Mandatory Class I Areas from Signficant Impairment for Visibility 4/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XVIII. Demonstration of GEP Stack Height 2/25/2000 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XIX. Small Business Assistance Program 11/12/1993 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XX.G. Long-Term Strategy for Fire Programs 4/7/2011 78 FR 4071, 1/18/2013 Section XXII. General Conformity 1/1/2003 68 FR 37744, 6/25/2003 Section XXIII. Interstate Transport 2/9/2007 73 FR 16543, 3/28/2008 Maintenance Plans Ogden Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan Summary Salt Lake and Davis County Ozone Maintenance Plan Summary Salt Lake and Tooele Counties Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Plan Summary Salt Lake City Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan Salt Lake County Particulate Matter (PM−10) Attainment Plan Summary Utah County Particulate Matter (PM−10) Attainment Plan Summary
[FR Doc. 2016-14099 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0838; FRL-9947-76-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan to address basic program elements, including but not limited to regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements. The Commonwealth of Virginia made a submittal addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on July 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0838. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the state submittal are available at Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a new 24-hour and a new annual NAAQS for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). Subsequently, on December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the level of the health based (primary) annual PM2.5 standard to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).1

1 In EPA's 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS revision, EPA left unchanged the existing welfare (secondary) standards for PM2.5 to address PM related effects such as visibility impairment, ecological effects, damage to materials and climate impacts. This includes an annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3 and a 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3.

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

On July 16, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted a SIP revision that addresses the infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.2 On March 7, 2016 (81 FR 11711), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of the Virginia July 16, 2015 submittal. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of the following infrastructure elements: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).

2 To clarify, the “2013 PM2.5 NAAQS” referred to in the Virginia SIP submittal is the same as the “2012 PM2.5 NAAQS” EPA refers to in this rulemaking action. The final rule for this NAAQS was signed by the EPA Administrator on December 14, 2012, thereby it has been called the “2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.” However, the final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2013, with an effective date of March 13, 2013, resulting in it also being referred to as the “2013 PM2.5 NAAQS.”

At this time, EPA is not taking action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA relating to interstate transport of emissions because Virginia's July 16, 2016 infrastructure SIP submittal did not include provisions for this element; therefore EPA will take later, separate action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Virginia as explained in the NPR. Additionally, EPA is not at this time taking action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility protection for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as explained in the NPR. Although Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS referred to Virginia's regional haze SIP for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility protection, EPA intends to take later, separate action on Virginia's submittal for these elements as explained in the NPR and the Technical Support Document (TSD) which accompanied the NPR. Finally, Virginia did not submit section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and will be addressed in a separate process if necessary.

The rationale supporting EPA's proposed rulemaking action, including the scope of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the published NPR and the TSD accompanying the NPR and will not be restated here. The NPR and TSD are available in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0838. No public comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving, as a revision to the Virginia SIP, the following elements of Virginia's July 16, 2015 SIP revision for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). Virginia's SIP revision provides the basic program elements specified in section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This final rulemaking action does not include action on sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (interstate transport of emissions), and (D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as previously discussed. Additionally, EPA is not taking action on section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and will be addressed in a separate process if necessary.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 15, 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, which satisfies certain infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Commonwealth of Virginia, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 27, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding, to the end of the table, an entry for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Particulate Matter NAAQS.” The added text reads as follows:
§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable
  • geographic area
  • State
  • submittal date
  • EPA approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Particulate Matter NAAQS Statewide 7/16/15 6/16/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] Docket #2015-0838. This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)(PSD), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
    [FR Doc. 2016-14181 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0124; FRL-9946-38-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern, respectively, the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and emissions of VOCs from the surface coating operations of wood products. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 15, 2016 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by July 18, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0124 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted/amended/
  • revised
  • Submitted
    EKAPCD 410.9 Wood Products Surface Coating Operations 3/13/2014 7/25/2014 YSAQMD 1.1 General Provisions and Definitions 7/08/2015 11/13/2015

    On September 11, 2014, and January 19, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittals for EKAPCD Rule 410.9 and YSAQMD Rule 1.1 respectively met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

    B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 410.9 in the SIP. We approved an earlier version of Rule 1.1 into the SIP on April 28, 2015 (80 FR 23449).

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and PM, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 410.9 limits and controls VOC emission from surface coating operations of wood products. The revisions to Rule 1.1 do not have a direct effect on air pollution emissions; they amend the definition of VOC that is used in other YSAQMD rules to exempt certain substances that have been determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity and which are excluded from the definition applied by the EPA. The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.

    II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

    Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2)). The EKAPCD and the YSAQMD regulate ozone areas classified as Marginal Nonattainment and Severe Nonattainment respectively for the federal 8-hour 2008 Ozone Standard. 40 CFR 81.305. The TSDs have more information about these requirements as they relate to the submitted rules.

    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).

    2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” (“the Bluebook,” U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990).

    3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” (“the Little Bluebook”, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).

    4. Control Techniques Guidelines, “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations” (EPA-453/R-96-007, April 1996).

    5. Control Techniques Guidelines, “Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings” (EPA-453/R-06-004, September 2006).

    6. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter C, Part 51, Subpart F, Section 51.100, “Definitions” (40 CFR 51.100).

    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, stringency and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules but which are not currently the basis for rule disapproval.

    D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by July 18, 2016, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on August 15, 2016. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

    Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the EKAPCD and YSAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

    • does not provide 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 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 15, 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 the 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, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 3, 2016. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

    PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(442)(i)(F)(3), (c)(447)(i)(D)(4), and (c)(472) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (442) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (F) * * *

    (3) Previously approved on April 28, 2015 in paragraph (442)(i)(F)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in (472)(i)(A)(1), Rule 1.1, “General Provisions and Definitions,” revised on May 8, 2013.

    (447) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (D) * * *

    (4) Rule 410.9, “Wood Products Surface Coating Operations,” adopted on March 13, 2014.

    (472) New and amended regulations were submitted on November 13, 2015, by the Governor's designee.

    (i) Incorporation by reference.

    (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Rule 1.1, General Provisions and Definitions, revised July 8, 2015.

    [FR Doc. 2016-14098 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 RIN 0648-XD344 Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; Response to Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of decision on petition.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces its decision on a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). In their petition, CBD requested that NMFS implement additional domestic regulations to address the relative impacts of the U.S. fleet on the Pacific bluefin tuna (PBF) stock, which is overfished and subject to overfishing. Outside of the scope of their petition for rulemaking, CBD also requested that NMFS develop recommendations for international fishery management organizations to take actions to end overfishing of PBF. In light of public comments, NMFS is responding to each element of the petition but referring the specific requests for rulemaking under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) for further consideration. The decision was made on June 9, 2016.

    DATES:

    June 16, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heidi Taylor, NMFS, 562-980-4039.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS received a letter from CBD, an environmental non-governmental organization, on April 9, 2014. In the letter, CBD asserted that PBF (Thunnus orientalis) are not adequately protected under the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) and that the Pacific Council failed to meet its statutory duty to develop recommendations for domestic regulations in response to NMFS' determination that the PBF stock is overfished and subject to overfishing (78 FR 41033, July 9, 2013). Specifically, CBD petitioned NMFS to amend the HMS FMP or initiate a rulemaking under the authority of the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., to include PBF as a prohibited species until the stock is rebuilt, thereby placing a moratorium on retention of PBF by U.S. fishing vessels. As an alternative, CBD proposed that NMFS establish annual catch limits and a permanent minimum size requirement to protect PBF of age classes 1 and 2 and that NMFS amend the HMS FMP to establish specific reference points for PBF to guide science-based management of the stock. Outside of the scope of the petition for rulemaking, CBD requested that NMFS develop recommendations to the Secretary of State and Congress to end PBF overfishing at the international level.

    Public Input on the Petition

    NMFS published a Federal Register document on July 24, 2014 (79 FR 43017), to solicit public comments and information on both the petition for rulemaking and the non-rulemaking requests contained in CBD's letter. NMFS specifically requested that the public provide comments on the social, economic, and biological impacts from implementing any of the petitioner's requests to assist NMFS in its evaluation and in determining what rulemaking action(s), if any, were appropriate.

    NMFS received 29 written comments, 2 emails, and 431 individually submitted electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. CBD submitted several electronic comments with 23,826 identical form letters attached. The majority of distinct comments came from the recreational fishing community, especially sportfishing anglers, while some came from the commercial passenger fishing vessel (CPFV) industry. Of the individually submitted comments, 323 included rationales for opposing a prohibition on fishing for PBF. Additionally, 253 of the individually submitted comments included suggestions for alternative management measures. A small minority of the public comments received expressed their support for banning fishing for PBF in both U.S. waters and the high seas. NMFS considered each of the comments in the analysis of CBD's petition.

    Analysis of Petition and Decision

    Following NMFS' determination that the petition for rulemaking in CBD's letter contained enough information to enable NMFS to effectively consider the substance of the petition (79 FR 43017, July 24, 2014), NMFS evaluated the petitioner's requests with regard to achieving the management and conservation objectives of ending overfishing and rebuilding the PBF stock. PBF is a trans-Pacific stock that is harvested by fishing vessels of many different nations. PBF catch by U.S. West Coast fisheries has constituted approximately 2 percent of the Pacific-wide catch in recent years (2008-2014) (ISC, 2015).When NMFS received the petition from CBD, it had already notified (in a letter dated April 8, 2013) the Pacific Council of its duties under section 304(i) of the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1854(i), received a response from the Pacific Council (dated April 1, 2014), and engaged with the Council in developing both international and domestic measures to reduce fishing mortality and aid in rebuilding the PBF stock. These measures are described in NMFS' response to the petition, which is summarized below. At this time, NMFS views the Pacific Council's recommendations and adopted measures as sufficient to fulfill international and domestic obligations to conserve the PBF stock and address the relative impact of U.S. vessels. However, given the role of the Pacific Council in MSA rulemakings and amendments to the HMS FMP, NMFS refers the specific requests related to domestic fisheries management (i.e., requests 1 and 2 below), as well as NMFS input on these matters, to the Pacific Council for further consideration. A more detailed response to the petition, as well as access to public comments, is available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2014-0076.”

    Petition Request 1: CBD requested that NMFS add PBF to the list of prohibited species in the HMS FMP due to the depleted status of the stock. CBD contended that doing so would be symbolically powerful and would have little to no economic impact on U.S. fishermen.

    Response to Request 1: There is little evidence to suggest that a unilateral prohibition on the retention of PBF by U.S. West Coast fishermen will either end overfishing or have a consequential impact on reducing overfishing because catch of PBF by U.S. West Coast-based fleets represents a small portion of the total Pacific-wide catch. However, it is clear to NMFS that such a prohibition would economically harm both U.S. West Coast commercial and recreational fisheries and fishing communities. PBF is a marketable species and is economically important to U.S. West Coast fishermen who target highly migratory species. The commercial coastal purse seine fleet opportunistically targets PBF when they are in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ). While the primary targets for this fleet are small coastal pelagic species, such as Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, and market squid, PBF is part of their historical and current fishing portfolio. PBF are also incidentally caught in the commercial large-mesh drift gillnet (DGN) fishery, the albacore surface hook-and-line fishery, and the deep-set longline fishery. For the directed fishing fleet (purse seiners), revenue from PBF alone constitutes about 2 to 4 percent of the total revenue from fishing. For the DGN fleet, the annual average PBF revenue share is about 3 percent. Despite the fact that U.S. West Coast-based sport fishermen are not permitted to sell their catch, other positive regional economic impacts generated by recreational fishing activities, including personal enjoyment of and willingness to pay for recreational fishing, could be negatively impacted by prohibiting all retention of PBF by U.S. vessels.

    As part of their biennial management process, the Pacific Council considered impacts to recreational fisheries when adopting measures under MSA section 304(i) to address the relative impact of U.S. fisheries on the PBF stock. During deliberations, the Pacific Council considered how allowing anglers to catch and retain PBF might affect decisions to take recreational fishing trips. Specifically, the Pacific Council considered an analysis of the potential impacts of recreational bag and possession limit reductions. This analysis was based on CPFV logbook data from the 2008 to 2013 fishing seasons and included estimates for economic and employment losses due to a moratorium on U.S. West Coast-based PBF retention (e.g., reducing the current PBF bag limit from 10 to 0 fish). The analysis has become part of a Southwest Fisheries Science Center Working Paper, which includes estimated losses of up to $13.8 million in annual trip expenditures and $25.8 million in annual gross sales for southern California due to a decrease in the number of CPFV trips that target PBF (5,275 angler days in U.S. waters and 56,338 angler days in Mexico waters). Additionally, the 0-bag limit scenario was estimated to generate a potential employment loss in the southern California economy of up to 178 full-time equivalent jobs (Stohs, 2016).

    NMFS regards the United States' continued participation in the international decision-making processes of the two regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs)—the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)—as critical to effectively ending overfishing of PBF and rebuilding the Pacific-wide stock. Other nations have not indicated they would follow suit if the United States were to unilaterally impose a moratorium on PBF retention. NMFS will continue to work with the U.S. Delegations to the two RFMOs to garner consensus from other PBF fishing nations to achieve far greater reductions in total fishing mortality than the reductions that could be achieved by prohibiting retention for the relatively small-scale U.S. fisheries alone. Further, NMFS will continue to work with the Pacific Council to adopt and implement, if necessary, additional management measures to address the relative impacts of the U.S. fleet.

    Petition Alternative Request 1: As an alternative to a prohibition on the retention of PBF, CBD requested that NMFS establish annual catch limits (ACLs) and a permanent minimum size limit for protecting age class 1 and 2 PBF. CBD requested implementation of ACLs, if not a total prohibition on retention, which it asserts is a necessary step towards achieving the conservation objective of ending overfishing and rebuilding the PBF stock.

    Response to Alternative Request 1: NMFS does not agree with CBD's assertion that applying ACL requirements to the U.S. portion of the PBF catch limit would lead to ending overfishing. NMFS has already imposed PBF catch limits for U.S. commercial fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) under the Tuna Conventions Act. Imposing additional catch limits under the authority of MSA would inflict additional costs on U.S. industry for little conservation gain. Further, the Pacific Council did not adopt ACLs for PBF because it is a transboundary stock under international management, and as such is exempt from ACL requirements (see paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of the National Standard 1 guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310).

    NMFS considers CBD's request for a recreational size limit to mean that any PBF of age class 1 or 2 caught by U.S. anglers would have to be released. Unlike catch or retention limits, a size limit regulation is less likely to prohibit or deter targeting of PBF. Maunder and Aires-da-Silva (2014) argue that unless a fishery can completely control its selectivity, or unless released fish have a high survival rate, it is very difficult to implement and evaluate the effects of a minimum size limit. Given the current gear used and the nature of fishing for PBF in the EPO, NMFS is not convinced, at this time, that size limits would be an effective management tool for recreational fisheries that catch PBF in the EPO, or that they would be accepted by the IATTC and other PBF fishing nations.

    Lastly, NMFS shares CBD's interest in ending overfishing and is pleased to report progress on the adoption and implementation of meaningful measures to both aid in the rebuilding of the PBF stock and to address the relative impacts of the U.S. fleet. In October 2014, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-14-06 (Measures for the Conservation and Management of Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, 2015-2016), which included a 40 percent reduction in the commercial catch limits for 2015 and 2016 compared to the 2014 level. NMFS published a rule to implement these catch limits for the U.S. commercial sector on July 8, 2015 (80 FR 38986). On July 28, 2015, NMFS implemented a reduction in the daily PBF bag limit from 10 to 2 PBF and a reduction in the maximum multi-day possession limit from 30 to 6 PBF for U.S. West Coast recreational fisheries (80 FR 38986), based on the Pacific Council's recommendation. NMFS estimates that this action will result in an approximately 30 percent reduction in U.S. recreational catch. These reductions in commercial and recreational catch of PBF are consistent with IATTC scientific staff advice.

    Petition Request 2: CBD requested that NMFS amend the HMS FMP to establish specific values for reference points, such as maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) and the minimum stock size threshold (MSST), for PBF. CBD asserted that specific values are essential to science-based management, and that “[t]he lack of specific values for PBF reference points has already crippled scientists' ability to provide conservation advice.”

    Response to Request 2: NMFS agrees with CBD that reference points assist in science-based management. Given the availability of subsequent years of PBF stock assessments, continued work to evaluate reference points, and the Pacific Council's upcoming biennial management cycle, NMFS encourages the Council to consider the adequacy of the FMP reference points and/or proxies for the PBF stock. As described in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of the National Standard 1 guidelines, reference points include status determination criteria (SDC) such as MFMT and MSST or their proxies, maximum sustainable yield (MSY), acceptable biological catch (ABC), and ACL. As discussed earlier, because PBF is an internationally assessed and managed stock and meets the international exemption criteria of the National Standard 1 guidelines, an ABC and ACL was not included in the HMS FMP. However, the HMS FMP includes SDC and an estimate for MSY based on a mean of stock-wide catches from 1995 to 1999. The reference points of the HMS FMP are considered guideposts for managing the PBF stock and require being able to determine and monitor the effects of fishing. Nonetheless, the effects of fishing are often difficult to determine for HMS species like PBF. For example, trends in catch and effort may reflect more than abundance (e.g., fishing success may be affected by schooling behavior and/or environmental effects on the availability of species). Though SDC are included in the HMS FMP, specific values for MFMT and MSST have not been identified for PBF. Rather, NMFS uses these guideposts in concert with other available biological reference points to evaluate the status of the PBF stock.

    NMFS determined stock status conditions of PBF based on the stock assessments of the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific (ISC) (e.g., 78 FR 41033, July 9, 2013; 80 FR 12621, March 10, 2015), the primary scientific body that routinely conducts stock assessments on temperate tuna and tuna-like species for the North Pacific. Its PBF Working Group (PBFWG) is responsible for conducting PBF stock assessments; it annually reports on stock status and provides conservation advice. Despite the fact that reference points have not yet been adopted by the IATTC or the WCPFC, the PBFWG routinely reports stock size and fishing mortality relative to a range of biological reference points (e.g., ISC, 2014). NMFS considers these PBF assessments to be the best scientific information available for determining PBF stock status under the MSA and for notifying the respective Councils of their responsibilities under MSA section 304(i). NMFS works with the Pacific Council to ensure that results of international assessments and status updates for management unit stocks of the HMS FMP, including PBF, are routinely made available to the public in the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation reports.

    Ideally, there would be continuity in reference points used for international and domestic management of fishing on the PBF stock. However, the Pacific Council and NMFS are not required to adopt reference points that are identical to the reference points adopted by the IATTC or WCPFC. Further, the lack of internationally agreed upon reference points for PBF should not preclude the Pacific Council from developing or refining reference points and/or proxies in accordance with National Standard 1.

    Request 3 (not part of the petition for rulemaking): Aside from the petition for rulemaking discussed above, CBD also cited section 304(i) of the MSA and requested that NMFS develop and submit recommendations to the Secretary of State and Congress for international actions that will end overfishing in the fishery and rebuild the PBF stock. Specifically, CBD provided the following recommendations: (1) Establish a high seas moratorium on all fishing, (2) implement a Pacific-wide minimum size for PBF catch; and (3) achieve a steep reduction in PBF quota for all countries to meet rebuilding targets that are based on established reference points. NMFS addresses each of these topics below.

    Response to Request 3: This request was not a part of CBD's petition for rulemaking under the MSA, and therefore is not being referred to the Pacific Council for further consideration. Nonetheless, NMFS found merit in certain aspects of CBD's request for additional international recommendations. NMFS' response to these additional requests is included below.

    First, section 304(i)(2)(B) of the MSA, cited by CBD, requires the appropriate fishery management councils, and not NMFS,1 to develop recommendations to the Secretary of State and Congress to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. As stated earlier, the Pacific Council had already provided their recommendations for international actions to NMFS on April 1, 2014, thereby addressing their obligations under section 304(i)(2)(B) of the MSA. NMFS acted on the Council's recommendations when providing support to the U.S. Delegations for both the IATTC and WCPFC.

    1 Except for Atlantic highly migratory species, which are managed directly by NMFS.

    As for CBD's requests for NMFS to make specific recommendations to Congress and the State Department, NMFS is not convinced at this time that either closing the high seas to fishing or establishing size limits for PBF would be effective management tools for rebuilding the PBF stock or serving national interests. The conservation benefits of closing the high seas to fishing, at least in terms of changes in total catch, will likely be determined by the degree of movement of targeted species, as well as the mobility of vessels and opportunities to exploit the stock in alternative areas (Davies et al., 2012). Furthermore, most of the commercial catches of PBF in the EPO are taken by purse seiners and nearly all of those catches have not been made on the high seas; instead, most have occurred west of Baja California and California, within about 100 nautical miles of the coast, between about 23° N. and 35° N. (IATTC, 2014). Similarly, most of the recreational PBF catch occurs in the EEZs of Mexico and the United States. In the western Pacific Ocean, PBF is primarily caught from Taiwan to Hokkaido, with troll, purse seine, trap, drift net, and other gear in coastal or nearshore areas. Pacific-wide catches of PBF on the high seas are primarily taken by the longline fleets of Japan, Korea, and Chinese Taipei. However, these fleets catch small amounts of PBF on the high seas in comparison to catches from other fishing grounds (Bayliff, 2000; ISC, 2015).

    Lastly, NMFS remains committed to working with the U.S. Delegations to the IATTC and WCPFC to promote Pacific-wide conservation and management measures, a rebuilding plan, and a long-term management framework with appropriate and compatible reference points. As previously mentioned, both RFMOs adopted (and NMFS implemented) more restrictive measures for 2015 and 2016 than in previous resolutions. The ISC evaluated these measures in the context of future stock assessments, spawning stock biomass projections, and progress towards the provisional multi-annual rebuilding plan for PBF adopted by the WCPFC. The United States submitted a proposal to the 89th Meeting of the IATTC to aid in establishing a rebuilding plan for PBF that includes a paragraph about establishing reference points and harvest control rules for the long term management of PBF. The United States also submitted a proposal for a rebuilding plan and a proposal for a precautionary management framework for PBF to the 11th Meeting of the Northern Committee, which is a subsidiary body of the WCPFC that develops recommendations for PBF management measures. These proposals can be found here: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/NC11-DP-03%20%28PBF%20rebuilding%20plan%29.pdf (IATTC proposal) and https://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/11th-regular-session-northern-committee (Northern Committee proposals). While neither proposal was adopted, the United States plans to submit proposals intended to contribute to the rebuilding of the stock at the upcoming IATTC and Northern Committee meetings in 2016.

    References Bayliff, W. 2000. Status of Bluefin Tuna in the Pacific Ocean. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. La Jolla, CA, USA. Davies, T.K., S. Martin, C. Mees, E. Chassot and D.M. Kaplan. 2012. A review of the conservation benefits of marine protected areas for pelagic species associated with fisheries. ISSF Technical Report 2012-02. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, McLean, Virginia, USA. 36 pp. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2014. Pacific Bluefin Tuna. IN: Fishery Status Report No. 12: Tuna and Billfishes in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, pp. 101-107. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, La Jolla, California 2014. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC). 2014. Stock Assessment for Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Pacific Ocean in 2014. Report of the Pacific Bluefin Tuna Working Group, International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean. ISC. 2015. Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean. Plenary Session. July 15-20, 2015; Kona, Hawaii. Maunder, M. and A. Aires-da-Silva. 2014. Developing Conservation Measure for Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern and Western Regions of the Pacific Ocean: Factors to Consider and Fishery Impact Analysis. Document IATTC -87 Inf-B, IATTC, LA Jolla, CA. 20 pp. Stohs, S. 2016. Regulatory Impacts of Recreational Fishery Management Alternatives for North Pacific Bluefin Tuna. Working Paper; NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA. Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14239 Filed 6-13-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 116 Thursday, June 16, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7002; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-5] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Jetmore, KS AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Jetmore, KS. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Jetmore Municipal Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-7002; Docket No.16-ACE-5, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    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:

    Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-7002/Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-5.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov /airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Central Service Center, Operation Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Jetmore Municipal Airport, Jetmore, KS, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Section 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document 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, 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Section 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE KS E5 Jetmore, KS [New] Jetmore Municipal Airport, TX (Lat. 37°59′04″ N., long. 099°53′40″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Jetmore Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 7, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14106 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Parts 888, 982, 983, and 985 [Docket No. FR-5855-P-02] RIN 2501-AD74 Establishing a More Effective Fair Market Rent System; Using Small Area Fair Market Rents in Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of the Current 50th Percentile FMRs AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rulemaking proposes the use of Small Area Fair Market Rents (Small Area FMRs) in the administration of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program for certain metropolitan areas. HUD is proposing to use Small Area FMRs in place of the current 50th percentile rent to address high levels of voucher concentration. HUD believes that Small Area FMRs gives HCV tenants a more effective means to move into areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty areas by providing them with subsidy adequate to make such areas accessible and to thereby reduce the number of voucher families that reside in areas of high poverty concentration.

    HUD proposes to use several criteria for determining which metropolitan areas would best be served by application of Small Area FMRs in the administration of the HCV program. These criteria include a threshold number of vouchers within a metropolitan area, the concentration of current HCV tenants in low-income areas, and the percentage of renter occupied units within the metropolitan area with gross rents above the payment standard basic range. Public housing agencies (PHAs) operating in designated metropolitan areas would be required to use Small Area FMRs. PHAs not operating in the designated areas would have the option to use Small Area FMRs in administering their HCV programs. Other programs that use FMRs would continue to use area-wide FMRs. HUD's goal in pursuing this rulemaking is to provide HCV tenants with a greater ability to move into areas where jobs, transportation, and educational opportunities exist.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: August 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note:

    To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at http://ww.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about this rule, contact Peter B. Kahn, Director, Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-2409; email: [email protected] The listed telephone number is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of This Proposed Rule

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to establish a more effective means for HCV tenants to move into areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty by providing the tenants with a subsidy adequate to make such areas accessible and, consequently, help reduce the number of voucher families that reside in areas of high poverty concentration. Subsidy for HUD's HCV program is currently determined by a formula that considers rent prices across an entire metropolitan area. However, rents can vary widely within a metropolitan area depending upon the size of the metropolitan area and the neighborhood in the metropolitan area within which one resides. The result of determining rents on the basis of an entire metropolitan area is that a voucher subsidy may be too high or may be too low to cover market rent in a given neighborhood. HUD's current policy for addressing high concentrations of voucher holders raises the level of the FMR from the 40th percentile to the 50th percentile (roughly a 7-8 percent increase) in the whole FMR area. This level of added subsidy is not targeted to areas of opportunity; consequently, this formula has not proven effective in addressing the problem of concentrated poverty and economic and racial segregation in neighborhoods. Experience with the 50th percentile regime shows that the majority of HCV tenants use their vouchers in neighborhoods where rents are low but poverty is generally high. Small Area FMRs will complement HUD's other efforts (such as mobility counseling) to support households in making informed choices about units and neighborhoods with the goal of increasing the share of households that choose to use their vouchers in low poverty opportunity areas.

    Rather than determine rents on the basis of an entire metropolitan area, this rule proposes to determine rents on the basis of ZIP codes. ZIP codes are small enough to reflect neighborhood differences and provide an easier method of comparing rents within one ZIP code to another ZIP code area within a metropolitan area. Based on early evidence from PHAs using Small Area FMRs that are in place in certain metropolitan areas in the U.S., HUD believes that Small Area FMRs are more effective in helping families move to areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty.

    B. Summary of Major Provisions of This Proposed Rule

    The major provisions of this proposed rule are as follows:

    The existing regulations at 24 CFR 888.113 would be amended to no longer provide for FMRs to be set at the 50th percentile rent. However, the regulations do not revoke any FMR currently set at the 50th percentile rent, and for which the current 3-year term for retaining a 50th percentile rent has not expired.

    The proposed regulations provide for metropolitan areas with FMRs set at the 50th percentile rent to transition to either (1) the 40th percentile rent at the expiration of the 3-year period for the 50th percentile rent, or (2) designation as a Small Area FMR area in accordance with the proposed criteria for determining a Small Area FMR area.

    The proposed regulations, in 24 CFR 888.113(d)(2), define Small Area FMR areas as the U.S. Postal Service ZIP code areas within a designated metropolitan area.

    The proposed regulations would provide that a PHA with jurisdiction in a 50th percentile FMR area that reverts to the standard 40th percentile FMR may request HUD approval of payment standard amounts based on the 50th percentile rent in accordance with the regulations in 24 CFR 982.503(f), which are not proposed to be changed by this rule. PHAs would be required to continue to meet the provisions of 24 CFR 982.503(f) annually in order to maintain payment standards based on 50th percentile rents.

    The proposed regulations provide, in 24 CFR 888.113(c), the criteria for those areas for which Small Area FMRs will be set. This section provides that Small Area FMRs will be set for metropolitan areas where at least 2,500 HCVs are under lease; at least 20 percent of the standard quality rental stock, within the metropolitan area, is in small areas (that is ZIP codes) where the Small Area FMR is more than 110 percent of the metropolitan FMR; and the measure of the percentage of voucher holders living in concentrated low-income areas relative to all renters within these areas over the entire metropolitan area exceeds 155 percent (or 1.55).

    The proposed regulations provide, in 24 CFR 888.113(c)(2), that “concentrated low-income areas” means those census tracts in the metropolitan FMR area with a poverty rate of 25 percent or more; or any tract in the metropolitan FMR area where more than 50 percent of the households earn incomes at less than 60 percent of the area median income (AMI) and are designated as Qualified Census Tracts in accordance with section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 42).

    For all determinations of FMRs, 40th percentile or Small Area FMRs, HUD replaces “the most recent decennial census” with the “most recent American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.”

    The proposed regulations provide, in 24 CFR 888.113(c)(3), that if a metropolitan area meets the criteria for application of Small Area FMRs to the area, all PHAs administering HCV programs in that area will be required to use Small Area FMRs.

    The proposed regulations, in 24 CFR 888.113(c)(3), also provide that a PHA that is not administering an HCV program in a metropolitan area subject to application of Small Area FMRs may opt to use Small Area FMRs by seeking approval of HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing through written request to such office.

    The proposed regulations provide in new 24 CFR 888.113(h) that Small Area FMRs also apply to project-based vouchers (PBVs), under certain conditions, when HUD designates a metropolitan area or approves a PHA jurisdiction for application of Small Area FMRs. The application of Small Area FMRs to PBVs occurs when a PHA notice of owner selection of existing regulations in 24 CFR 983.51(d) was made after the effective date of Small Area FMR designation.

    The proposed rule provides HUD will designate Small Area FMR areas at the beginning of a Federal fiscal year and make additional area designations every 5 years thereafter as new data becomes available.

    C. Costs and Benefits of This Proposed Rule

    The main benefit of the proposed rule is that, through setting rental subsidy amounts at a more local level, assisted households will be more able to afford homes in areas of high opportunity than under current policy. Such moves are expected to benefit both individual households, for example, through access to better schools or safer neighborhoods, and areas as a whole through reducing concentrated neighborhood poverty. Other benefits could arise through the reduction of overpayment of rent in areas where the neighborhood rent is below the metropolitan average. Early evidence from current Small Area FMR locations suggests that there could be per-voucher cost decreases relative to 50th percentile rents, depending on the choices made by tenants. Evidence also suggests that families moved to better neighborhoods with higher rents, which resulted in no overall program cost increases.1 Finally, the proposed rule would eliminate the year to year volatility of some areas changing to and from 50th percentile FMRs.

    1 Please see Collinson and Ganong, “The Incidence of Housing Voucher Generosity”, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2255799.

    Potential costs of the proposed rule include the administrative expenses associated with implementation on the part of PHAs. Additionally, if there are barriers to households moving to areas of higher opportunity beyond housing costs, such as transportation expenses or social factors, assisted households might be worse off if they can no longer afford their current units in their neighborhoods. This may be particularly true for elderly families or families with a disabled member; however, HUD regulations, not changed by this proposed rulemaking, allow PHAs wide latitude in setting payments standards for disabled tenants as “reasonable accommodations” of their disabilities. Finally, if the long-term impacts of the proposed rule cause per-voucher costs to rise, fewer households would receive assistance without an overall increase in program funds.

    II. Background The Housing Choice Voucher Program and Fair Market Rents

    HUD's HCV program helps low-income households obtain standard rental housing and reduces the share of their income that goes toward rent. Vouchers issued under the HCV program provide subsidies that allow individuals and families to rent eligible units in the private market. A key parameter in operating the HCV program is the FMR. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, and safe rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. In addition, all rents subsidized under the HCV program must meet rent reasonableness standards. Rent reasonableness is determined by PHAs with reference to rents for comparable unassisted units.

    In the HCV program, the FMR is the basis for determining the “payment standard amount” used to calculate the maximum monthly subsidy for a voucher household (see 24 CFR 982.503). PHAs may establish payment standards between 90 and 110 percent of the FMR.2 Voucher program households receive a housing assistance payment equal to the difference between the payment standard established by the PHAs and the family's Total Tenant Payment (TTP), which is generally 30 percent of the household's adjusted monthly income. Participants in the voucher program can choose to live in units with gross rents higher than the payment standard, but would be required to pay the full cost of the difference between the gross rent and the payment standard, in addition to their TTP. Please note that at initial occupancy the family's share cannot exceed 40 percent of monthly adjusted income.

    2 Moving to Work (MTW) agencies have the authority to waive 24 CFR 982.503 and can propose, for HUD approval, alternate rent policies in their Annual MTW Plan.

    HUD establishes FMRs for different geographic areas. Because payment standards are based on FMRs, housing assistance payments on behalf of the voucher household are limited by the geographic area in which the voucher household resides. Currently, HUD calculates FMRs for all nonmetropolitan counties and metropolitan areas. The same FMR is applicable throughout a nonmetropolitan county or metropolitan area, which generally is comprised of several metropolitan counties. FMRs in a metropolitan area (Metropolitan FMR) represent the 40th percentile (or in special circumstances the 50th percentile) gross rent for typical non-luxury, non-substandard rental units occupied by recent movers in a local housing market.3

    3 General information concerning FMRs including more detailed information about their calculation is available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html.

    As noted earlier, PHAs may set a payment standard between 90 percent and 110 percent (inclusive) of the FMR. PHAs may determine that payment standards that are higher than 110 percent, or lower than 90 percent, are appropriate for subareas of their market; in this instance, a PHA would request HUD approval for a payment standard below 90 percent or an exception payment standard above 110 percent. The total population of a HUD-approved exception payment area (i.e., an area covered by a payment standard that exceeds 110 percent of the FMR) may not include more than 50 percent of the population of the FMR area (see 24 CFR 982.503).

    On October 2, 2000, at 65 FR 58870, HUD published a rule (2000 rule) establishing HUD's current policy to set FMRs at the 50th percentile for “areas where higher FMRs are needed to help families, assisted under HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Program as well as other HUD programs, find and lease decent and affordable housing.” This policy was put in place to achieve two program objectives: (1) Increase the ability of low-income families to find and lease decent and affordable housing; and (2) provide low-income families with access to a broad range of housing opportunities throughout a metropolitan area. The policy further provides that PHAs that had been authorized to use FMRs set at the 50th percentile rent may later be required to use FMRs set at the 40th percentile rent. This would occur if the FMR were set at the 50th percentile rent to provide a broad range of housing opportunities throughout a metropolitan area for three years, but the concentration of voucher holders in the metropolitan area did not lessen.

    Since HUD established the 50th percentile FMRs 15 years ago, research has emerged 4 that indicates that 50th percentile FMRs are not an effective tool in increasing HCV tenant moves from areas of low opportunity to higher opportunity areas. Specifically, it appears that much of the benefit of increased FMRs simply accrues to landlords in lower rent submarket areas in the form of higher rents rather than creating an incentive for tenants to move to units in communities with more and/or better opportunities. As currently provided in regulation, to determine the 50th percentile program's effectiveness, HUD must measure the reduction in concentration of HCV tenants (objective 2 above) presumably from high poverty areas, over a 3-year period. If there is no measurable reduction in the concentration of HCV tenants, the FMR area loses the 50th percentile FMRs for a 3-year period. A large number of areas have been disqualified from the 50th percentile program for failure to show measurable reduction in voucher concentration of HCV tenants since 2001 when the program started, which strongly suggests that the deconcentration objective is not being met.5

    4 From 2000 to 2010, however, voucher concentration rose in the largest metro areas, even though most of those areas used 50th percentile FMRs for at least part of that period. Kirk McClure, Alex F. Schwartz, and Lydia B. Taghavi, “Housing Choice Voucher Location Patterns a Decade Later,” November, 2012, p 7. In 2010, 24 percent of vouchers in the 50 largest areas were used in tracts where at least 10 percent of households used vouchers, compared to 16 percent in 2000, p 7.

    5 Areas may subsequently requalify for 50th percentile status after a 3-year period.

    History of Small Area FMRs

    Since the establishment of the 50th percentile program, HUD has developed Small Area FMRs to reflect rents in ZIP code based areas with a goal to improve HCV tenant outcomes. Small Area FMRs have been shown to be a more direct approach to encouraging tenant moves to housing in lower poverty areas by increasing the subsidy available to support such moves.6 Since 2010, when the United States Census Bureau made available data collected over the first 5 years of the American Community Survey (ACS), HUD has considered various methodologies that would set FMRs at a more granular level. HUD's goal in pursuing the Small Area FMR methodology is to create more effective means for HCV tenants to move into higher opportunity, lower poverty areas by providing them with subsidy adequate to make such areas accessible and to thereby reduce the number of voucher families that reside in areas of high poverty concentration.

    6 Please see Collinson and Ganong, “The Incidence of Housing Voucher Generosity”, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2255799.

    Toward this end, through a Federal Register notice published on May 18, 2010, at 75 FR 27808, HUD announced that in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 it would seek to conduct a Small Area FMR demonstration project to determine the effectiveness of FMRs which are published using U.S. Postal Service ZIP codes as FMR areas within metropolitan areas. HUD also solicited public comment on the proposed demonstration. On November 20, 2012, at 77 FR 69651, HUD announced the commencement of the Small Area FMR Demonstration, for which advance notice was provided on May 18, 2010, and further announced the participation of the following PHAs: The Housing Authority of the County of Cook (IL), the City of Long Beach (CA) Housing Authority, the Chattanooga (TN) Housing Authority, the Town of Mamaroneck (NY) Housing Authority, and the Housing Authority of Laredo (TX).

    Through a second Federal Register notice published on August 4, 2010, at 75 FR 46958, HUD mandated the use of Small Area FMRs in place of metropolitan-area-wide-FMRs to settle litigation in the Dallas, TX, HUD Metro FMR Area.

    While HUD awaits the overall evaluation of the demonstrations for wide-scale implementation, HUD is proposing the use of Small Area FMRs as an effective alternative to the 50th percentile for addressing high levels of voucher concentration. If HUD has additional data and information on the effects of these demonstrations prior to publishing the final rule, HUD will analyze, review and release those data prior to publishing a final rule.

    Small Area FMRs have been in operation in Dallas, Texas, as part of a court settlement since 2010, and in a small number of PHAs since 2012. There is encouraging evidence from Dallas which finds that under Small Area FMRs voucher households in Dallas who chose to move are moving to significantly safer and lower poverty neighborhoods, with about the same average costs for vouchers overall. Collinson and Ganong find that Dallas tenants who have chosen to move since the implementation of Small Area FMRs have moved to higher quality neighborhoods in the southern and eastern portions of the metropolitan area from the lowest quality inner city neighborhoods.

    Based on HUD's research and HUD's experience with the Small Area FMR demonstrations, HUD believes that amending its current FMR regulation to adopt the Small Area FMR methodology would provide HCV tenants with greater access to areas of opportunity. As a first step in this direction, on June 2, 2015, at 80 FR 31332, HUD published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) entitled “Establishing a More Effective Fair Market Rent (FMR) System; Using Small Area Fair Market Rents (Small Area FMRs) in Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of the Current 50th Percentile FMRs.” In this ANPR, HUD announced its intention to amend HUD's FMR regulations applicable to the HCV program to provide HCV tenants with subsidies that better reflect the localized rental market, including subsidies that would be relatively higher if they move into areas that potentially have better access to jobs, transportation, services, and educational opportunities. The ANPR sought public comment on the use of Small Area FMRs for the HCV program within certain metropolitan areas. HUD received 78 public comments in response to the ANPR. Later in this preamble, HUD identifies and responds to significant issues raised by the commenters.

    III. This Proposed Rule

    Through this rulemaking, HUD proposes to eliminate the use of 50th percentile FMRs as a means to reduce HCV tenant concentration and implement, in its place, Small Area FMRs. HUD's current policy for addressing areas in which voucher holders are particularly concentrated is based on a 2000 rule, which established the regulations allowing use of the 50th percentile rents, rather than the 40th, based on certain criteria which areas must meet. The regulations codified by the 2000 rule also specified criteria to be used in evaluating areas using the 50th percentile. The evaluation criteria yielded the unintended consequence of areas cycling in and out of 50th percentile FMRs.

    In this rulemaking, HUD proposes to establish FMRs for certain metropolitan areas using ZIP codes within the metropolitan area. HUD also proposes the following criteria to determine which FMR areas would use Small Area FMRs for their voucher program operations:

    1. Current HUD Metropolitan FMR areas where there are at least 2,500 HCVs under lease; and

    2. Where at least 20 percent of the standard quality rental stock,7 within the Metropolitan FMR, is in Small Areas (ZIP codes) where the Small Area FMR is more than 110 percent of the metropolitan FMR; and

    7 To ensure that units are suitable for voucher participants, HUD will use its special tabulations of American Community Survey data in assessing the location of rental units. Specifically, HUD will use the distribution of Adjusted Standard Quality Rental Units. Standard quality units are designated rental units, where the renter pays cash rent. The unit must be on less than 10 acres, have complete plumbing and kitchen facilities and does not include meals in rent. In order to also eliminate units that are likely to be assisted or otherwise unsuitable for HCV tenants, HUD also provides the Census Bureau with a “public housing cut off” rent. The Census Bureau adjusts the distribution of standard quality units by eliminating any unit in the distribution of gross rents with rents below the cut off.

    3. HUD measurement of the percentage of voucher holders living in concentrated low-income areas relative to all renters within these areas exceeds 155 percent (or 1.55). HUD will calculate the percentage of HCV holders living in concentrated low income areas within each metropolitan FMR area using the count of HCV renters living in concentrated low-income areas divided by the count of HCV renters in the metropolitan FMR Area. HUD will then calculate the percentage of renter occupied units in concentrated low income areas within each metropolitan area using the count of renter occupied units in concentrated low income areas within each metropolitan FMR area divided by the count of renter occupied units within the metropolitan FMR area. HUD will divide the voucher percentage by the renter occupied unit percentage to arrive at a propensity or likelihood that a voucher holder is more likely to live in a concentrated low-income area than are renters in general. If this measure over the entire metropolitan area exceeds 155 percent (or 1.55) the area qualifies.8

    8 For any given metro area this is (HCVlo/HCVm)/(ROUlo/ROUm) where HCV is the count of voucher tenants, ROU is the number of renter occupied units, lo represents the set of low opportunity tracts in the metropolitan area, and m represents the entire metropolitan area.

    For the purposes of this proposed rule, “concentrated low-income areas” are defined as those Census tracts in the metropolitan FMR area with a poverty rate of 25 percent or more, or any tract in the metropolitan FMR area where at least 50 percent of the households earn less than 60 percent of the area median income and are designated as Qualified Census Tracts (QCT) in accordance with section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 42). HUD is using the QCT income qualification standards as it is a normalized measure of low income to cover roughly the same population in each metropolitan area. Appendix A of this proposed rule lists the areas that currently meet the three criteria listed above. All other HUD programs that use FMRs would continue to use metropolitan area-wide FMRs.

    In addition to amending § 888.113 to remove the 50th percentile FMR approach and establish a Small Area FMR based approach, HUD proposes to amend the following regulatory provisions in order to facilitate operation of the voucher program under the Small Area FMR based approach:

    1. HUD proposes to update paragraph (d) to provide that FMR areas include metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and Small Areas using ZIP Codes within the metropolitan area. HUD also proposes to revise § 888.113(e) to reflect current data sources used to determine FMRs and paragraphs (f), and (g) to reflect current terminology used in determining FMRs.

    2. HUD proposes to add paragraph (h) to § 888.113 to address the transition of project based voucher (PBV) assistance to Small Area FMRs. Specifically, HUD proposes to make the Small Area FMRs only applicable to PBV projects where the PHA notice of owner selection is made after the effective date of the Small Area FMR designation. For all other PBV projects (those projects under an Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract or where the PHA notice of owner selection was made an Agreement to enter into a Housing Assistance Payment (AHAP) contract prior to the effective date of the Small Area FMR designation), the metropolitan-wide FMR will remain applicable to the project unless the owner and the PHA mutually agree to use the Small Area FMR.

    3. HUD proposes to add paragraph (i) to § 888.113 to address the transition of those areas designated 50th percentile FMRs for which the 3-year period has not expired prior to the effective date of this rule. As proposed, a metropolitan area designated as 50th percentile FMR area that is designated for Small Area FMRs in accordance with § 888.113(c) will transition to the Small Area FMRs upon the effective date of the Small Area FMR designation. For 50th percentile FMR areas that are not designated as Small Area FMR areas in accordance with § 888.113(c), the area will remain under 50th percentile FMRs until the expiration of the three-year period, at which time the metropolitan area will revert to the standard FMRs based on the 40th percentile rent. HUD does not propose removing the ability of PHAs with jurisdictions within an FMR area reverting to the standard 40th percentile FMR to request HUD approval of payment standard amounts based on the 50th percentile rent in accordance with the requirements of § 982.503(f). To implement this transition, and establish success rate payment standards amounts in accordance with § 982.503(e), paragraph (i)(3) provides that HUD will continue to determine the 50th percentile rents. As is the case for determining 40th percentile rents, the 50th percentile rents will be drawn from the distribution of rents of all units that are occupied by recent movers and adjustments are made to exclude public housing units, newly built units and substandard units.

    4. HUD proposes to amend two regulatory provisions in part 982. Part 982 contains HUD's regulations for the Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance: Housing Choice Voucher Program. Specifically, HUD proposes to:

    a. Amend § 982.503, which addresses “Payment standard amount and schedule.” This rulemaking proposes to amend § 982.503(c), which addresses HUD approval of exception payment standard amount and which currently reflects the 40th and 50th percentile rent method. This paragraph would be amended to reflect the changes proposed to § 888.113 to implement Small Area FMRs. Specifically, the current regulation for exception payment standards relies on rent differentials between a small portion of an FMR area and the FMR area itself and includes limitations on the size of the exception area based on the population of the FMR area. This new regulation is constructed to account for the FMR area now being defined as a ZIP code within certain metropolitan areas.

    b. In part 982, HUD would also amend § 982.507(a)(2)(ii), which addresses “Rent to owner: Reasonable Rent” to provide for PHAs using Small Area FMRs, rent reasonableness redeterminations would be triggered if there is a 10 percent or greater decline in FMRs.

    5. In part 983, HUD proposes to amend § 983.302(a)(2), which addresses “Redetermination of rent to owner” to provide that for PHAs designated to use Small Area FMRs, rent reasonableness redeterminations would be triggered if there is a 10 percent or greater decline in FMRs.

    6. HUD would also amend HUD's Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) regulations in part 985, to amend § 985.3, which addresses “Indicators, HUD verification methods and ratings.” The proposed rule would amend this section to provide that the reasonable rent indicator would, for PHAs designated to use Small Area FMRs, reference, similar to § 982.507, the 10 percent decline in FMRs in lieu of the 5 percent decline in FMRs currently referenced.

    IV. Overview of ANPR Comments and HUD Responses

    As noted earlier in this preamble, on June 2, 2015, HUD published an ANPR requesting public comment on replacing the 50th percentile FMR approach with the Small Area FMR approach. By the end of the public comment period on July 2, 2015, HUD received 78 public comments. The following presents a general summary of the comments received and HUD's response to those comments:

    Comment: Complete the current demonstration. Several commenters urged HUD to take no further action in moving Small Area FMRs forward until the current Small Area FMR demonstration is concluded and a report has been issued examining the results of the demonstration.

    HUD Response: HUD agrees that concluding the current demonstration and reviewing the results is an important step before deciding whether or not to implement Small Area FMRs for all metropolitan FMR areas. However, research shows that 50th percentile FMRs do not provide adequate subsidy to help voucher holders find suitable units in areas of opportunity. While 50th percentile FMRs increase the level of subsidy across the entire FMR area, Small Area FMRs better target opportunity areas by raising the FMRs in these specific areas. Furthermore, regulations pertaining to deconcentration and tri-annual recertifications may cause areas to cycle in and out of the 50th percentile program. This cycling is detrimental to the operations of the HCV program and the HCV tenants in these areas, which is why HUD is proposing to remove the 50th percentile approach, and replace it with a Small Area FMR based approach. HUD described the selection criteria in section III of this preamble. The criteria were selected such that the voucher concentration in low-income neighborhoods relative to all rental units and the proportion of all rental units with Small Area FMRs above the basic range exceed the national averages. The areas that meet these criteria by current data include about 564,000 voucher tenants, however not all of these voucher tenants will necessarily be affected because these areas contain several Moving-to-Work Demonstration PHAs that may or may not use Small Area FMRs.

    Comment: Small Area FMR approach would run the risk that units currently with vouchers would not be renewed in HCV program. HUD received many comments from property owners, landlords and other housing providers that expressed this concern. These comments generally focused on property owners/managers with current voucher tenants, typically within the city of Baltimore, Maryland. These comments suggested that if HUD were to move to Small Area FMRs, these units would not be renewed in the voucher program because the rents for the units would be too low.

    HUD Response: These units would be renewed if the family chooses to remain and the rent is reasonable. Furthermore, HUD believes that the use of Small Area FMRs removes a barrier that tenants currently have in accessing housing units in areas of opportunity; namely, that subsidy levels are not high enough to afford rental units in these high opportunity neighborhoods. HUD further believes that if housing authorities determine that current rents in areas with declining Small Area FMRs are reasonable, tools are in place to address these situations (exception payment standards, reasonable accommodation, etc.)

    Comment: Small Area FMR approach would increase administrative burden. Several commenters expressed concern that Small Area FMRs would increase the administrative burden of operating the voucher program. Commenters stated that this concern is compounded because, as they stated, their administrative fee payments are inadequate to meet administrative costs.

    HUD Response: HUD recently released a final report on the costs of running a high performing housing authority 9 and HUD is currently engaged in a proposed rulemaking effort regarding the administrative fee formula. Consequently, this proposed rule does not address the adequacy of administrative fees. HUD has undertaken several steps to minimize the burden of implementing Small Area FMRs. One of these ways is to round Small Area FMRs to the nearest ten dollars to make it easier to arrange the small areas into payment standard groups.

    9 Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrative Fee Study: Final Report (available at: http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/affhsg/hcv_2015draftfinalreport.html).

    Comment: HUD should address the consequence for voucher tenants who choose not to move to units where Small Area FMR is below current metropolitan FMR. Commenters expressed concern about what happens to tenants who choose not to move from their housing units in areas where the Small Area FMR is below the current Metropolitan FMR. Commenters also expressed concern that a significant and abrupt decrease in the FMR for ZIP code areas could reduce housing choices for families by closing opportunities in low-rent areas before new opportunities emerge in higher rent areas.

    HUD Response: Under the current FMR regulations, tenants in areas where the payment standard decreases do not face lower housing assistance payments until the second annual reexamination of income following the payment standard decline. Depending on the timing of income reexaminations, tenants will have between 13 and 24 months advanced notification prior to experiencing the payment standard decreases. HUD is not proposing any specific changes in this proposed rule to the existing payment standard reduction protections for families currently under a housing assistance payment (HAP) or the existing methodology by which the Small Area FMRs are currently determined. If the PHA determines that higher rents are warranted in a particular area, PHAs are encouraged to apply for exception payment standards under § 982.503(c). PHAs may seek payment standard waivers for reasonable accommodations.

    Specific solicitation of comment: HUD is specifically seeking comment on these issues for areas that are transitioning to Small Area FMRs under this proposed rule so that HUD may make a more informed decision on incorporating protections in the final rule. HUD is particularly interested in suggestions that may alleviate the above concerns without appreciably increasing administrative complexity and burden in the HCV program. Please see Section V, Request for Comments, below.

    Comment: Use of Small Area FMRs as they related to project-based voucher (PBV) units. In the ANPR, HUD solicited comment on the use of Small Area FMRs as they relate to PBV subsidized units. HUD received several comments in response to this specific solicitation. The commenters' recommendations went in a variety of directions (i.e., some suggested no PBV should use Small Area FMRs, some suggested only new PBVs should use Small Area FMRs, and others suggested that all PBV use Small Area FMRs)

    HUD Response: In the PBV program, FMRs will impact the location of PBV projects because the rent to the owner generally may not exceed 110 percent of the applicable FMR for the bedroom count minus any utility allowance. Applying Small Area FMRs to project-based vouchers may further improve locational outcomes and deconcentrate poverty because the PHA may be able to establish PBV rents that will make projects financially feasible in higher opportunity neighborhoods that are typically out of reach under the metropolitan area FMRs. Project-based vouchers can be a very effective strategy for increasing the supply of rental units available to voucher families in areas of opportunity, especially in those neighborhoods where the number of private rental units and landlords willing to participate in the program may otherwise be very limited.

    While Small Area FMRs present a promising opportunity to improve locational outcomes with respect to future PBV projects, HUD acknowledges that transitioning to Small Area FMRs could have negative consequences for some existing PBV projects. For example, PBV assistance has been used to support reinvestment efforts in neighborhoods that have historically experienced disinvestment. These projects (and other existing PBV projects) may be located in ZIP code areas where the Small Area FMRs are substantially lower than the metropolitan-wide FMRs. Some PBV projects may have long-term financing that relies on projected rental income that was based on metropolitan-wide FMRs. Applying the Small Area FMRs to future rent determinations may result in significant reductions in project income. These PBV projects are an important component of the affordable housing stock in many communities and HUD agrees it is important not to place them at financial risk when the area is transitioning to Small Area FMRs.

    HUD is therefore proposing to make the Small Area FMRs only applicable to PBV projects where the PHA notice of owner selection under § 983.51 was made after the effective date of the area's designation as a Small Area FMR area. For a PBV project that is already under AHAP or HAP contract before the effective date of the Small Area FMR designation, or where the PHA notice of owner selection was made prior to the effective date of the Small Area FMR designation, the Small Area FMRs will not apply. Instead, the metropolitan-wide FMRs will remain applicable to the project, unless the PHA and the owner mutually agree to apply the Small Area FMRs to the project.

    The application of the Small Area FMRs to a PBV project by mutual agreement of the PHA and the owner must be prospective, and the owner and PHA may not subsequently choose to revert to the metropolitan area FMRs. If the rent to owner will increase as a result of the mutual agreement, the owner's rent increase may not go into effect until the first annual anniversary of the HAP contract in accordance with § 983.302(b). If the PHA intends to offer owners the opportunity to mutually agree to apply the Small Area FMR to PBV projects, the PHA's policies must be included in the PHA's administrative plan.

    Comment: Small Area FMRs will curtail redevelopment. Several commenters expressed concern that use of Small Area FMRs will curtail redevelopment.

    HUD Response: The primary of objective of the tenant based HCV program is to provide families receiving assistance with the opportunity to find suitable dwellings throughout the market area. Rather than determining or influencing rents in an area, metro FMRs and Small Area FMRs are meant to reflect spatial variation in market rents. As such, we would not expect them to be the drivers of re-development, which is not easily accomplished with tenant-based subsidies. This is true at either the metro FMR or Small Area FMR level. By design, the voucher program is not a redevelopment program nor is it intended to be a catalyst for urban renewal. HUD has a variety of place based programs which are designed to spur redevelopment.

    Comment: Use of Small Area FMRs should be voluntary. Some commenters stated that the use of Small Area FMRs should be completely voluntary.

    HUD Response: In order for Small Area FMRs to work in expanding choice for voucher holders within designated metropolitan areas, all PHAs operating in the FMR area would be required to use Small Area FMRs. It is further noted that a PHA outside of a HUD designated Small Area FMR area may opt to use Small Area FMRs by requesting approval from HUD to do so.

    Comment: The only selection criteria should not be poverty. Commenters stated that poverty should not be the only selection criteria.

    HUD Response: Recent research demonstrates that long term outcomes for families are improved the sooner the family is able to move out of areas with high poverty rates.10 However, HUD agrees with commenters that additional criteria should be used to determine targeted areas. Therefore, HUD has added an income-based criterion to the area selection algorithm to identify places where a majority of families qualify for HUD rental assistance but the area would not qualify as high poverty under a strict poverty only threshold. Specifically, areas where more than 50 percent of the households have incomes below 60 percent of area median family income and are designated as QCTs but do not have poverty rates in excess of 25 percent are eligible for to be identified as a Small Area FMR metropolitan area, if the other selection criteria (number of vouchers, concentration of vouchers) are met. By using an income-based criterion in addition to a strict poverty based criterion, HUD strives to ensure that lower income families have expanded access to areas of opportunity even if they are not currently living in areas with high concentrations of voucher holders in extreme poverty conditions.

    10 Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz, 2016. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Project.” American Economic Review 106 (4).

    Comment: ZIP Codes may be too large and not constitute a housing market. Commenters are concerned that even within ZIP codes, there is significant variation among rents and Small Area FMRs do not capture these nuances.

    HUD Response: PHAs will still have the ability to establish separate payment standard amounts for designated areas within an FMR area, so in cases where rents vary significantly, PHAs will be able to set multiple payment standards within a ZIP code. PHAs will also have the opportunity to request exception payment standards within ZIP codes.

    V. Request for Comments

    While HUD seeks comment on all aspects of this proposed rule, HUD specifically seeks comment on the following topics:

    1. Should HUD provide for PBVs that are in the pipeline to continue using metropolitan FMRs even if the area is designated as a Small Area FMR area? Additionally, should HUD require newly proposed PBVs post Small Area FMR designation to use Small Area FMRs?

    2. The proposed rule provides for Small Area FMR area selection parameters to be codified in regulatory text. HUD is seeking comment on whether these parameters should be codified or should be incorporated into each annual proposed FMR notice to provide HUD, PHAs, and other stakeholders with flexibility, in any given fiscal year, to offer changes to these selection parameters and have the opportunity to comment before any changes to the parameters are made.

    3. Several commenters to HUD's ANPR suggested that HUD provide for tenant rent protections in ZIP codes where the Small Area FMR is below the metropolitan area and tenants choose not to move. No additional tenant protections were instituted for tenants serviced by PHAs accepting HUD's invitation to participate in the Small Area FMR demonstration nor were additional tenant protections implemented for tenants living in the Dallas, TX HUD Metropolitan Area when Small Area FMRs were implemented there. However, as part of a transition strategy between Metropolitan FMRs and Small Area FMRs, HUD seeks comment on what additional policies or requirements the final rule should include that would mitigate the impact of significant and abrupt decreases in the FMRs for certain ZIP code areas on families currently under HAP contract in those impacted areas.

    4. Related to question 3, HUD seeks comment on whether the final rule should limit the potential decline in the FMR for a ZIP code area resulting from the implementation of Small Area FMRs in order to ensure that sufficient housing opportunities remain available to voucher holders? If so, HUD seeks recommendations on specific policies or requirements that should be included in the final rule to achieve the desired outcome.

    a. For example, an approach would be to allow the PHA to establish exception payment standards above the basic range for impacted ZIP code areas meeting certain conditions through a streamlined HUD approval process. One example of this may be that PHAs could have the discretion of setting their payment standards at up to 130 percent of the Small Area FMR in the 1st year of transition, at up to 120 percent of the Small Area FMR in the 2nd year of transition, and at up to 110 percent of the Small Area FMR in the 3rd and subsequent years following implementation.

    b. With respect to protections for tenants currently under HAP contract, one possibility may be to increase the amount of time that the family is held harmless from a decrease in the payment standard. For instance, instead of the lower payment standard going into effect on the second reexamination following the effective date of the decrease in the payment standard, the final rule could provide that the lower payment standard would not go into effect for a family under HAP contract until a later re-examination (e.g., third, fourth, or fifth reexamination).

    5. The proposed rule adds a new paragraph (i) to § 888.113 to address the transition of metropolitan areas that were previously subject to 50th percentile FMRs. HUD believes that the Small Area FMR methodology will provide HCV tenants with greater access to areas of opportunity than metropolitan area wide 50th percentile FMRs. As a result, this rule proposes that a 50th percentile metropolitan area designated for Small Area FMRs would transition to Small Area FMRs on the effective date of the Small Area FMR designation. HUD is also proposing that a 50th percentile FMR area that is not designated for Small Area FMRs would remain under the 50th percentile FMRs until the end of the existing 3-year period for the 50th percentile FMRs prior to reverting to the standard 40th percentile FMRs. The rule does not eliminate provisions that permit a PHA with jurisdiction in a 50th percentile FMR area that reverts to the standard 40th percentile FMR to request HUD approval of payment standard amounts based on the 50th percentile rent in accordance with the existing § 982.503(f); however, HUD is specifically seeking comment on whether this provision should be eliminated in order to phase out the use of 50th percentile rents for deconcentration purposes. HUD would also appreciate comments as to whether or not the current SEMAP deconcentration standard is appropriate as the basis for PHAs requesting HUD to approve payment standards based on 50th percentile rents under existing § 982.503(f).

    HUD is specifically seeking comment on these proposed polices, as well as suggestions for alternative approaches or other recommendations on how best to phase-out 50th percentile rent FMRs for impacted metropolitan areas and transition the area to either the Small Area FMRs or the standard metropolitan-wide 40th percentile FMRs.

    6. HUD is specifically seeking comment on how to reduce the administrative burden on PHAs and simplify the transition to Small Area FMRs. For example, HUD is proposing to change the percentage decrease in FMRs that triggers rent reasonableness redeterminations from 5 percent to 10 percent for Small Area FMR PHAs. HUD requests comments, however, regarding whether 10 percent is the right trigger for program-wide rent reasonableness redetermination, whether HUD should limit this proposal to Small Area FMR decreases, or also change the percentage of decrease that triggers rent reasonableness for all FMRs, and whether it should revise the trigger for program-wide rent reasonableness redeterminations at all. In regards to potentially expanding the 10 percent trigger for rent reasonableness redetermination to a program-wide requirement, HUD seeks comments on the trade-offs between administrative relief and decreased program oversight on rent levels. HUD also requests comments on what other changes would reduce the potential administrative burden and complexity for PHAs impacted by the implementation of Small Area FMRs.

    7. HUD is currently proposing, through this rulemaking, to expand the use of Small Area FMRs within the HCV program. HUD seeks public comment as to whether or not other HUD rental assistance programs would benefit from using Small Area FMRs in their operations. For example, would the rental assistance component of the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs be a candidate for Small Area FMR treatment? Frequently, metropolitan FMRs are inadequate for HOPWA-assisted tenants to find units near health care facilities, or in neighborhoods with better job opportunities. Should the HOPWA program regulations be amended to allow participating jurisdictions the flexibility to set tenant-based assistance rents according to Small Area FMRs either in areas that would be designated Small Area FMR areas or for the HOPWA program more generally? Would other HUD programs benefit as well?

    8. As currently proposed, the Small Area FMR policy would apply to all residents within a ZIP code who receive housing vouchers. HUD seeks comment on whether there are certain situations or any specific groups of voucher recipients within the general population, such as persons with disabilities or elderly voucher recipients, where an alternate policy should apply that should exempt them from having their voucher level change as a result of this policy due to specific hardships they may encounter by having to choose between staying in their current area and receiving a smaller voucher or moving to a new area for the sake of obtaining a larger voucher?

    9. Are there specific groups within the general population of voucher holders for whom this policy change would be particularly burdensome? What are the ways in which this policy change could create a disproportionate burden on certain groups like elderly and disabled voucher holders?

    10. HUD is seeking comment on the criteria that HUD selected for determining which metropolitan areas should be impacted by the shift to a Small Area FMR instead of the current 50th percentile policy. Did HUD use the correct criteria in making these choices? What other criteria should HUD be using to select metropolitan areas that will be impacted by this rule change and why are those criteria important?

    11. The proposed rule makes no changes to 24 CFR 888.113(g), the FMR for Manufactured home space rental for voucher tenants that own manufactured housing units. Under this proposed rule Small Area FMRs would apply to manufactured home space rentals in areas designated for Small Area FMRs (i.e., FMRs for space rentals would be set at 40 percent of the 2-bedroom Small Area FMR). Given the costly nature of moving a manufactured home, HUD is seeking comment on whether or not current voucher holders using their voucher for a manufactured home space should be exempt from Small Area FMRs at their current address?

    12. HUD has proposed to amend the Exception Payment Standard rules at 24 CFR 982.503 to account for the fact that FMR areas in Small Area FMR designated metropolitan areas will be ZIP codes. HUD is seeking public comment to determine if there are other amendments HUD should make to the Exception Payment Standard Regulations to better facilitate the approval process of Exception Payment Standards. For example, the current exception payment standard regulations require that an exception payment standard may not include more than 50 percent of the population of the FMR area. This may be an impractical requirement when determining exception payment standards within a ZIP code. Similarly, given that ZIP codes more narrowly define the FMR area, the provision within the regulation that program justification may include helping families find housing outside areas of high poverty may not be applicable even though an exception payment standard may be necessary. Therefore, HUD is soliciting feedback to ensure that the exception payment standard regulations are revised so that PHAs may use this component of the regulations to optimize the administration of their HCV programs.

    13. HUD makes administrative data for research into HUD's programs available in a variety of ways (i.e., Public Use Microdata Sample—PUMS data, Research Partnerships, and Data License Agreements). HUD seeks comment on what additional data or dissemination strategies would be helpful to the public to assess the impact of the implementation of the Small Area FMR proposed rule.

    VI. Commitment To Study Effectiveness of Rule

    If following this proposed rule and consideration of public comments on this proposed rule, HUD proceeds to establish use of Small Area FMRs in the administration of the HCV program in areas where voucher tenants are disproportionately concentrated in high poverty neighborhoods, HUD recognizes the importance of monitoring the progress of use of Small Area FMRs in addressing high levels of voucher concentration. This proposed rule would set FMRs at the ZIP Code level as a tool to help voucher tenants deconcentrate rather than the current tool of FMRs being based on 50th percentile rents. The core hypothesis is that this will significantly expand the ability of HCV holders to access housing in neighborhoods with high-quality schools, low crime rates, and other indicators of opportunity, as well as integrated neighborhoods in support of HUD's goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing. However, HVC holders that choose to remain in lower-rent high-poverty neighborhoods will see a reduction in the subsidy provided by the voucher.

    The move to expand the use of Small Area FMRs is a significant policy shift for HUD. Consequently, HUD believes that understanding the impact of the policy shift away from 50th percentile FMRs to using Small Area FMRs for deconcentration is important. There are a variety of avenues through which this policy review could be accomplished, in terms of assessing the direct effects on the primary goal of deconcentration, and in terms of long term, location-related impacts. Therefore, HUD is committed to partnering in these research efforts through a variety of channels including our current Research Partnerships, Data Licensing Agreements, as well as HUD-funded research efforts. Initial research efforts will likely focus primarily on location outcomes, such as neighborhood characteristics of voucher holders both pre- and post-implementation of this policy. This research will also look at the effect on after-rent incomes of voucher holders who move to new areas and of those who choose to stay in poorer neighborhoods. Longer term research efforts could expand to consider tenant outcomes and contribute to the growing research findings of the importance of neighborhood impacts, particularly on adult outcomes of children afforded the opportunity to move to higher quality neighborhoods.

    The most immediate studies of nearer term effects of the rule, to be undertaken within 5 years of the effective date of a final rule, will focus on the following issues:

    • ZIP-Code-level FMRs allow greater variation in payment standards within a metropolitan area. This increases the range of neighborhoods HCV recipients can access using vouchers relative to metro-wide FMRs. For examining these issues, research may focus on the potential of Small Area FMRs to increase access to opportunity by analyzing the characteristics of neighborhoods in the service areas of the Small Area FMR PHAs by the share of units renting below the FMR before and after introduction of Small Area FMRs. Additionally, the research in this arena would focus on the observed effect of the adoption of Small Area FMRs on location and relocation outcomes of both new and existing HCV families. Such outcomes may focus on neighborhood poverty rates pre- and post-implementation, as well as other neighborhood characteristics such as crime rates and school rankings. Voucher holders financial well-being may also be assessed through an examination of rent burdens both before and after the implementation of the Small Area FMR policy.

    • Landlords' interest in and awareness of the HCV program may also be affected by a move to Small Area FMRs. HUD anticipates that higher payment standards in high-cost ZIP Codes would attract landlord interest while lower payment standards in low-cost ZIP Codes may discourage engagement with the program. The market response is likely to be based substantially on the extent to which the Small Area FMRs and the resulting payment standards actually provide sufficient funding to make it possible for tenants to rent units in areas of opportunity. While landlords in lower-cost neighborhoods may consider lowering (or not increasing) rent to retain a good tenant, it is less likely that landlords in opportunity areas will make rent concessions. However, landlords are still not required to participate in the HCV program so the success of Small Area FMRs in allowing HCV holders to access opportunity areas will depend on landlord willingness to participate in the program. Consequently, HUD may choose to study if the number of rental units in areas where the Small Area FMR is above the metropolitan FMR increases and/or the number of landlords offering those units increase.

    • A switch to Small Area FMRs will also affect the local PHAs that administer the HCV program. The change in Small Area FMRs could ultimately alter the average amount PHAs pay to landlords for the units they offer. Initial estimates of the impact of Small Area FMR-based payment standards on program cost, where only tenants' current locations are observed and before any moves can happen, generally predict a reduction in average subsidy cost as current voucher tenants' locations bias toward lower rent ZIP Codes. If a large enough share of households respond to Small Area FMRs by more frequently moving to or selecting higher-cost areas, a PHA may be able to ultimately fund fewer vouchers relative to the 40th percentile (or, alternatively, require additional funding from HUD to continue serving their baseline number of voucher-holders). The need to derive payment standards from Small Area FMRs rather than metro FMRs will likely require changes to PHAs' administrative processes and systems, particularly for the initial switch. Research in this area may rely upon HUD's administrative data comparing the changes in Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) costs over time. Furthermore, HUD may choose to assess the number of different payment standards the PHA administers through their annual SEMAP reporting.

    In addition, HUD seeks public comment on any other issues to be included in a future retrospective review of a final Small Area FMR rule.

    VII. Findings and Certifications Regulatory Planning and Review

    OMB reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 (entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review”). This rulemaking was determined to be an “economically significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f)(1) of the order. The accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rulemaking addresses the costs and benefits that would result if this proposed rule were to be implemented can be found at http://www.regulations.gov. The docket file is available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is not a toll-free number).

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule does not impose any federal mandate on any state, local, or tribal government or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.

    Environmental Impact

    This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern, or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing (other than tenant-based assistance), rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. HUD has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the proposed rule, which is found in Appendix B to this proposed rule. HUD finds in the IRFA that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The IRFA, which is found in Appendix B to this proposed rule and can also be found at www.regulations.gov, elaborates, and provides details on how HUD made this finding. HUD invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives, as described in this preamble, and elaborated upon in the IRFA.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, an agency from promulgating a regulation that has federalism implications and either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute or preempts state law, unless the relevant requirements of section 6 of the Executive order are met. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for 24 CFR part 982 is 14.871.

    List of Subjects 24 CFR Part 888

    Grant programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies.

    24 CFR Part 982

    Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 983

    Grant programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 985

    Grant programs—housing and community development, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR parts 888, 982, 983, and 985 as follows:

    PART 888—SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM—FAIR MARKET RENTS AND CONTRACT RENT ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 1. The authority statement for part 888 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535d.

    2. Revise § 888.113 to read as follows:
    § 888.113 Fair market rents for existing housing: Methodology.

    (a) Basis for setting fair market rents. Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are estimates of rent plus the cost of utilities, except telephone. FMRs are housing market-wide estimates of rents that provide opportunities to rent standard quality housing throughout the geographic area in which rental housing units are in competition. The level at which FMRs are set is expressed as a percentile point within the rent distribution of standard quality rental housing units in the FMR area. FMRs are set at the 40th percentile rent, the dollar amount below which the rent for 40 percent of standard quality rental housing units fall within the FMR area. The 40th percentile rent is drawn from the distribution of rents of all units within the FMR area that are occupied by recent movers. Adjustments are made to exclude public housing units, newly built units and substandard units.

    (b) Setting FMRs at the 40th percentile rent. Generally HUD will set the FMRs at the 40th percentile rent.

    (c) Setting Small Area FMRs. (1) HUD will set Small Area FMRs for metropolitan FMR areas where:

    (i) There are at least 2,500 Housing Choice Vouchers under lease; and

    (ii) At least 20 percent of the standard quality rental stock, within the metropolitan FMR area is in small areas (ZIP codes) where the Small Area FMR is more than 110 percent of the metropolitan FMR; and

    (iii) The measure of the percentage of voucher holders living in concentrated low income areas relative to all renters within these areas over the entire metropolitan area exceeds 155 percent (or 1.55).

    (2) For purposes of determining applicability of Small Area FMRs to a metropolitan area, the term “concentrated low-income areas” means:

    (i) Those census tracts in the metropolitan FMR area with a poverty rate of 25 percent or more; or

    (ii) Any tract in the metropolitan FMR area where at least 50 percent of the households earn less than 60 percent of the area median income and are designated as Qualified Census Tracts in accordance with section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 42).

    (3) If a metropolitan area meets the criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the metropolitan area will be designated a Small Area FMR and all PHAs administering HCV programs in that area will be required to use Small Area FMRs. A PHA administering an HCV program in a metropolitan area not subject to the application of Small Area FMRs may opt to use Small Area FMRs by seeking approval from HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) through written request to PIH.

    (4) HUD will designate Small Area FMR areas at the beginning of a Federal fiscal year, and make such area designations every 5 years thereafter as new data becomes available.

    (d) FMR Areas. FMR areas comprise metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and Small Areas FMR areas as follows:

    (1) Generally, FMR areas are metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan counties (nonmetropolitan parts of counties in the New England States). With several exceptions, the most current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) metropolitan area definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) are used because of their generally close correspondence with housing market area definitions. HUD may make exceptions to OMB definitions if the MSAs encompass areas that are larger than housing market areas. The counties deleted from the HUD-defined FMR areas in those cases are established as separate metropolitan county FMR areas. FMRs are established for all areas in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Pacific Islands.

    (2) Small Area FMR areas are the U.S. Postal Service ZIP code areas within a designated metropolitan area.

    (e) Data sources. (1) HUD uses the most accurate and current data available to develop the FMR estimates and may add other data sources as they are discovered and determined to be statistically valid. The following sources of survey data are used to develop the base-year FMR estimates:

    (i) The most recent American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, which provides statistically reliable rent data.

    (ii) Locally collected survey data acquired through Address-Based Mail surveys or Random Digit Dialing (RDD) telephone survey data, based on a sampling procedure that uses computers to select statistically random samples of rental housing.

    (iii) Statistically valid information, as determined by HUD, presented to HUD during the public comment and review period.

    (2) Base-year recent mover adjusted FMRs are updated and trended to the midpoint of the program year they are to be effective using Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for rents and for utilities.

    (f) Unit size adjustments. (1) For most areas the ratios developed incorporating the most recent American Community Survey data are applied to the two-bedroom FMR estimates to derive FMRs for other bedroom sizes. Exceptions to this procedure may be made for areas with local bedroom intervals below an acceptable range. To help the largest most difficult to house families find units, higher ratios than the actual market ratios may be used for three-bedroom and larger-size units.

    (2) The FMR for single room occupancy housing is 75 percent of the FMR for a zero bedroom unit.

    (g) Manufactured home space rental. The FMR for a manufactured home space rental (for the voucher program under 24 CFR part 982) is 40 percent of the FMR for a two bedroom unit.

    (h) Small Area FMRs and Project-based Vouchers. (1) This paragraph applies to project-based voucher (PBV) assistance when HUD designates a metropolitan area or approves a PHA jurisdiction for Small Area FMRs under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

    (i) The Small Area FMRs apply to all PBV projects where the PHA notice of owner selection under 24 CFR 983.51(d) was made after the effective date of the Small Area FMR designation.

    (ii) The metropolitan area FMRs continue to apply to PBV projects where the PHA notice of owner selection under 24 CFR 983.51(d) was made on or before to the effective date of the Small Area FMR designation, unless the PHA and owner mutually agree to apply the Small Area FMRs to the PBV project. This category includes all PBV projects that were under Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract or an Agreement to enter into a Housing Assistance Payment (AHAP) contract prior to the effective date of the Small Area FMR designation.

    (iii) If the PHA and owner mutually agree to apply the Small Area FMR, the application of the Small Area FMRs must be prospective. The owner and PHA may not subsequently choose to revert back to the use of the metropolitan-wide FMRs for the PBV project. If the rent to owner will increase as a result of the mutual agreement to apply the Small Area FMRs to the PBV project, the rent increase shall not be effective until the first annual anniversary of the HAP contract in accordance with 24 CFR 983.302(b).

    (2) For purposes of this section, the term “effective date of the Small Area FMR designation” means:

    (i) The date that HUD designated a metropolitan area as a Small Area FMR area; or

    (ii) The date that HUD approved a PHA request to voluntarily opt to use Small Area FMRs for its HCV program, as applicable.

    (i) Transition of metropolitan areas previously subject to 50th percentile FMRs. (1) A metropolitan area designated as 50th percentile FMR areas for which the 3-year period has not expired prior to [Effective Date of the Final Rule] shall transition to Small Area FMRs as follows:

    (i) A 50th percentile FMR area that is designated for Small Area FMRs in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section will transition to the Small Area FMRs upon the effective date of the Small Area FMR designation;

    (ii) A 50th percentile metropolitan FMR area not designated as a Small Area FMRs in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, will remain a 50th percentile FMR until the expiration of the three-year period, at which time the metropolitan area will revert to the standard FMR based on the 40th percentile rent for the metropolitan area.

    (2) A PHA with jurisdiction in a 50th percentile FMR area that reverts to the standard 40th percentile FMR may request HUD approval of payment standard amounts based on the 50th percentile rent in accordance with 24 CFR 982.503(f).

    (3) HUD will calculate the 50th percentile rents for certain metropolitan areas for purposes of this transition and to approve success rate payment standard amounts in accordance with 24 CFR 982.503(e). As is the case for determining 40th percentile rent, the 50th percentile rent is drawn from the distribution of rents of all units that are occupied by recent movers and adjustments are made to exclude public housing units, newly built units and substandard units.

    PART 982—SECTION 8 TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM 3. The authority statement for part 982 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535d.

    4. Amend § 982.503 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (c)(2) introductory text and (c)(2)(ii); b. In paragraph (f), introductory text, remove “§ 888.113(c)” and add in its place “§ 888.113(i)(3)”; and c. In paragraph (f)(2), remove “§ 888.113(c)” and add in its place “§ 888.113(i)(3)”;

    The revisions to read as follows:

    § 982.503 Payment standard amount and schedule.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Above 110 percent of FMR to 120 percent of published FMR. The HUD Field Office may approve an exception payment standard amount from above 110 percent of the published FMR to 120 percent of the published FMR (upper range) if the HUD Field Office determines that approval is justified by the median rent method or the 40th percentile rent or the Small Area FMR method as described in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section (and that such approval is also supported by an appropriate program justification in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this section).

    (ii) 40th percentile rent or Small Area FMR method. In this method, HUD determines that the area exception payment standard amount equals application of the 40th percentile of rents for standard quality rental housing in the exception area or the Small Area FMR. HUD determines whether the 40th percentile rent or Small Area FMR applies in accordance with the methodology described in 24 CFR 888.113 for determining FMRs. A PHA must present statistically representative rental housing survey data to justify HUD approval.

    5. Revise § 982.507(a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 982.507 Rent to owner: Reasonable rent.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) If there is a 5 percent or greater decrease in the published FMR in effect 60 days before the contract anniversary (for the unit size rented by the family) as compared with the FMR in effect 1 year before the contract anniversary, unless the Small Area FMRs under 24 CFR 888.113(c)(3) are applicable to the PHA, in which case the decrease in the published FMR is 10 percent or greater; or

    PART 983—PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER (PBV) PROGRAM 6. The authority statement for part 983 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535d.

    7. Revise § 983.301(a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 983.301 Determining the rent to owner.

    (a) * * *

    (3) The rent to owner is also redetermined in accordance with § 983.302.

    8. Revise § 983.302(a)(2) to read as follows:
    § 983.302 Redetermination of rent to owner.

    (a) * * *

    (2) When there is a five percent or greater decrease in the published FMR; unless the Small Area FMRs under 24 CFR 883.113(c)(3) are applicable to the PHA, in which case the decrease in the published FMR is ten percent or greater.

    9. Revise § 983.303(b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 983.303 Reasonable rent.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Whenever there is a 5 percent or greater decrease in the published FMR in effect 60 days before the contract anniversary (for the unit sizes specified in the HAP contract) as compared with the FMR in effect 1 year before the contract anniversary; unless the Small Area FMRs under 24 CFR 883.113(c)(3) are applicable to the PHA, in which case the decrease in the published FMR is ten percent or greater.

    PART 985—SECTION 8 MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (SEMAP) 10. The authority statement for part 985 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, and 3535(d).

    11. In § 985.3 revise paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3)(i)(B), and (b)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 985.3 Indicators, HUD verification methods and ratings.

    (b) * * *

    (1) This indicator shows whether the PHA has and implements a reasonable written method to determine and document for each unit leased that the rent to owner is reasonable based on current rents for comparable unassisted units: At the time of initial leasing; if there is any increase in the rent to owner; at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 5 percent decrease in the published fair market rent (FMR) in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary, or a 10 percent or greater decrease in the published FMR if the Small Area FMRs under 24 CFR 883.113(c)(3) are applicable to the PHA. The PHA's method must take into consideration the location, size, type, quality and age of the units, and the amenities, housing services, and maintenance and utilities provided by the owners in determining comparability and the reasonable rent. (24 CFR 982.4, 24 CFR 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7) and 982.507)

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (B) Based on the PHA's quality control sample of tenant files, the PHA follows its written method to determine reasonable rent and has documented its determination that the rent to owner is reasonable in accordance with § 982.507 of this chapter for at least 98 percent of units sampled at the time of initial leasing, if there is any increase in the rent to owner, and at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 5 percent decrease in the published FMR in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary, or a 10 percent decrease in the published FMR if the Small Area FMRs under 24 CFR 883.113(c)(3) are applicable to the PHA. 20 points.

    (ii) The PHA's SEMAP certification includes the statements in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, except that the PHA documents its determination of reasonable rent for only 80 to 97 percent of units sampled at initial leasing, if there is any increase in the rent to owner, and at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 5 percent decrease in the published FMR in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary, or a 10 percent decrease in the published FMR if the Small Area FMRs under 24 CFR 883.113(c)(3) are applicable to the PHA. 15 points.

    Dated: June 8, 2016. Katherine O'Regan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.

    The following appendixes will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendix A—HUD Metropolitan FMR Areas Proposed for Small Area FMRs HUD Metropolitan
  • Fair Market Rent Area
  • Voucher
  • count *
  • New York, NY HUD Metro FMR Area 119,362 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL HUD Metro FMR Area 62,472 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA 32,631 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD HUD Metro FMR Area 32,109 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA HUD Metro FMR Area 28,697 Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley, CA Metro Division 28,355 Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metro Division 28,135 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA 27,970 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 16,456 Pittsburgh, PA HUD Metro FMR Area 15,739 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX HUD Metro FMR Area 14,633 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HUD Metro FMR Area 14,307 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT HUD Metro FMR Area 12,831 Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA HUD Metro FMR Area 12,672 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX HUD Metro FMR Area 12,620 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC HUD Metro FMR Area 12,291 Nassau County-Suffolk County, NY Metro Division 11,593 Bergen-Passaic, NJ HUD Metro FMR Area 11,503 Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metro Division 10,486 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC HUD Metro FMR Area 7,951 Monmouth-Ocean, NJ HUD Metro FMR Area 7,811 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach, FL Metro Division 6,058 Jacksonville, FL HUD Metro FMR Area 5,872 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSA 5,612 Tacoma-Lakewood, WA Metro Division 5,341 Jackson, MS HUD Metro FMR Area 4,742 Urban Honolulu, HI MSA 4,146 Gary, IN HUD Metro FMR Area 3,305 Colorado Springs, CO HUD Metro FMR Area 2,957 North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL MSA 2,592 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA 2,565 * Voucher Counts as of June 30, 2015—Includes MTW, Excludes PBV.
    Appendix B—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Establishing a More Effective Fair Market Rent System; Using Small Area Fair Market Rents in Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of the Current 50th Percentile FMRs 1. Introduction

    The Regulatory Impact Analysis of the proposed Small Area Fair Market Rent (Small Area FMR) rule identifies two types of small entities that would be affected by the rule: Small Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) and small private landlords. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) furthers the analysis of the impact of the rule on small entities by including more data on the relevant sectors as well as a more rigorous definition of what is a “small” PHA. The analysis of the proposed rule satisfies Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The requirements of the IRFA are listed below.11

    11 HUD is not a covered agency, as defined in section 609(d)(2), and so is not required to comply with (d)(1) or (d)(2).

    (a) The agency shall prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. Such analysis shall describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis or a summary shall be published in the Federal Register at the time of the publication of general notice of proposed rulemaking for the rule. This requirement is satisfied by the present IRFA.

    (b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required under this section shall contain—

    (1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered: This requirement is met by Sections 2.1 and 2.3 of the IRFA. A lengthier discussion can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Preamble of the Proposed Rule.

    (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule: This requirement is met by Sections 2.1 and 2.3 of the IRFA. A lengthier discussion can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Preamble of the Proposed Rule.

    (3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply: This requirement is met by Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the IRFA.

    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record: This requirement is met Sections 3.2 and 4.2 of the IRFA.

    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule: This requirement is met by Section 7 of the IRFA.

    (c) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as—

    (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities: This requirement is met by Sections 5 and 6 of the IRFA.

    (2) The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities: This requirement is met by Sections 5 and 6 of the IRFA.

    (3) The use of performance rather than design standards: This requirement is met by Sections 5 and 6 of the IRFA.

    (4) An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities: This requirement is met by Sections 5 and 6 of the IRFA.

    Before proceeding further, Section 2 of the IRFA provides a brief summary of the main findings from the Regulatory Impact Analysis. The summary is provided for those readers who do not have ready access to the Regulatory Impact Analysis. Some readers may want more details on the anticipated economic effects of the regulation. A wide-ranging discussion can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis. Most of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is dedicated to a description of the primary small entities affected: Private landlords and Public Housing Authorities (PHAs).

    2. Summary of the Regulatory Impact Analysis

    The summary of the Regulatory Impact Analysis provides: An overview of the proposed rule, a statement of the objectives of the rule, a justification for the regulatory action, and a brief description of the economic impacts. Readers who are familiar with the Regulatory Impact Analysis may skip to the subsequent sections.

    2.1. Overview of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule proposes the use of Small Area Fair Market Rents (Small Area FMRs) in the administration of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program for certain metropolitan areas. HUD is proposing to use Small Area FMRs in place of the current 50th percentile rent to address high levels of voucher concentration. HUD believes that Small Area FMRs gives HCV tenants a more effective means to move into areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty areas by providing them with subsidy adequate to make such areas accessible and to thereby reduce the number of voucher families that reside in areas of high poverty concentration.

    HUD proposes to use several criteria for determining which metropolitan areas would best be served by application of Small Area FMRs in the administration of the HCV program. These criteria include a threshold number of vouchers within a metropolitan area, the concentration of current HCV tenants in low-income areas, and the percentage of renter occupied units within the metropolitan area with Small Area FMRs above the payment standard basic range. Public housing agencies (PHAs) operating in designated metropolitan areas would be required to use Small Area FMRs. PHAs not operating in the designated areas would have the option to use Small Area FMRs in administering their HCV programs. Other programs that use FMRs would continue to use area-wide FMRs.

    Note to Reader:

    A more comprehensive summary of the rule can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Rule itself.

    2.2. Objectives of Rule

    This proposed rule, through establishment of Small Area FMRs as a means of setting rents in certain metropolitan areas, is intended to facilitate the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program in achieving two program objectives: (1) Increasing the ability of low-income families to find and lease decent and affordable housing; and (2) providing low-income families with access to a broad range of housing opportunities throughout a metropolitan area. HUD's goal in pursuing this rulemaking is to provide HCV tenants with a greater ability to move into areas where jobs, transportation, and educational opportunities exist.

    2.3. Justification for Rule

    In October 2000, HUD published an interim final rule 12 that set higher (50th percentile as opposed to 40th percentile 13 ) metropolitan area Fair Market Rents (FMRs) where program data showed that voucher holders and public housing agencies (PHAs) needed assistance in achieving the two program objectives specified in 2.2 above. Setting the metropolitan FMR higher at the 50th percentile rent was expected to increase the number of neighborhoods affordable with a voucher, thereby aiding the dispersion of voucher holders throughout the FMR area.

    12 See Federal Register edition of October 2, 2000, at 65 FR 58870.

    13 FMRs are typically set at the 40th percentile in the distribution of rents paid by recent movers into “standard quality” units within an FMR area, generally a metropolitan area or non-metropolitan county. For more information, see http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html.

    Under the 2000 rule, FMR areas set at the higher 50th percentile rents revert to standard (40th percentile) metropolitan FMR status either when voucher holders are no longer considered geographically concentrated by the criteria established by the 2000 rule, which is codified in 24 CFR part 888, or when the voucher program fails to achieve measurable progress toward “deconcentration” within three years. If the program fails to show progress and loses its 50th percentile rent status, reestablishment of rents at the 50th percentile can be reconsidered in three years. Areas that demonstrate progress with deconcentration undergo reconsideration every year.

    Many areas have cycled in and out of 50th percentile status (see Appendix of Regulatory Impact Analysis) since the 2000 rule went into effect, suggesting it has not been an effective tool in deconcentrating voucher households in a lasting way. An emerging body of research is confirming this conclusion.14 The proposed rule therefore would replace the 50th percentile metropolitan FMRs with Small Area FMRs. Small Area FMRs are similar to metropolitan FMRs but set at the more local ZIP code level. Theory, and the early evidence from areas already piloting the Small Area FMRs,15 suggests that setting FMRs at the ZIP code level will make more units available in higher rent neighborhoods while reducing the overpayment of rents by the program in lower rent neighborhoods.16 This, in turn, should make the program more cost effective and facilitate a more lasting geographic dispersion of voucher households.

    14 Collinson, R. and Ganong, P. (2015, May) The Incidence of Housing Voucher Generosity. Retrieved December 11, 2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2255799.

    15 Small Area FMRs are only permitted to be used to set Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher payment standards in the Dallas, TX HUD Metropolitan FMR Area and by PHAs participating in the Small Area FMR Demonstration Program. See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html.

    16 See the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for a detailed discussion.

    The proposed rule does not treat Small Area FMRs as a temporary policy. Once areas are designated for use of Small Area FMRs and the new payment standards have been implemented, the rule makes no provision for a return to metropolitan FMRs. The 2000 rule was based on the assumption that once the 50th percentile metropolitan FMR is successful in encouraging voucher households to move to a wider range of neighborhoods, rents set at the 50th percentile were no longer needed.

    2.4. Summary of Economic Impacts

    HUD expects a variety of economic effects stemming from implementation of the proposed rule. Transfers involving vouchers would be the most sizable of those effects. PHAs will face both costs and benefits from the implementation of this rule. Social benefits and costs associated with the rule could be generated by a new settlement pattern among voucher holders. Quantified incremental impacts include an expected transfer of $265 million among participants and $4 million of implementation costs to PHAs. The Regulatory Impact Analysis includes a lengthy description of qualitative impacts as well details concerning the calculation of the quantitative impacts.

    3. Landlords Affected

    Some owners of rental real estate may experience a minor pecuniary impact (either positive or negative) from the regulation. Some of this economic impact is likely to be passed onto property managers: The lessors of residential building and dwellings17 is the private industry that is most likely to be affected by the regulation. While direct and indirect effects of changing the subsidy design is theoretically possible; it is empirically unlikely.

    17 This industry (NAICS 531110) comprises establishments primarily engaged in acting as lessors of buildings used as residences or dwellings, such as single-family homes, apartment buildings, and town homes. Included in this industry are owner lessors and establishments renting real estate and then acting as lessors in subleasing it to others. The establishments in this industry may manage the property themselves or have another establishment manage it for them.

    The following section describes the property management industry. It is important to keep in mind that while many businesses rent to voucher tenants, adverse effects are not expected for reasons described in this section.

    3.1. Industry Data: Lessors of Residential Building and Dwellings

    The Small Business Administration defines a lessor of residential real estate to be a small business if it earns annual revenues (sales receipts) of less than $27.5 million. In the 2012 Economic Census, the Census counted approximately 50,000 of which approximately 43,000 operated for the entire year of 2012. Our comparisons are made using the full-year data to be more consistent with the definition of what is small (firms operating the entire year).

    Of the 42,911 firms operating all year, 42,618 can be considered small firms. Total annual revenue of the industry was $84 billion,18 compared to $43 billion for small firms. Approximately 300,000 individuals were employed by firms operating all year during the pay period observed in March 2012; 200,000 of them were employed by small firms. Small lessors account for 99 percent of all firms, 51 percent of all revenue, 57 percent of all payroll, and 67 percent of employees hired during the first quarter. The industry is dominated by small firms in numbers of firms and employees, but is roughly equivalent to all large firms in terms of revenue and payroll.

    18 American Community Survey data indicate that the lessor industry revenue is approximately 20 percent of aggregate rents. The industry collects twice the average 10 percent commission for property managers. This difference could be explained by: Realtors' commissions, other activities, and lessors owning property and thus collecting the full rent.

    Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings (NAICS Industry 531110) Operated for the Entire Year 2012, United States Firm size by revenue Firms Revenue
  • ($1,000)
  • Payroll
  • ($1,000)
  • Employees
  • for period
  • including
  • March 12
  • All firms * 42,911 83,593,387 9,838,805 303,135 Revenue less than $25,000,000 42,618 42,908,437 5,574,606 202,381 Proportion small firms ** 99% 51% 57% 67% * Note that there were 50,664 firms altogether but that 42,911 operated all year. Using the larger base would reduce the proportion of small firms. ** The official size standard of the SBA is $27.5 million. Statistics are not available for this cut-off so we use the closest one leading to a slight underestimate of the proportion “small.”

    HUD is able to provide information on the number of owners who participate in the housing choice voucher program. Note that counting real estate owners is not equivalent to lessors that operate the property. One would expect there to be many more owners than lessors. Nonetheless, the data provides insight as to the distribution of vouchers. It is evident that the overwhelming proportion of owners rent to very few voucher tenants. Approximately two-thirds of owners who rent to voucher tenants rent to only one voucher tenant household. Many of these are likely owners of single-family homes for whom the rental income is not the primary source of income. Approximately 90 percent rent to no more than 4 voucher tenant households, which could be housed in a large two-story building. Very few owners rent to enough voucher tenants to occupy multiple buildings.

    U.S. Residential Real Estate Owners Renting to Voucher Tenant Households * Category of owner with voucher tenant households Number of owners with voucher tenant
  • households *
  • Percent of owners with voucher tenant
  • households
  • 1 Voucher 435,653 67.2 2-4 Vouchers 142,925 22.1 5-19 Vouchers 55,206 8.5 20-49 Vouchers 10,773 1.7 50-99 Vouchers 2,564 0.4 100-199 Vouchers 687 0.1 200 or more Vouchers 148 0.0 All 647,956 100.0 * This table describes voucher tenants but NOT non-voucher tenants. It is likely that many owners rent to additional tenants, making the above table a slight overestimate of the small landlords affected by the rule.
    The data on the distribution of owners by number of vouchers implies that industry structure is not significantly different for vouchers than for other residential rental properties. The tables do not correspond perfectly because one describes property managers and the other property owners. In addition, the table for owners shows information for voucher tenants only and does not include any unassisted tenants.

    HUD estimated that 28 percent of all vouchers are likely to be affected by the rule. If the number of lessor firms is proportional to the number of vouchers, then approximately 12,000 firms operating all year round (or 14,000 firms operating at any time) would manage units in Small Area FMR areas. They do not necessarily provide housing for voucher tenants but would be affected by any market externalities engendered by the rule. The median share of voucher holders in a census tract is 3.2 percent. Again, assuming proportionality we expect 400-500 NAICS industry 531110 firms to manage units occupied by voucher tenants in the Small Area FMR areas created by the proposed rule. The number of voucher units managed by any one firm will vary.

    3.2. Economic Impacts and Compliance Requirements on Small Landlords

    There are two types of possible effects of the rule on property owners and managers. The first is direct: An owner (and lessor) who receives income from a voucher tenant may experience a change in rental income without changing the contract or tenant. Consider a low-rent area in which the subsidy will decline. The owner (and lessor) would be held harmless if the tenant chose to make up the difference. However, suppose that the subsidy declined by a critical amount such that the tenant can no longer afford the unit. The owner has two choices: Search for a new tenant who will pay the market rent or lower the rent by enough to maintain the current tenant. The former strategy would be chosen if the housing submarket were characterized by adequate demand. The latter strategy would be chosen if the reduction in rents are offset by the costs of finding a new tenant. Thus, while the owner (and lessor) may lose a particular voucher tenant, they will not lose the rental income from that unit. The rule may generate revenue for lessors of residential building and dwellings if a significant number of moves result. Managing turnover is one of the primary services provided by a lessor to an owner. This would not be a major effect but could serve to counterbalance any minor adverse effects on lessors.

    The second type of effect is indirect (a pecuniary externality). A reduction (increase) of the voucher subsidy would lower (raise) the demand for housing in that submarket. Even properties without any voucher tenants would be affected by such a market-wide effect. However, a decline in demand would only result if voucher households make up a sufficiently large portion of rental households in a given neighborhood. Market spillovers are expected to be minimal in many areas due to the limited size of the voucher program in relation with the entire housing market. Of the 13,200 Census tracts in the areas affected by the proposed rule, the median share of voucher households is 3.2 percent. Even in areas where the share is larger, the rule does not eliminate the subsidy but reduces it. Small lessors will be disproportionately impacted by market effects only if the units leased by small lessors are disproportionately concentrated in low-rent areas.

    The proposed rule does not impose any additional reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements. Compliance and unit standards remain the same.

    An additional effect of the rule is that six current 50th percentile areas will revert to 40th percentile FMRs, as the Small Area FMR rule uses different selection criteria than the 50th percentile rule. These areas currently cover 84,000 vouchers. On average, the FY16 40th percentile FMR is $79 lower than the 50th percentile FMR, meaning a transfer of $6.6 million is expected through a combination of landlords accepting lower rent, tenants increasing out of pocket rent, or tenants moving to lower cost, less desired units.

    3.3. Public Comment in Response To Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning Impact on Housing Providers

    Comment: Small Area FMR approach would run the risk that units currently with vouchers would not be renewed in HCV program. HUD received many comments from property owners, landlords and other housing providers that expressed this concern. These comments generally focused on property owners/managers with current voucher tenants, typically within the city of Baltimore, MD. These comments suggested that if HUD were to move to Small Area FMRs, these units would not be renewed in the voucher program because the rents for the units would be too low.

    HUD Response. These units would be renewed if the family chooses to remain and the rent is reasonable. HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.507 directs that PHAs must determine if the rent to owner is reasonable at time of determining the initial rent to owner or when the FMR decreases by more than 5 percent (this proposed rule proposed to change the standard to 10 percent). Consequently, if after an FMR decrease, if the PHA deems that the rent is reasonable, the unit may be renewed, albeit with the tenant increasing their portion of the rent. Furthermore, HUD believes that the use of Small Area FMRs removes a barrier that tenants currently have in accessing housing units in areas of opportunity; namely, that subsidy levels are not high enough to afford rental units in these high opportunity neighborhoods. HUD further believes that if housing authorities determine that current rents in areas with declining Small Area FMRs are reasonable, tools are in place to address these situations (exception payment standards, reasonable accommodation, etc.)

    4. Public Housing Agencies Affected

    PHAs operating in metropolitan areas that meet the established Small Area FMR criteria of the proposed rule will be required to use Small Area FMRs in their HCV programs. As of issuance of this proposed rule, there are 31 areas listed that meet these criteria. These areas contain approximately 564,000 (28 percent) of the HCV households nationwide.19 Of these 564,000 vouchers, 387,000 vouchers are administered by PHAs that may not yet use multiple payment standards.

    19 This number includes areas that have already implemented Small Area FMRs and Moving to Work Agencies, which may not be compelled to adjust their payment standards as a result of the rule. The analysis below considers these exceptions.

    4.1. Data: Small PHAs

    A small PHA is defined by HUD to be one of less than 250 units.20 Using this definition, approximately half of the PHAs (1,100 out of 2,200) that administer HCVs are considered small. In the 31 metropolitan areas affected by the proposed rule, there are 292 PHAs, of which 80 are small. The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis authorizes an agency to adopt and apply definitions of small, “which are appropriate to the activities of the agency” for each category of small entity.21 The 250 unit limit is one traditionally used by HUD in data collection as well as by city governments. In addition, it has been shown that PHAs of this size class face greater average costs of administering housing choice vouchers.22 A greater average cost is an indicator for smaller entities is suggestive evidence of fixed costs of operation. Small PHAs make up 27 percent of the PHAs in affected areas and would manage no more than 4 percent of the vouchers.

    20 For regulatory definitions of small PHAs, see: Deregulation of Small PHAs Final Rule, 24 CFR part 902, 903, and 985.

    21 The RFA standard definition of a “small governmental jurisdiction” is the government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000.

    22 Abt Associates, 2015.

    4.2. Economic Impacts and Compliance Requirements for PHAs

    PHAs administering Small Area FMRs will likely face higher administrative costs. Initial costs would include training employees and setting up new systems. Periodic costs include costs related to payment standard and rent determinations as well any increase in moves and contract rent changes than those operating under one metropolitan FMR. PHAs change their payment standards as the FMR changes. Once the payment standard is established, and the PHA board approves, the PHA creates materials to inform their customers (and landlords) of the new payment standards. Making the transition from one to many payment standards is likely to impose some burden at initial implementation of the Small Area FMR rule.

    There are at least two ways that a PHA would respond to the increased complexity of multiple payment standards. First, it could pursue a more labor-intensive solution and ask staff to determine the payment standard manually. This would not be particularly difficult for a small PHA with few payment standards. Small PHAs typically have smaller service areas with fewer ZIP codes and therefore fewer Small Area FMR-based payments standards to determine and administer than do larger PHAs. Another solution is to make an upfront investment to automate the process of subsidy determination. A unit's address is already entered into a PHA's database. All that is needed is a tool that calculates the rental subsidy as a function of the address. HUD has the intention of developing such an application for PHAs and voucher holders tenants. For it to work, PHAs will have to provide data on their payment standard decisions to HUD. Thus, compliance costs of PHAs are expected to rise slightly but not significantly. Because the tool will be developed, tested, and provided by HUD, it is not expected that the cost of implementation will be disproportionate.

    A 2015 study 23 reports that, according to a Dallas PHA official, implementation costs of multiple payment standards were minimal at roughly $10 a household. Though it is unclear what this estimate considers, and assuming it can be applied elsewhere, as a rough measure of magnitude this would mean $3.9 million to $5.6 million in implementation costs over the 31 areas designated and 292 PHAs affected by this proposed rule. The more accurate estimate is the lower because it is based on PHAs that do not already use multiple payment standards. Both were considered for completeness. The impact on small entities would be a fraction of this impact. Assuming that all PHAs are affected and that all small PHAs are at the maximum, then the total impact on all small PHAs would be $200,000 (80 × 250 × $10). Such a conservative estimate would reduce any downwards bias in the estimate of the impact stemming from returns to scale.

    23 Collinson and Ganong, (2015, May).

    The Small Area FMR rule will be beneficial to PHAs in some important respects. First, the rule intends to eliminate the possibility that an area will cycle in and out of the 50th percentile FMR as it can currently occur under the 2000 rule. This change is expected to reduce the year-to-year administrative uncertainty and the costs of adjusting the program to changing FMR calculations over time. Second, the proposed rule is also expected to facilitate PHA and regional compliance with consolidated planning and Fair Housing requirements and allow counseling and similar efforts to be more effective.24 Finally, the use of Small Area FMRs is expected to decrease the costs of rent reasonableness determinations as the payment standards better reflect local rent levels.

    24 Advancing mobility is one of the costliest activities of a PHA.

    4.3. Public Comment in Response to Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning PHA Compliance Burden

    Comment: Small Area FMR approach would increase administrative burden. Several commenters expressed concern that Small Area FMRs would increase the administrative burden of operating the voucher program. Commenter stated that this concern is compounded because, as they stated, their administrative fee payments are inadequate to meet administrative costs.

    HUD Response: HUD recently released a final report on the costs of running a high performing housing authority [1] and HUD is currently engaged in a proposed rulemaking effort regarding the administrative fee formula. Consequently, this proposed rule does not address the adequacy of administrative fees. HUD has undertaken several steps to minimize the burden of implementing Small Area FMRs. One of these ways is to round Small Area FMRs to the nearest ten dollars to make it easier to arrange the small areas into payment standard groups.

    [1] Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrative Fee Study: Final Report (available at: http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/affhsg/hcv_2015draftfinalreport.html).

    5. Major Policy Alternatives Considered and Rejected

    There were several major alternatives to Small Area FMR rule, all of them either less effective or more costly than what was finally proposed. The obvious alternative was to retaining metro level FMRs at either the 40th or 50th percentile. However, an FMR that does not vary geographically within a metropolitan area has not achieved the policy objective of promoting location choice. Even making the subsidy more generous by increasing it from the 40th to 50th percentile has not led to long-term success in encouraging geographic mobility.

    More appropriate alternatives concern the implementation of the Small Area FMR by changing the scope of the rule to extend the Small Area FMR to more (or fewer) metropolitan areas. The proposed rule mandates the use of the Small Area FMRs in metropolitan areas meeting specific criteria and makes it voluntary elsewhere. A reasonable alternative to consider would be mandating use of Small Area FMRs everywhere. The disadvantage of such an expansive approach is that it may include metropolitan areas whether one or both of the following is true: (1) There is no problem to be solved (i.e., voucher tenants are not especially concentrated in high-poverty neighborhoods), and/or (2) the Small Area FMR is not a viable solution (i.e., nearly all opportunity areas have Small Area FMRs within the basic range of the metropolitan FMR). The Small Area FMR selection criteria in the proposed rule validate that the HCV population are unevenly distributed before implementing the program. If not, then there is no reason to impose the potential administrative costs of a deconcentration policy. If already deconcentrated, then either there is no friction in the housing market or the PHA has found alternative means of solving this problem. Second, the criteria ensure that the Small Area FMR is a potential solution by qualifying only housing markets with sufficient housing stock in areas with Small Area FMRs above the basic range (more than 110 percent) of the metropolitan FMR. Providing higher rent subsidies for high-rent ZIP codes will have little impact if there is demand but no supply. Thus, the proposed rule is a judicious trade-off between the mobility gains of voucher holders and administrative costs of PHAs.

    6. Alternatives Which Minimize Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, HUD must discuss alternatives that minimize the economic impact on small entities. In order to lessen the burden on PHAs, and specifically small PHAs, HUD has taken, or is committed to taking, several measures in implementing Small Area FMRs designed to facilitate transition to this approach and minimize costs and burdens. Specifically, HUD is pursuing the following strategies to mitigate adverse impacts:

    Publish Small Area FMRs grouped by overlapping potential payment standards. Although the proposed rule does not specifically address the format of HUD's publication of Small Area FMRs, in on-line materials HUD will provide a version of Small Area FMRs formatted and organized so as to facilitate compliance by PHAs.

    Develop a mobile application to automate payment standard determination and significantly reduce administrative costs of implementing the Small Area FMR rule for all parties involved (tenant, landlord, PHA). As noted above, HUD will be developing such an application for PHAs, voucher holders, and landlords.

    Allow the rounding of Small Area FMRs to the nearest ten dollars to make it easier to arrange the small areas into payment standard groups. Although the proposed rule does not specify the calculation methods for Small Area FMR estimates, HUD's practice in the Dallas, TX HUD Metro FMR Area and in the Small Area FMR demonstration sites has been to round Small Area FMR estimates to the nearest $10.00 to make it easier to arrange small areas into payment standard groups. Doing so reduces the number of payment standards PHAs would be required to administer.

    Consider an exemption for PHAs administering very few vouchers in Small Area FMR areas. The proposed rule exempts HUD Metropolitan FMR Areas with less than 2,500 HCVs under lease from using Small Area FMRs. HUD is seeking public comment in this proposed rule on allowing small PHAs in Small Area FMR areas to continue to use metropolitan FMRs, particularly if such PHAs' tenants are not concentrated in high poverty neighborhoods.

    In addition to the above, the presentation of the information in HUD's proposed revision to its PHA administrative fee formula would also soften any adverse impact by providing additional resources to small PHAs generally.

    7. Overlapping Federal Regulations

    The Housing Choice Voucher program is the major rental assistance program of the federal government, providing assistance to 2.2 million households. While there are many other government policies aimed at providing affordable housing, the Small Area FMR change in policy will not adversely interact with any one of them. Instead, the rule will make it easier for PHAs to comply with HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule by providing greater access to areas of opportunity. In other efforts, HUD has cooperated with other federal agencies through the Rental Policy Working Group to identify and eliminate overlap or duplication that increase the cost of providing affordable housing.

    8. Conclusion

    The majority of lessors of residential real estate and a substantial fraction of PHAs are characterized as small. If there were disproportionate effects on small entities, then a more detailed regulatory flexibility analysis would be merited. However, after an in-depth discussion of the industry structure and impact of the rule, HUD cannot conclude that there is a significant and disproportionate impact on small entities. It is true that many lessors may receive income from voucher tenants but it is not likely that they will be adversely affected once market forces are accounted for. Small PHAs could face an additional administrative burden but HUD has offered solutions to significantly reduce any burden.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13939 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0233] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Verdigris River Mile Marker 444.5 to 443.5 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone for an annually recurring marine event in the Verdigris River, from Mile Marker (MM) 444.5 to MM 443.5 in Catoosa, Oklahoma. This action is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display taking place between late June to early July, 2016 and recurring annually thereafter. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0233 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Krissy Marlin, Sector Lower Mississippi River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (901) 521-4725, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The second annual Liberty Fest is planned to take place on the Verdigris River on July 4th or the first or second weekend before the holiday and is anticipated to continue annually. The Coast Guard established a safety zone for the Liberty Fest fireworks display in 2015 through a temporary final rulemaking. For this year and subsequent years, we propose to establish the safety zone as a permanent annually recurring regulation to safeguard against the hazards associated with a fireworks display on the Verdigris River, near Catoosa, Oklahoma.

    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of this proposed safety zone is to protect both spectators and participants from the hazards associated with a fireworks display on or over the waterway.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Lower Mississippi River proposes to establish a safety zone for approximately 30-45 minutes occurring between 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on one day during July 4th or the first or second weekend before the holiday, occurring annually. The proposed safety zone would encompass all waters of the Verdigris River from Mile Marker (MM) 444.5 to (MM) 443.5 and would cover the time period necessary to ensure safety on the waterway before, during, and after the display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the time, location and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be restricted from entering, transiting, or anchoring within a small portion of the Verdigris River for approximately 30-45 minutes during the evening, when vessel transits are less frequent, on one day on July 4th or the first or second weekend before the holiday. Vessels may request permission from the COTP to deviate from the restriction and transit through the safety zone and notifications to the marine community would be made through local notice to mariners (LNM) and broadcast notice to mariners (BNM). Therefore, those operating on the waterway would be able to plan operations around the proposed safety zone and its enforcement times.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone for approximately 30-45 minutes during the evening on one day on July 4th or the first or second weekend before each year on the Verdigris River from (MM) 444.5 to (MM) 443.5. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 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, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1

    2. In § 165.801, amend table 6, as proposed to be amended at 81 FR 17635 on March 30, 2016, by adding an entry for line 14 to read as follows:
    § 165.801 Annual fireworks displays and other events in the Eighth Coast Guard District requiring safety zones. Table 6 of § 165.801—Sector Lower Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Date Sponsor/name Sector lower MS river
  • location
  • Safety zone
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 14. July 4th or the first or second weekend before LibertyFest Verdigris River, Catoosa, OK Regulated Area: Verdigris River mile marker 444.5 to 443.5, Catoosa, OK.
    Dated: June 9, 2016. J.L. Adams, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Memphis, Tennessee.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14034 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0124; FRL-9946-37-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern, respectively, the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and emissions of VOCs from the surface coating operations of wood products. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    Any comments on this proposal must arrive by July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0124 at http://www.regulations.gov, or email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider 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 discuss all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the following local rules: EKAPCD Rule 410.9 and YSAQMD Rule 1.1. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule.

    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: May 3, 2016. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14097 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 160229157-6481-01] RIN 0648-BF84 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management in the Gulf of Alaska Trawl Fisheries; Amendment 103 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 103 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). If approved, Amendment 103 and this proposed rule would allow NMFS to reapportion unused Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) within and among specific trawl sectors in the Central and Western Gulf of Alaska (GOA), based on specific criteria and within specified limits. This proposed rule would not increase the current combined annual PSC limit of 32,500 Chinook salmon that applies to Central and Western GOA trawl sectors under the FMP. This proposed rule would provide for more flexible management of GOA trawl Chinook salmon PSC, increase the likelihood that groundfish resources are more fully harvested, reduce the potential for fishery closures, and maintain the overall Chinook salmon PSC limits in the Central and Western GOA. Amendment 103 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0023, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0023, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

    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), 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).

    Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (hereafter “Analysis”) prepared for this action; the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (collectively, Amendment 97 Analysis) prepared for Amendment 97 to the FMP; and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (collectively, Amendment 93 Analysis) prepared for Amendment 93 to the FMP are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    An electronic copy of the November 30, 2000, Biological Opinion on the effects of the Alaska groundfish fisheries on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species is available at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/stellers/plb/default.htm.

    Written comments regarding the approved collection-of-information requirements referenced in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by email to [email protected] or fax to 202-395-5806. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hartman, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the GOA under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

    The Council has submitted Amendment 103 for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and a notice of availability of the FMP amendment was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2016, (81 FR 33456) with written comments on the FMP amendment invited through July 25, 2016. All relevant written comments received by the end of the comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment, this proposed rule, or both, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 103 and addressed in the response to comments in the final decision.

    The following sections of the preamble describe (1) the management areas and fisheries affected by this proposed action; (2) the management of Chinook salmon PSC in the GOA trawl fisheries; (3) the rationale for Amendment 103 and this proposed rule; and (4) the provisions of this proposed rule.

    Management Areas and Fisheries Affected

    This proposed rule would apply to federally-permitted vessels fishing in the Central and Western Reporting Areas of the GOA (referred to in the remainder of the preamble as the Central and Western GOA). The Central and Western Reporting Areas, shown in Figure 3 to 50 CFR part 679, consist of the Central and Western Regulatory Areas in the EEZ (Statistical Areas 620 and 630 correspond to the Central GOA, and Statistical Area 610 corresponds to the Western GOA) and the adjacent State of Alaska (State) waters. The specific boundaries between State waters and the EEZ are provided on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/fig3.pdf. This proposed rule would not apply to federally-permitted vessels fishing in the Eastern Reporting Area of the GOA, which consists of Statistical Areas 640, 649, 650, and 659 in the EEZ and the adjacent State waters.

    This proposed rule would apply to federally-permitted trawl vessels fishing for pollock and non-pollock groundfish that are managed under total allowable catch (TAC) limits in Federal waters and under the State's parallel groundfish fisheries in State waters. Parallel groundfish fisheries are fisheries that occur in State waters where the catch of groundfish is debited from the Federal TAC. Parallel groundfish fisheries are opened and closed by the State concurrently with adjacent Federal fisheries. Parallel fisheries are managed by the State under rules similar to those that apply in the Federal fisheries. The parallel fisheries that would be affected by this action include the GOA State trawl fisheries for groundfish species that occur in State waters in the Central and Western GOA. Additional detail on State parallel fisheries is provided in Section 1.3 of the Analysis.

    In the Central and Western GOA, trawl vessels target multiple groundfish species and are categorized by whether they participate in the directed fishery (i.e., targeted) for pollock or other “non-pollock” species. Section 679.2 defines the term directed fishing. Non-pollock species include arrowtooth flounder, deep-water flatfish, flathead sole, Pacific cod, rex sole, rockfish, sablefish, shallow-water flatfish, and other groundfish species. Many of the non-pollock trawl vessels catch and retain multiple groundfish species in a single fishing trip. Section 3.4.2 of the Analysis provides additional detail on the pollock and non-pollock trawl fisheries in the Central and Western GOA.

    Section 303(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and regulations at 50 CFR 679.20(c) require that the Council recommend and NMFS specify an overfishing level (OFL), an acceptable biological catch (ABC), and a total allowable catch (TAC) for each stock or stock complex (i.e., each species or species group) of groundfish on an annual basis. The OFL is the level above which overfishing is occurring for a species. The ABC is the level of a species's annual catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and any other scientific uncertainty. The ABC is set below the OFL. The TAC is the annual catch target for a species, derived from the ABC by considering social and economic factors and management uncertainty. The TAC must be set lower than or equal to the ABC. The TACs for some species are subject to further apportionment on a seasonal basis and among vessels using specific types of gear in the GOA (see regulations at § 679.20(a)). NMFS closes directed fisheries when a TAC or seasonal apportionment of TAC is reached, and restricts fishing in other fisheries that may incidentally take a species or species group approaching its OFL.

    The final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016) establish the current TAC amounts and apportionments of pollock and other groundfish fisheries. Only catcher vessels (CVs) are authorized to participate in the directed fishery for pollock (see § 679.20(a)(6)(i)). Pollock in the Central and Western GOA is allocated entirely to CVs, and trawl CVs fish for these allocations. This proposed rule defines the Central and Western GOA pollock trawl CV fisheries as the Central GOA and Western GOA pollock sectors.

    The non-pollock fisheries in the Central and Western GOA are harvested by vessels using trawl and non-trawl gear (i.e., hook-and-line, jig, and pot gear). This proposed rule categorizes the non-pollock trawl fisheries into three distinct sectors: The trawl catcher/processor (C/P) sector; the Rockfish Program catcher vessel (CV) sector; and the non-Rockfish Program CV sector.

    The trawl C/P sector includes trawl C/Ps that participate in a range of non-pollock groundfish fisheries in the Central and Western GOA such as arrowtooth flounder, deep-water flatfish, flathead sole, rex sole, rockfish and sablefish.

    The Rockfish Program CV sector includes any CV fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, with trawl gear in the Western or Central GOA and operating under the authority of a Central GOA Rockfish Program cooperative quota permit. The Central GOA Rockfish Program is a limited access privilege program that authorizes vessels to fish for a variety of rockfish species, Pacific cod, and sablefish in the Central GOA. Additional detail on the Central GOA Rockfish Program and the Rockfish Program CV sector is provided in Section 1.1 of the Analysis, and the final rule implementing the Central GOA Rockfish Program (76 FR 81248, December 27, 2011).

    The non-Rockfish Program CV sector is defined as any catcher vessel fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, with trawl gear in the Western or Central reporting area of the GOA and not operating under the authority of a Central GOA Rockfish Program CQ permit assigned to the catcher vessel sector.

    Section 3.4.2.1 of the Analysis describes the vessels participating in the five sectors (Central GOA pollock, Western GOA pollock, trawl C/P, Rockfish CV, and Non-Rockfish Program CV) in the Central and Western GOA.

    Management of Chinook Salmon PSC Limits in the GOA Trawl Fisheries

    The Council designated Pacific salmon and several other species (Pacific halibut Pacific herring, steelhead trout, king crab, and Tanner crab) as prohibited species in the Gulf of Alaska (Section 3.6.1 of the FMP). Prohibited species catch are species taken incidentally in the groundfish trawl fisheries and designated as “prohibited species” because they are targets of other, fully utilized domestic fisheries. The Council has recommended and NMFS has implemented various measures to control the catch of such prohibited species. Prohibited species catch incidentally caught while directed fishing for groundfish in GOA may not be sold or kept for personal use and must be discarded with a minimum of injury (see § 679.21(b)(2)). A limited exception to this discard requirement for PSC is provided for donations of halibut and salmon made under the Prohibited Species Donation program (see § 679.26). For purposes of PSC management, Pacific salmon are divided into Chinook salmon and non-Chinook salmon.

    Chinook salmon is a culturally and economically valuable species that is fully allocated and managed by the State of Alaska and the federal government. Sections 3.6 and 3.7 of the Analysis summarize salmon fishery management and describe the importance of the commercial, recreational, and subsistence Chinook salmon fisheries. The Council has recommended and NMFS has established management measures to constrain Chinook salmon PSC in the GOA groundfish fisheries. Most of the measures apply to the Central and Western GOA groundfish trawl fisheries because most of the Chinook salmon PSC in the GOA occurs in those fisheries. Amendments 93 and 97 to the FMP are the two most relevant measures. The following section describes these two amendments and their implementing regulations in greater detail.

    Amendments 93 and 97: PSC Limits in the Pollock and Non-Pollock Trawl Fisheries

    In August 2012, NMFS implemented Amendment 93 to establish Chinook salmon PSC limits for the directed pollock trawl fisheries in the Central GOA and Western GOA (77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012). Amendment 93 established an annual Chinook salmon PSC limit for the directed pollock fishery in the Western GOA (i.e., the Western GOA pollock sector) of 6,684 Chinook salmon, and an annual Chinook salmon PSC limit for the directed pollock fishery in the Central GOA (i.e., the Central GOA pollock sector) of 18,316 Chinook salmon. For the Central and Western GOA pollock sectors, the combined annual Chinook salmon PSC limit is 25,000 Chinook salmon.

    Once the PSC limit is reached in the Central GOA pollock sector or Western GOA pollock sector, NMFS closes directed pollock fishing for that particular sector. Amendment 93 is described in more detail in the final rule implementing Amendment 93 (77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012). The Regional Administrator of NMFS is the person authorized to close a groundfish sector or fishery. For simplicity, this preamble uses the term “NMFS” to refer to actions that may be undertaken by the Alaska Regional Administrator.

    In January 2015, NMFS implemented Amendment 97 to establish Chinook salmon PSC limits for the non-pollock trawl fisheries in the Central and Western GOA (79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014). Amendment 97 included a long-term average annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 7,500 Chinook salmon allocated among three non-pollock trawl sectors: (1) The Trawl C/P sector; (2) the Rockfish Program CV sector; and (3) the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector. Chinook salmon PSC use and allocations in each of these non-pollock sectors are described in greater detail in Section 4.4 of the Amendment 97 Analysis and in the final rule implementing Amendment 97 (79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014).

    Amendment 97 divided the 7,500 non-pollock Chinook salmon PSC limit into 3,600 Chinook salmon for the Trawl C/P sector, 1,200 Chinook salmon for the Rockfish Program CV sector, and 2,700 Chinook salmon for the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector. If a sector reaches or is projected to reach its Chinook salmon PSC limit, NMFS will close directed fishing for all non-pollock groundfish species by vessels in that sector for the remainder of the calendar year. The rationale for the Chinook salmon PSC limits selected for each of the three sectors is described in detail in the proposed and final rules implementing Amendment 97 (respectively, 79 FR 35971, June 25, 2014; 79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014).

    The Trawl C/P sector in the Central and Western GOA is the only trawl sector under Amendment 97 that has its annual Chinook salmon PSC limit (3,600 Chinook salmon) divided into a seasonal PSC apportionment (see § 679.21(i)(3)(ii)(A)). Prior to June 1 of each year, the Trawl C/P sector is prohibited from catching more than 2,376 Chinook salmon when the sector's annual PSC limit is set at 3,600 PSC, and 2,693 Chinook salmon when its annual PSC limit is set at 4,080 Chinook salmon (due to a carry-over from the incentive buffer, described below). The Chinook salmon seasonal PSC limit helps the Trawl C/P sector participate in directed fisheries at different times of the year and not exceed its annual Chinook salmon PSC limit.

    Amendment 97 also implemented an incentive buffer to allow the Trawl C/P sector and Non-Rockfish Program CV sector to access additional PSC if a previous year's Chinook salmon PSC did not exceed a threshold standard. The incentive buffer allows the annual Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Trawl C/P and Non-Rockfish Program CV sectors to vary depending on the amount of Chinook salmon PSC taken by those sectors in the previous year. For example, if the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector maintains an annual PSC amount equal to or less than 2,340 in one year, that sector would receive up to 3,060 Chinook salmon as its PSC limit in the following year. This feature allows for variability in Chinook salmon PSC levels, while providing an incentive to minimize PSC. The final rule implementing Amendment 97 describes the incentive buffer in greater detail (79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014).

    Many of the trawl CVs operating under Amendment 97 are eligible to participate in the Central GOA Rockfish Program (76 FR 81248, December 27, 2011). Catch of Chinook salmon PSC by the Rockfish Program CV sector is subtracted from the Chinook salmon PSC limit of 1,200 fish when a vessel is operating under the authority of a Rockfish Program Cooperative Quota permit (see regulations at § 679.5(r)(8)).

    The Non-Rockfish Program CV sector is composed of non-pollock trawl CVs that are authorized to fish for groundfish in the GOA and that are not fishing under the authority of a Rockfish Program Cooperative Quota Permit. This sector fishes primarily for Pacific cod in the Central and Western GOA and for arrowtooth flounder, deep-water flatfish, flathead sole, rex sole, and shallow-water flatfish in the Central GOA.

    Under Amendment 97, NMFS is required to reapportion all the Rockfish Program CV sector's unused Chinook salmon PSC in excess of 150 Chinook salmon to the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector on October 1 of each year, and all remaining unused Chinook salmon PSC to the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector on November 15 of each year. However, under existing regulations, NMFS is not authorized to reapportion the GOA Chinook salmon PSC limit among the Trawl C/P sector and any of the CV trawl sectors.

    Rationale for Amendments 93 and 97

    The Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, Amendments 93 and 97 to meet a variety of policy objectives. The two policy objectives most applicable to this proposed rule are to minimize Chinook salmon bycatch to the extent practicable while allowing the pollock fishery to harvest its TAC in the groundfish fisheries; and to avoid exceeding the annual Chinook salmon threshold of 40,000 that was identified in the incidental take statement accompanying the November 30, 2000, Biological Opinion on the effects of the Alaska groundfish fisheries on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmon of the Pacific Northwest (see ADDRESSES).

    The Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, Amendments 93 and 97 after analyzing a range of alternatives that considered different Chinook salmon PSC limits and methods for apportioning Chinook salmon PSC limits. The analyses for Amendments 93 and 97, and the final rules implementing them (respectively, 77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012; 79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014) describe the alternatives considered and the rationale for selecting the specific Chinook salmon PSC limits and apportionments. The two most relevant factors considered by the Council and NMFS are briefly summarized here.

    First, the Council and NMFS considered the importance of equity among user groups in the Central and Western GOA pollock and non-pollock trawl fisheries and the needs of Chinook salmon users. The Chinook salmon resource is of value to many stakeholders, including commercial, recreational, and subsistence user groups, and it is a resource that is currently fully utilized. The Council and NMFS implemented Chinook salmon PSC limits that would prevent harvest of Chinook salmon in excess of the current combined annual PSC limit of 32,500 fish.

    Second, the Council recommended and NMFS implemented Chinook salmon PSC limits that reflected the long-term average annual use of Chinook salmon PSC in the pollock and non-pollock fisheries. However, the Council and NMFS recognized that in some years, these Chinook salmon PSC limits could constrain groundfish harvests and impose costs on pollock and non-pollock trawl fishery participants. The Council and NMFS selected Chinook salmon PSC limits that reflect the long-term average use of Chinook salmon PSC as a trade-off between minimizing Chinook salmon and the potential for forgoing pollock and non-pollock catch.

    Emergency Rule

    Amendment 97 was implemented beginning on January 1, 2015. Under Amendment 97, NMFS established an annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 2,700 Chinook salmon for the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector. On May 3, 2015, NMFS closed all directed fishing for groundfish by the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector after determining that the sector had exceeded its annual PSC limit of 2,700 Chinook salmon. The Non-Rockfish Program CV sector's use of Chinook salmon in the first few months of 2015 was significantly greater than expected based on the historical data available to the Council when it established this sector's Chinook salmon PSC limit under Amendment 97. Due to the directed fishing closure, significant amounts of non-pollock groundfish remained unharvested by the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector, resulting in significant negative economic effects on fishermen, shoreside processors, stationary floating processors, and communities that participate in this sector.

    On August 10, 2015, NMFS implemented an emergency rule (see Analysis, Section 3.4.1.5) that provided the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector with an additional PSC limit of up to 1,600 Chinook salmon (80 CFR 47864, August 10, 2015). This Chinook salmon PSC limit, separate and distinct from the sector-based PSC limit of 2,700 established under Amendment 97, was anticipated to allow this sector to prosecute the Pacific cod and flatfish fisheries in the fall of 2015. The emergency rule expired on December 31, 2015.

    The emergency rule re-opened fishing for the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector while continuing to limit the sector's total amount of Chinook salmon PSC. When the emergency rule expired, the sector had used only 4 of the additional 1,600 Chinook salmon PSC limit authorized under the emergency rule.

    Rationale for Amendment 103 and This Proposed Rule

    In June 2015, after recommending adoption of the emergency rule to provide an immediate increase of 1,600 Chinook salmon PSC to the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector, the Council analyzed alternatives to provide for more flexible use of Chinook salmon PSC limits established under Amendments 93 and 97. Under Amendments 93 and 97, a Chinook salmon PSC limit assigned to a pollock or non-pollock sector applies only to that sector. Existing regulations generally do not authorize NMFS to reapportion unused amounts of Chinook salmon PSC limits among the five pollock and non-pollock sectors. This proposed rule would allow NMFS to reapportion a limited amount of unused Chinook salmon PSC from the Rockfish Program CV sector to the non-Rockfish Program CV sector late in the year. Based on previous experience with reapportioning directed fishery allocations and various PSC species (e.g., halibut), the Council determined that fishery closures could be avoided or limited by authorizing NMFS to use inseason management actions to reapportion unused amounts of Chinook salmon PSC among the pollock and non-pollock sectors.

    In December 2015, the Council recommended Amendment 103 to the FMP, which would allow NMFS to reapportion unused Chinook salmon PSC limits among the GOA pollock and non-pollock sectors established by Amendments 93 and 97. This proposed rule could prevent or limit fishery closures, such as the May 2015 closure of the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector, while maintaining the current combined annual limit of 32,500 Chinook salmon PSC. The Council determined that increasing the opportunities and flexibility for NMFS to execute inseason reapportionments of Chinook salmon PSC limits could achieve several goals without the need for revising the PSC limits established under Amendments 93 and 97.

    The Council determined and NMFS agrees that this proposed rule to implement Amendment 103 would not increase the current combined annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 32,500 Chinook salmon established for the Central and Western GOA under Amendments 93 and 97. It would increase the likelihood that groundfish resources are more fully harvested, and it would reduce the occurrence of fishery closures and resulting adverse socioeconomic impacts on harvesters, processors, and communities.

    As highlighted in the Council's purpose and need statement, this action should (1) improve NMFS' inseason flexibility for reapportioning Chinook salmon PSC and minimize closures in the GOA, (2) be consistent with goals of Amendments 93 and 97 and maintain current PSC limits, (3) not exceed the incidental take threshold for ESA-listed Chinook salmon, and (4) balance competing social and economic interests.

    Improve NMFS Inseason Flexibility for Reapportioning Chinook Salmon PSC and Minimize Closures

    One goal of this proposed rule is to provide greater flexibility to reapportion GOA trawl Chinook salmon PSC limits during years of high or unusual Chinook salmon PSC without revising the individual sector PSC limits that are currently set in regulation. For example, Chinook salmon PSC could be reapportioned from the Central GOA pollock trawl sector to the non-pollock trawl CV sector after NMFS has determined that the remaining amount of the Central GOA pollock trawl sector's PSC limit is greater than the amount projected to be necessary to harvest the pollock TAC for the remainder of the year. In the same manner, this proposed rule would allow inseason reapportionment of Chinook salmon PSC from the non-pollock trawl fisheries to the pollock fisheries or among the three non-pollock trawl sectors.

    Allowing Chinook salmon PSC limits to be reapportioned among sectors would provide NMFS with additional flexibility to allow the catch of available TAC, and in some circumstances would likely prevent or delay fishery closures or allow a closed fishery to reopen. Section 3.4.1.3.1 of the Analysis provides examples of how reapportioning unused Chinook salmon PSC among various sectors could have provided additional harvest opportunities in various sectors without exceeding the overall Chinook salmon PSC limits established under Amendments 93 and 97. Section 3.4.1.3.1 shows that, based on observed Chinook salmon PSC in 2015, the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector likely would have remained open after May 4, 2015, if NMFS had had the authority to reapportion unused Chinook salmon PSC.

    Be Consistent With Goals of Amendments 93 and 97 and Maintain Current PSC Limits

    In considering this proposed rule, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that the Chinook salmon PSC limits established in Amendments 93 and 97 continue to be the most practicable Chinook salmon PSC limits for the Central and Western GOA trawl fisheries. The Chinook PSC limits established under Amendments 93 and 97 intentionally impose the risk of closure on a sector that approaches or exceeds its Chinook salmon PSC limit.

    Based on historical Chinook salmon PSC use in the Central and Western GOA trawl fisheries and the variability in Chinook salmon PSC in recent years since the implementation of Amendment 97, a certain level of risk remains under this proposed rule that Chinook salmon PSC limits could close fisheries. After reviewing the historical Chinook salmon PSC data (see Section 3.4.1.3.2 of the Analysis), the Council determined and NMFS agrees that, in most years, the Central and Western GOA pollock sectors will fully harvest the available TACs under the Chinook salmon PSC limits established under Amendment 93.

    Of the five sectors covered by Amendments 93 and 97, the three non-pollock sectors are more likely to be constrained by their Chinook salmon PSC limits because Amendment 97 set those three sectors' Chinook salmon PSC limits close to their historical use levels (see the final rule for implementing Amendment 97 (79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014)).

    As with Amendments 93 and 97, this proposed rule is intended to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable. Several provisions of this proposed rule are designed to achieve that objective. For example, this proposed rule establishes a “cap” on the amount of reapportioned Chinook salmon PSC limit that a sector may receive in a single year. By capping the amount of PSC that can be received by a sector through a reapportionment, this proposed rule balances the goal of flexibility to reapportion Chinook salmon PSC limits with the goal to minimize PSC, consistent with National Standard 9.

    Section 3.8 of the Analysis identifies the potential for small increases in the annual Chinook salmon PSC under this proposed rule relative to the status quo due to the increased flexibility to reapportion Chinook salmon PSC limits. The Council and NMFS concluded that the small scale of the potential PSC increases and effective PSC limits are consistent with the goals of Amendments 93 and 97. During years in which a CV sector is constrained by Chinook salmon PSC and receives a Chinook salmon PSC reapportionment, the flexibility provided by this proposed rule could increase the aggregate amount of Chinook salmon that are taken across all GOA trawl fisheries.

    Section 3.8 of the Analysis estimates that the most likely scenario for reapportionment under this proposed rule is from one or both of the pollock sectors to either the Rockfish CV sector or the Non-Rockfish CV sector. Because this proposed rule would cap the maximum amount that would be reapportioned, as described later in this preamble, the most likely scenario is that NMFS would reapportion no more than 2,000 Chinook salmon in any year, or approximately 6 percent of the current combined 32,500 Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Central and Western GOA trawl fisheries. The Council explained that while this proposed rule would allow for slightly higher Chinook PSC, that amount of PSC would still be within the combined annual 32,500 Chinook salmon PSC limit established by Amendments 93 and 97. The proposed rule therefore appropriately balances the objectives of the National Standards. See discussion below.

    While the provisions of this proposed rule would likely result in some additional Chinook salmon PSC reapportionment, NMFS does not expect that this proposed rule would provide incentives for participants to increase PSC use or ignore PSC limits established by Amendments 93 and 97. Three factors explain why sectors are unlikely to drastically reduce their effort to avoid Chinook salmon as a result of this proposed rule (see Analysis, Section 3.8). First, the reapportionment provisions in this proposed rule would not guarantee that Chinook salmon PSC limit reapportionments would be available in a given year. Chinook salmon PSC encounter levels are highly variable across years. The years in which a sector reaches its PSC limit are likely to be years in which other GOA trawl sectors are experiencing similarly high Chinook salmon PSC levels, thus reducing the availability of reapportionments to GOA trawl sectors. Second, NMFS inseason managers would not necessarily make an immediate reapportionment to a closed sector. Although this proposed rule could prevent a closure for a sector during an entire year, the possibility exists that fishing opportunities might be forgone for at least part of a year. Third, most reapportionment of Chinook salmon PSC limits are likely to be from the Central or Western GOA pollock sectors, and most of the Chinook salmon PSC use in those two sectors occurs later in the year. NMFS likely would not make large PSC limit reapportionments from either of these pollock sectors to a non-pollock sector until NMFS is able to reasonably project that a pollock sector's PSC use will be below its PSC limit for the remainder of the year.

    The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that authorizing NMFS to reapportion Chinook salmon PSC limits from one sector to another will not increase the likelihood of exceeding the current combined annual Chinook salmon PSC amount of 32,500. The individual PSC limits for the pollock sectors and non-pollock trawl sectors are unchanged by this action. As described above under the section titled “Management of PSC Limits in the GOA,” NMFS would have sufficient and timely PSC data to close these fisheries and avoid exceeding the current combined annual amount of 32,500 Chinook salmon PSC.

    ESA Incidental Take Threshold for Chinook Salmon

    Under this proposed rule, the trawl fisheries would continue to avoid exceeding the annual Chinook salmon ESA threshold of 40,000 Chinook salmon that was identified in the incidental take statement accompanying the November 30, 2000, Biological Opinion (see ADDRESSES). Establishing a limit on the amount of Chinook salmon PSC that may be taken on an annual basis in the pollock and non-pollock trawl fisheries in the Central and Western GOA would accomplish that goal. This proposed rule would continue to limit the combined annual Chinook salmon PSC in the Central and Western GOA trawl fisheries to 32,500 Chinook salmon, much less than the 40,000 Chinook salmon threshold.

    Balance Competing Social and Economic Interests: National Standards

    The Council concluded and NMFS agrees that this proposed rule could mitigate the potential for Chinook salmon PSC limits implemented under Amendments 93 and 97 to cause adverse social and economic effects of an early fishery closure while continuing to minimize Chinook salmon PSC to the extent practicable. Reapportioning Chinook salmon PSC limits to a sector to avoid a fishing closure or to reopen a fishery may prevent negative impacts to harvesters, processors, and GOA coastal communities that depend on that groundfish resource.

    Section 3.4.1.5 of the Analysis provides an example of the forgone revenue to harvesters and processors from the Chinook salmon PSC limit closure for the non-Rockfish Program CV sector that would likely have been avoided under this proposed rule (see Analysis, Section 3.4.1.5). Based on average groundfish catch by the sector from 2010 through 2014, reapportionment of unused Chinook salmon PSC limits to the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector before May 2015 could have avoided the loss of approximately $4.6 million in gross revenues to GOA trawl harvesters and $11.3 million in gross revenues to processers. The reapportionment of Chinook salmon PSC limits to that sector could have also avoided adverse impacts to employees and businesses in the Kodiak Borough and City of Kodiak where most of the non-Rockfish Program CV sector catch is landed and processed.

    NMFS determined that Amendments 93 and 97 were fully consistent with all 10 of the National Standards included in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (18 U.S.C. 1801(a)). In recommending this proposed rule, the Council and NMFS concluded that providing additional authority to NMFS to reapportion Chinook salmon PSC limits in the pollock and non-pollock trawl sectors is consistent with Amendments 93 and 97 and the National Standards, and it appropriately balances the National Standards' competing interests. The Council determined and NMFS agrees that reapportioning Chinook salmon PSC could benefit GOA trawl vessel operators, crew members, processors, support industries, and communities that are dependent on those fisheries, without modifying the overall PSC limits that were established to protect the Chinook salmon resource.

    Of particular importance to this proposed rule are National Standards 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9 (see Analysis, Section 5.1). Section 5.1 of the Analysis describes the consistency of this proposed rule with all National Standards. This proposed rule increases the likelihood that groundfish TACs will be achieved, allows for management actions to adjust to the variation in Chinook salmon PSC rates among sectors within a year, and decreases the likelihood that harvesters, processors, and communities are adversely affected by fishery closures due to Chinook salmon PSC limits. Those objectives are consistent with National Standards 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9.

    The Council determined and NMFS agrees that this action should not revise observer deployment, coverage, or observer sampling estimation methods in the Central and Western GOA pollock and non-pollock trawl fisheries. NMFS' catch, bycatch, and PSC estimation methods are described in more detail in Section 3.3 of the Analysis.

    Provisions of This Proposed Rule

    The Council and NMFS considered a range of options that would limit the amount of unused Chinook salmon PSC that could be reapportioned to a sector and the number of sectors that could receive an apportionment (see Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 of the Analysis). This analysis included options that were considered by the Council, but not adopted. The remainder of this preamble describes only those provisions that would be implemented by this proposed rule.

    Before making any reapportionment, this proposed rule specifies that NMFS would first project the amount of Chinook salmon PSC that would be unused by a sector during the remainder of the fishing year. Section 3.4.1.4 of the Analysis describes some of the factors that NMFS would consider in making its projections of Chinook salmon PSC use. Proposed regulations at § 679.21(h)(5)(iii) direct NMFS to publish any reapportionment of unused Chinook salmon PSC limits in the Federal Register.

    The following paragraphs describe: (1) The sectors that can receive a reapportionment of unused Chinook salmon PSC; (2) the amount of unused Chinook salmon PSC that can be reapportioned to a sector; and (3) non-substantive revisions to existing Chinook salmon PSC regulations to improve clarity.

    This proposed rule would authorize NMFS to reapportion unused Chinook salmon PSC from any of the five pollock or non-pollock sectors to any other sector, except the Trawl C/P sector. The Council recommended and NMFS proposes excluding the Trawl C/P sector because data on historic PSC use indicates that the Trawl C/P sector is not likely to exceed its current Amendment 97 PSC limit (Section 3.8 of the Analysis). In addition, the Trawl C/P sector is eligible to earn and carry forward additional Chinook salmon PSC by qualifying for the Amendment 97 incentive buffer described earlier in this preamble (see Section 3.8 of the Analysis).

    This proposed rule would limit, or “cap” the maximum amount of unused Chinook salmon PSC that a sector could receive on an annual basis. Specifically, a reapportioned amount cannot be greater than 50 percent of the Chinook salmon PSC limit initially assigned for that sector under either Amendment 93 or Amendment 97. For example, Amendment 97 initially assigned a PSC limit of 1,200 Chinook salmon to the Rockfish Program CV sector. Therefore, under this proposed rule, NMFS could not reapportion more than 600 unused Chinook salmon PSC from another sector to the Rockfish Program CV sector.

    Section 679.21(h)(5)(iv)(A) through (D) of the proposed regulations specifies that the amount of unused Chinook salmon PSC limits reapportioned to an eligible sector may not exceed the following amounts:

    • 3,342 Chinook salmon to the Western GOA pollock sector;

    • 9,158 Chinook salmon to the Central GOA pollock sector;

    • 600 Chinook salmon to the Rockfish Program CV sector; or

    • 1,350 Chinook salmon to the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector

    The Council determined and NMFS believes that these caps on the reapportionment will allow NMFS to reapportion Chinook salmon PSC when needed and justified by the circumstances.

    In considering the selection of the 50 percent PSC reapportionment cap—as opposed to lower percentages that were considered—the Council and NMFS considered the difficulty, if not impossibility, of identifying the precise minimum amount of Chinook salmon PSC that each sector would need to keep operating and supporting its dependent stakeholders in all future years. The Council and NMFS concluded that selecting a smaller percentage (thus allowing for a smaller reapportionment) could preclude the reapportionment of sufficient amounts of Chinook salmon PSC to avoid fishery closures, particularly for sectors such as the Rockfish CV Sector that have small initial Chinook salmon PSC limits (See Analysis, Section 3.8).

    This proposed rule would modify the existing reapportionment of Chinook salmon PSC limits from the Rockfish Program CV sector to the non-pollock Non-Rockfish Program CV sector on October 1. The current regulation at § 679.21(i)(4) states that the reapportionment of all but 150 of the unused Chinook salmon PSC limit remaining in the Rockfish Program CV sector's annual limit of 1,200 fish must be reapportioned to the non-Rockfish Program CV sector on October 1.

    The proposed regulations at § 679.21(h)(5)(i) provide NMFS with the discretion to reapportion Chinook salmon PSC from the Rockfish Program CV sector to the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector on October 1 with one exception: NMFS cannot reapportion an amount of Chinook salmon PSC that would leave a remaining balance of less than 150 Chinook salmon PSC as of October 1. The removal of the requirement that NMFS reapportion all but 150 PSC from the Rockfish Program CV sector to the Non-Rockfish Program Sector on October 1 is consistent with the overall intent of this proposed rule (See Section 2.1 of the Analysis) because the Rockfish Program CV sector may require more than 150 Chinook salmon PSC after October 1 in future years if harvesting patterns change. Section 3.4.1.3.3 of the Analysis notes that most of the vessels participating in the Rockfish Program CV sector also prosecute late-year non-pollock fisheries (Pacific cod and flatfish). Providing additional management flexibility in the amount of Chinook salmon reapportioned to the Non-Rockfish CV sector on October 1 decreases the likelihood that participants would have to forgo catch in one non-pollock sector in order to participate in another sector.

    The proposed regulations at § 679.21(h)(5)(ii) provide NMFS with the discretion to reapportion all unused Chinook salmon PSC limit from the Rockfish Program CV sector to the non-pollock Non-Rockfish Program CV sector on November 15 of each year but not to exceed 50 percent of the receiving sector's initial allocation. This additional flexibility is consistent with the overall intent of this proposed rule (See Section 2.1 of the Analysis) because the Rockfish Program CV sector may continue to need some Chinook salmon PSC limit after November 15 to prosecute late-year non-pollock fisheries. Providing additional management flexibility in the amount of Chinook salmon reapportioned the Non-Rockfish CV sector on November 15 of each year decreases the likelihood that participants would have to forgo catch in one non-pollock sector in order to participate in another sector.

    This proposed rule would consolidate the regulations for Chinook salmon PSC limits in the GOA pollock and non-pollock trawl fisheries currently found at § 679.21(h) and (i) into § 679.21(h). The Chinook salmon PSC regulations for the GOA pollock fishery are currently found at § 679.21(h), and the Chinook salmon PSC regulations for the GOA non-pollock fisheries are currently found at § 679.21(i). This proposed rule would consolidate under § 679.21(h) all the current Chinook salmon PSC limits and management measures as well as the proposed regulations to authorize the reapportionment of Chinook salmon PSC limits among the GOA pollock and non-pollock trawl sectors. Consolidation of the Chinook salmon PSC limit regulations under § 679.21(h) would not result in any technical or substantive changes to the existing procedures, policies, and requirements that were implemented under Amendments 93 and 97. Consolidation would allow for more efficient, clear, and concise regulations for the entities regulated by this proposed rule. NMFS is not taking public comment on those policies and procedures previously implemented through Amendments 93 and 97.

    Classification

    Pursuant to sections 304(b) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 103, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this proposed rule are contained earlier in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.

    A business primarily involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual gross receipts not in excess of the applicable size standard for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Fishing vessels are considered small entities if their total annual gross receipts, from all their activities combined, are less than $20.5 million (see Analysis, Section 4).

    The entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are those federally permitted or licensed entities that participate in harvesting groundfish from the Federal or State-managed parallel pollock and non-pollock trawl fisheries of the Central and Western GOA. Fishing vessels are considered small entities if their total annual gross receipts, from all their activities combined, are less than $20.5 million. Based on 2013 data, the IRFA identified 32 CVs that are defined as small entities. The IRFA also identified one trawl C/P that is defined as a small entity. Therefore, 33 small entities would be directly regulated by this proposed rule.

    Neither processors nor other stakeholders are directly regulated by this proposed rule because they are not apportioned Chinook salmon PSC limits. The processors that take deliveries of trawl-caught GOA groundfish, and other stakeholders not directly regulated by this proposed rule, are therefore excluded from the IRFA.

    An IRFA requires a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule(s) that accomplish the stated objectives, are consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. This proposed rule has several elements: (1) It establishes authority for NMFS to reapportion Chinook salmon PSC limits among the Central GOA pollock, Western GOA pollock Trawl C/P, Rockfish Program CV, and Non-Rockfish Program CV sectors; (2) it excludes the trawl C/P sector from receiving reapportioned unused Chinook salmon PSC limits; (3) it limits the amount of unused Chinook salmon PSC that can be reapportioned; and (4) it provides flexibility for NMFS to determine if it is appropriate to reallocate in excess of 150 unused Chinook salmon PSC, or a different amount, from the Rockfish Program CV sector to the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector.

    During consideration of this proposed rule, the Council and NMFS evaluated a number of alternatives including (1) no action; (2) authorizing reapportionment of unused Chinook salmon PSC limit to the trawl C/P sector; and (3) limiting the percent of Chinook salmon PSC that can be reapportioned to or from a sector based on the amount of the Chinook salmon PSC initially assigned to a sector (between 10 percent and 50 percent of the initial Chinook salmon PSC limit). None of these alternatives met the objectives of this proposed rule and had a smaller impact on small entities.

    The no action alternative fails to provide tools to reapportion Chinook salmon PSC limits to pollock and non-pollock trawl sectors to avoid fishery closures, and thus fails to meet the principal objective of this proposed rule. Authorizing trawl C/Ps to receive reapportionments of Chinook salmon PSC limits would be unnecessary based on historical use of Chinook salmon PSC by that sector and the apportionments of PSC granted to that sector under Amendment 97.

    Limiting the percent of Chinook salmon PSC that could be reapportioned from a sector could allow some sectors, such as the Non-Rockfish Program CV sector, to use more than twice the amount of Chinook salmon PSC than was initially apportioned under Amendment 97. That would be inconsistent with the goals of Amendment 103. Limiting the amount of Chinook salmon PSC that could be received in a reapportionment to 40 percent or less of the sector's initial limit could be insufficient to adequately reduce the number of trawl fishery closures from reaching a PSC limit. Thus, the Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that these smaller percentages would not be consistent with the goals of the previous GOA trawl PSC limits under Amendments 93 and 97, or with Amendment 103.

    No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed rule and existing Federal rules has been identified.

    Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    OMB Control Number 0648-0515

    This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number OMB Control Number 0648-0515. Public reporting burden for eLandings landing report is estimated to average ten minutes per individual response and eLandings production report is estimated to average five minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

    Although the eLandings landing report and eLandings at-sea production report are included in the non-substantive revisions for this rule, this rulemaking imposes no additional burden or cost on the regulated community. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSEES) and by email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., 3631 et seq.; and Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

    2. In § 679.7, revise paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:
    § 679.7 Prohibitions.

    (b) * * *

    (8) Prohibitions specific to salmon discard in the Western and Central Reporting Areas of the GOA directed fisheries for groundfish. Fail to comply with any requirements of § 679.21(h).

    3. In § 679.21: a. Revise paragraph (h); and b. Remove paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch management.

    (h) GOA Chinook Salmon PSC Management—(1) Applicability. Regulations in this paragraph apply to trawl vessels participating in the directed fishery for groundfish in the Western and Central reporting areas of the GOA and processors receiving deliveries from these vessels.

    (2) GOA Chinook salmon PSC limits for the pollock sectors (fisheries). (i) The annual PSC limit for vessels participating in the directed fishery for pollock in the Western reporting area of the GOA is 6,684 Chinook salmon.

    (ii) The annual PSC limit for vessels participating in the directed fishery for pollock in the Central reporting area of the GOA is 18,316 Chinook salmon.

    (3) GOA non-pollock trawl sectors. For the purposes of accounting for the annual Chinook salmon PSC limits at paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this section, the non-pollock trawl sectors are:

    (i) Trawl catcher/processor sector. The Trawl catcher/processor sector is any catcher/processor vessel fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, with trawl gear in the Western or Central GOA reporting area and processing that groundfish at sea;

    (ii) Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector. The Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector is any catcher vessel fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, with trawl gear in the Western or Central reporting area of the GOA and operating under the authority of a Central GOA Rockfish Program CQ permit assigned to the catcher vessel sector; and

    (iii) Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector. The Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector is any catcher vessel fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, with trawl gear in the Western or Central reporting area of the GOA and not operating under the authority of a Central GOA Rockfish Program CQ permit assigned to the catcher vessel sector.

    (4) GOA Chinook salmon PSC limits for non-pollock trawl fisheries. (i) The annual Chinook salmon PSC limits in the Western and Central reporting areas of the GOA for the sectors defined in paragraph (h)(3) of this section are as follows:

    For the following sectors defined in § 679.21(h)(3) . . . The total Chinook salmon PSC limit in each calendar year is . . . Unless, the use of the Chinook salmon PSC limit for that sector in a calendar year does not
  • exceed . . .
  • If so, in the following calendar year, the Chinook salmon PSC limit for that sector will be . . .
    (A) Trawl catcher/processor sector 3,600 3,120 4,080 (B) Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector 1,200 N/A (C) Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector 2,700 2,340 3,060

    (ii) For the Trawl catcher/processor sector defined in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section:

    (A) The seasonal PSC limit prior to June 1 is 2,376 Chinook salmon if the annual Chinook salmon PSC limit is 3,600. The seasonal PSC limit prior to June 1 is 2,693 Chinook salmon if the annual Chinook salmon PSC limit is 4,080.

    (B) The number of Chinook salmon PSC available on June 1 through the remainder of the calendar year is the annual Chinook salmon PSC limit specified for the Trawl catcher/processor sector minus the number of Chinook salmon used by that sector prior to June 1 and any Chinook salmon PSC limit reapportioned to another sector specified at paragraph (h)(5)(iii) of this section prior to June 1.

    (5) Inseason reapportionment of Chinook salmon PSC limits. (i) On October 1, the Regional Administrator may reallocate any unused Chinook salmon PSC available to the Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector, defined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, in excess of 150 Chinook salmon to the Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector, but not to exceed the Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector's limit on Chinook salmon PSC reapportionment as defined in paragraph (h)(5)(iv)(D) of this section.

    (ii) On November 15, the Regional Administrator may reallocate all remaining Chinook salmon PSC available to the Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector, defined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, to the Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector, but not to exceed the Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector's limit on Chinook salmon PSC reapportionment as defined in paragraph (h)(5)(iv)(D)of this section.

    (iii) Any Chinook salmon PSC limit in paragraphs (h)(2) or (h)(4) of this section projected by the Regional Administrator to be unused during the remainder of the fishing year may be reapportioned subject to the Chinook salmon PSC limits in paragraphs (h)(5)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section for the remainder of the fishing year. NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register announcing any Chinook salmon PSC limit reapportionments in the GOA.

    (iv) On an annual basis, NMFS shall not reapportion an amount of unused Chinook salmon PSC greater than the following amounts:

    (A) 3,342 Chinook salmon to vessels participating in the directed fishery for pollock in the Western reporting area of the GOA;

    (B) 9,158 Chinook salmon to vessels participating in the directed fishery for pollock in the Central reporting area of the GOA;

    (C) 600 Chinook salmon to the Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector defined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section; and

    (D) 1,350 Chinook salmon to the Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel sector defined in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this section.

    (6) Salmon retention. (i) The operator of a vessel, including but not limited to a catcher vessel or tender, must retain all salmon until delivered to a processing facility.

    (ii) The operator of a catcher/processor or the owner and manager of a shoreside processor or SFP receiving groundfish deliveries from trawl vessels must retain all salmon until the number of salmon by species has been accurately recorded in the eLandings at-sea production report or eLandings groundfish landing report.

    (iii) The owner and manager of a shoreside processor or SFP receiving pollock deliveries must, if an observer is present, retain all salmon until the observer is provided the opportunity to count the number of salmon and collect scientific data or biological samples from the salmon.

    (iv) The operator of a catcher/processor must retain all salmon until an observer is provided the opportunity to collect scientific data or biological samples from the salmon.

    (7) Salmon discard. Except for salmon under the PSD program defined in § 679.26, all salmon must be discarded after the requirements at paragraphs (h)(6)(ii) or (h)(6)(iii) of this section have been met.

    (8) GOA Chinook salmon PSC closures. If, during the fishing year, the Regional Administrator determines that:

    (i) Vessels participating in the directed fishery for pollock in the Western reporting area or Central reporting area of the GOA will reach the applicable Chinook salmon PSC limit specified for that reporting area under paragraph (h)(2) of this section or the applicable limit following any reapportionment under paragraph (h)(5) of this section, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register closing the applicable regulatory area to directed fishing for pollock;

    (ii) Vessels in a sector defined in paragraph (h)(3) of this section will reach the applicable Chinook salmon PSC limit specified for that sector under paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this section or the applicable limit following any reapportionment under paragraph (h)(5) of this section, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register closing directed fishing for all groundfish species, other than pollock, with trawl gear in the Western and Central reporting areas of the GOA for that sector; or

    (iii) Vessels in the Trawl catcher/processor sector defined in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section will reach the seasonal Chinook salmon PSC limit specified at paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(A) of this section prior to June 1, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register closing directed fishing for all groundfish species, other than pollock, with trawl gear in the Western and Central reporting areas of the GOA for all vessels in the Trawl catcher/processor sector until June 1. Directed fishing for groundfish species, other than pollock will reopen on June 1 for the Trawl catcher/processor sector defined in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section with the Chinook salmon PSC limit determined at paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(B) of this section unless NMFS determines that the amount of Chinook salmon PSC available to the sector is insufficient to allow the sector to fish and not exceed its annual Chinook salmon PSC limit.

    [FR Doc. 2016-14237 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 116 Thursday, June 16, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 13, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by July 18, 2016. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0186.

    Summary of Collection: The Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-78; 7 U.S.C. 1635-1636h) mandates the reporting of information on prices and quantities of livestock and livestock products. The 1999 Act was established to provide timely, accurate, and reliable market information on the marketing of cattle, swine, lambs, and related products. Under this program, certain livestock packers, livestock product processors and importers meeting certain criteria, including size as measured by annual slaughter are required to report market information to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). On September 30, 2015, the Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015 (2015 Reauthorization Act) reauthorized LMR for an additional five years, until September 30, 2020. The information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of AMS. USDA's market news provides all market participants, including producers, with the information necessary to make intelligent and informed marketing decisions.

    Need and use of the information: The information collected and recordkeeping requirements will serve as the basis for livestock and livestock product market news reports utilized by the industry for marketing purposes. The reports are used by other Government agencies to evaluate market conditions and calculate price levels. Economists at major agricultural colleges and universities use the reports to make short and long-term market projections. The information is reported up to three times daily and once weekly and is only available directly from those entities required to report under the Act.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 128.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting; Weekly; Other (Daily).

    Total Burden Hours: 23,791.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14264 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0119] Implementation of Revised Lacey Act Provisions AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey Act to provide, among other things, that importers submit a declaration at the time of importation for certain plants and plant products. Enforcement of the declaration requirement began on April 1, 2009, and products requiring a declaration are being phased-in. The purpose of this notice is to clarify that the declaration is required for all formal consumption entries of plant and plant products into the United States, including those entries from foreign trade zones and bonded warehouses.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Parul Patel, Senior Agriculturalist, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2351.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), first enacted in 1900 and significantly amended in 1981, is the United States' oldest wildlife protection statute. The Act combats trafficking in illegally taken wildlife, fish, and plants. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey Act by expanding its protection to a broader range of plants and plant products (Section 8204, Prevention of Illegal Logging Practices). As amended, the Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant, with some limited exceptions, taken in violation of the laws of a U.S. State or any foreign law that protects plants. The Lacey Act also makes it unlawful to make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any plant.

    In addition, Section 3 of the Lacey Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3372), makes it unlawful to import certain plants and plant products without an import declaration. The declaration must contain, among other things, the scientific name of the plant, value of the importation, quantity of the plant, and name of the country from where the plant was harvested. For paper and paperboard products containing recycled content, the declaration also must include the average percent of recycled content without regard for species or country of harvest. Currently, enforcement of the declaration requirement is being phased in, as described in three notices we published in the Federal Register,1 the first on February 3, 2009 (74 FR 5911, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0119), the second on September 2, 2009 (74 FR 45415, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0119), and the third on February 6, 2015 (80 FR 6681, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0019).

    1 To view these notices and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0119.

    In our February 2009 notice, we stated that we would be enforcing the declaration requirement only as to formal consumption entries (i.e., most commercial shipments). We also stated that we did not intend to enforce the declaration requirement for informal entries (i.e., most personal shipments), personal importations, mail (unless subject to formal entry), transportation and exportation entries, in-transit movements, carnet importations (i.e., merchandise or equipment that will be re-exported within a year), and U.S. Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ) and bonded warehouse entries.

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has become aware of certain instances where a Plant and Plant Product Declaration has not been filed for plant or plant products entered into the United States from FTZ and bonded warehouses. This practice is not in conformity with the purpose and intent of the Lacey Act, as amended. We are publishing this notice to make clear that such a declaration is required for all formal consumption entries of plant and plant products imported into the United States, including those entries from FTZ and bonded warehouses. However, such declarations are not required for admission into such FTZ or bonded warehouses, which is what we were referring to in the February 2009 notice when we stated that we did not intend to enforce the declaration requirement for FTZ and warehouse entries.

    APHIS will continue to provide the latest information regarding the Lacey Act on our Web site, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/. The Web site currently contains the Lacey Act, as amended; a slideshow covering background and context, requirements, commodities and products covered, information on prohibitions, and the current status of implementation of the declaration requirement of the Lacey Act; frequently asked questions; the phase-in implementation plan; a link to the Lacey Act Web Governance System (LAWGS); and the paper declaration form. The Web site will be updated as new materials become available.

    We encourage persons interested in receiving timely updates on APHIS' Lacey Act efforts to register for our stakeholder registry at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/subscriber/new/ and select “Lacey Act Declaration” as a topic of interest.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of June 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14247 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 13, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by July 18, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Sand Pears from China.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0390.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 U.S.C 7701—et seq), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests new to the United States or not known to be widely distributed throughout the United States. The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (Title 7, CFR 319.56) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the U.S. from certain parts of the world. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for carrying out these duties. APHIS has amended the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of Chinese sand pears from China into the United States.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS uses the following information collection activities to allow for the importation of sand pears from China into the United States while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests: Operational Workplan; Production Site Registration; Packinghouse Registration; Test and Certification of Propagative Material; Inspection of Registered Production Site; Investigation for Recertification of Production Site; Tracking System for Packinghouses; Inspection of Packinghouse; Handling Procedure; Labeling of Cartons; Phytosanitary Certificate with Additional Declaration; Trapping System; Recordkeeping for Trap Location; Packinghouse Notification of Pest Detection; Mitigation Measures for Production Site Detection; Mitigation Measures for Packinghouse Detection; Certification of Cold Treatment Facilities; Cold Treatment Facility Numbered Seal; Cold Treatment Review of Treatment Records; Cold Treatment Facility Audits; and Cold Treatment Monitoring. Failing to collect this information would cripple APHIS ability to ensure that sand pears from China are not carrying plant pests and would cause millions of dollars in damage to U.S. agriculture.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 29.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 420.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14226 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule Committee (Committee) will meet in Portland, Oregon. Attendees may also participate via webinar and conference call. The Committee operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463). Committee information can be found by visiting the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/committee.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held in-person and via webinar/conference call on the following dates and times:

    • Tuesday, July 12, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST)

    • Wednesday, July 13, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST

    • Thursday, July 14, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. PST

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

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Courtyard Portland Downtown/Convention Center, 435 NE Wasco St., Portland, Oregon. For anyone who would like to attend via webinar and/or conference call, please visit the Web site listed above or contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the USDA Forest Service Washington Office—Yates Building. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Helwig, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 202-205-0892, or by email at [email protected].

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is to provide:

    1. Continued deliberations on formulating advice for the Secretary,

    2. Discussion of Committee work group findings,

    3. Hearing public comments, and

    4. Administrative tasks.

    This meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral comments of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral comment should submit a request in writing by July 5, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Jennifer Helwig, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th Street SW., Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC 20250-1104; or by email at [email protected]. The agenda and summary of the meeting will be posted on the Committee's Web site within 21 days of the meeting.

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

    Dated: June 9, 2016. Leslie A.C. Weldon, Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14265 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 13, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by July 18, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Rural Business Service (RBS)

    Title: 7 CFR 4279-A, Guaranteed Loan-making General.

    OMB Control Number: 0570-0018.

    Summary of Collection: The Business and Industry (B&I) program was legislated in 1972 under Section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended. The purpose of the program is to improve, develop, or finance businesses, industries, and employment and improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities. This purpose is achieved through bolstering the existing private credit structure through the guaranteeing of quality loans made by lending institutions, thereby providing lasting community benefits. The B&I program is administered by the RBS through Rural Development State and sub-State offices serving each state.

    Need and use of the Information: RBS will collect information to determine the eligibility and credit worthiness for a lender or borrower. The information is used by Agency loan officers and approval officials to determine lender program eligibility and for program monitoring.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 225.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 955.

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service

    Title: Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0570-0052.

    Summary of Collection: Formerly known as the “Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grant Program,” the program has changed its name to “The Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant Program.” It was authorized by section 2744 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 2006, Public Law 109-97. The Act provides for the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to cooperatives or associations of cooperative whose primary focus is to provide assistance to small, socially-disadvantaged producers and whose governing board and/or membership are comprised of at least 75 percent socially-disadvantaged.

    Need and Use of the Information: Rural Business Service needs to receive the information contained in this collection of information to make prudent decisions regarding eligibility of applicants and selection priority among competing applicants, to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations and to evaluate the projects it believes will provide the most long-term economic benefit to rural areas.

    Description of Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 60.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: Semi-Annually; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 575.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14227 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utility Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 13, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by July 18, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Rural Utility Service

    Title: Seismic Safety of New Building Construction, 7 CFR 1792, Subpart C.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0099.

    Summary of Collection: Seismic hazards present a serious threat to people and their surroundings. These hazards exist in most of the United States, not just on the West Coast. Unlike hurricanes, times and location of earthquakes cannot be predicted; most earthquakes strike without warning and, if of substantial strength, strike with great destructive forces. To reduce risks to life and property from earthquakes, Congress enacted the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-124, 42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.,) and directed the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake reduction program. As a result, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) was established. The objectives of the NEHRP include the development of technologically and economically feasible design and construction methods to make both new and existing structures earthquake resistant, and the development and promotion of model building codes. 7 CFR part 1792, subpart C, identifies acceptable seismic standards which must be employed in new building construction funded by loans, grants, or guarantees made by the Rural Utility Service (RUS) or the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) or through lien accommodations or subordinations approved by RUS or RTB.

    Need and Use of the Information: Borrowers and grant recipients must provide to RUS a written acknowledgment from a registered architect or engineer responsible for the designs of each applicable building stating that the seismic provisions to 7 CFR part 1792, subpart C will be used in the design of the building. RUS will use this information to: (1) Clarify and inform the applicable borrowers and grant recipients about seismic safety requirements; (2) improve the effectiveness of all RUS programs; and (3) reduce the risk to life and property through the use of approved building codes aimed at providing seismic safety.

    Description of Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 97.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 73.

    Rural Utility Service

    Title: Water and Waste Disposal Programs Guaranteed Loans.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0122.

    Summary of Collection: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is authorized by Section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926) to make loans to public agencies, nonprofit corporations, and Indian tribes for the development of water and waste disposal facilities primarily servicing rural residents. The Waste and Water Disposal Programs (WW) of RUS provide insured loan and grant funds through the WW program to finance many types of projects varying in size and complexity. The Waste and Water Disposal Guaranteed Program is implemented through 7 CFR 1779. The guaranteed loan program encourages lender participation and provides specific guidance in the processing and servicing of guaranteed WW loans.

    Need and Use of the Information: Rural Development's field offices will collect information from applicants/borrowers, lenders, and consultants to determine eligibility, project feasibility and to ensure borrowers operate on a sound basis and use loan funds for authorized purposes. There are agency forms required as well as other requirements that involve certifications from the borrower, lenders, and other parties. Failure to collect proper information could result in improper determinations of eligibility, improper use of funds and or unsound loans.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 10.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 618.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14225 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    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: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: 2017 Economic Census—Commodity Flow Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0932.

    Form Number(s): CFS-1000.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of an expired collection.

    Number of Respondents: 100,000.

    Average Hours per Response: 2.5.

    Burden Hours: 1,000,000.

    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census Bureau plans to conduct the 2017 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS), a component of the 2017 Economic Census, as it is the only comprehensive source of multi-modal, system-wide data on the volume and pattern of goods movement in the United States. The CFS is conducted in partnership with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    The survey provides a crucial set of statistics on the value, weight, mode, and distance of commodities shipped by mining, manufacturing, wholesale, and selected retail and services establishments, as well as auxiliary establishments that support these industries. The Census Bureau will publish these shipment characteristics for the nation, census regions and divisions, states, and CFS defined geographic areas. As with the 2012 Commodity Flow Survey, this survey also identifies export, hazardous material, and temperature controlled shipments.

    The DOT views updated information on freight flows as critical to understanding the use, performance, and condition of the nation's transportation system, as well as informing transportation investments. Data on the movement of freight also are important for effective analyses of changes in regional and local economic development, safety issues, and environmental concerns. They also provide the private sector with valuable data needed for critical decision-making on a variety of issues including market trends, analysis, and segmentation. Each day, governments, businesses, and consumers make countless decisions about where to go, how to get there, what to ship and which transportation modes to use. Transportation constantly responds to external forces such as shifting markets, changing demographics, safety concerns, weather conditions, energy and environmental constraints, and national defense requirements. Good decisions require having the right information in the right form at the right time.

    The CFS provides critical data to federal, state and local government agencies to make a wide range of transportation investment decisions for developing and maintaining an efficient transportation infrastructure that supports economic growth and competitiveness.

    Transportation planners require the periodic benchmarks provided by a continuing CFS to evaluate and respond to ongoing geographic shifts in production and distribution centers, as well as policies such as “just in time delivery.”

    The 2017 CFS will be a mail-out/mail-back or electronic reporting sample survey of approximately 100,000 business establishments in the mining, manufacturing, wholesale, and selected retail and services industries, as well as auxiliary establishments that support these industries.

    The CFS is co-sponsored by the BTS and the Census Bureau, with a majority of funding (80 percent) provided by the BTS. In addition to their funding support, the BTS also provides additional technical and planning guidance in the development and implementation of the program.

    The CFS is the primary source of information about freight movement in the United States. Estimates of shipment characteristics are published at different levels of aggregation. The CFS produces summary statistics and a public use microdata file. No confidential data are released. The survey covers shipments from establishments in the mining, manufacturing, wholesale, and selected retail industries, as well as auxiliary establishments that support these industries. Federal agencies, state and local transportation planners and policy makers, and private sector transportation managers, analysts, and researchers strongly support the conduct of the CFS.

    At the federal level, the data from the CFS are required by a variety of agencies to help accomplish their missions. Results from the CFS help promote economic development and provide for an efficient U.S. transportation system. The CFS enables better informed infrastructure investment decisions, and policies promoting public safety and protecting the natural environment affected by transportation.

    Users and supporters of CFS data at the federal level include:

    • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Railroad Administration • Maritime Administration • Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration • Bureau of Transportation Statistics • Bureau of Economic Analysis • Bureau of Labor Statistics • Federal Emergency Management Administration • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

    One of the major uses of the CFS is by the Federal Highway Administration and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to incorporate the CFS into the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF). The CFS acts as the foundation of the FAF and represents almost 70% of the data used to construct the FAF. The FAF is used extensively by the states and localities to conduct freight planning.

    At the state and local levels, the information from the CFS is extremely valuable for economic development and transportation planning. The CFS data are used by many localities in responding to requirements contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

    Transportation planners and policy makers in special interest areas have also identified CFS data as critical to their decision making. For example, CFS data on the types and magnitude of hazardous materials shipped in various geographic regions are critical in evaluating and setting policies on the movement of hazardous materials.

    CFS data are also crucial to transportation managers, analysts, and researchers in the private sector. These data are used to identify trends in shipping activities, strength of market segments, and existing and potential transportation related issues requiring additional resources.

    The CFS has received support from a wide range of users expressing the need for the unique data produced by the survey.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: Respondents provide quarterly reports over a one year period.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S.C., Sections 8(b), 131 and, 193; 49 U.S.C., Section 6302.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14233 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE649 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Atlantic Bluefish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, July 25, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via Webinar with a telephone-only connection option.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their Web site at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The purpose of this meeting is for the Monitoring Committee to review, and if necessary, revise the current management measures designed to achieve the recommended Atlantic Bluefish catch and landings limits for 2017.

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14254 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Sunshine Act Notice

    The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service gives notice of the following meeting:

    DATE AND TIME:

    Friday, June 24, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-11:30 p.m. (ET).

    PLACE:

    Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW., Suite 4026, Washington, DC 20525 (Please go to the first floor lobby reception area for escort).

    CALL-IN INFORMATION:

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-469-1929 conference call access code number 9799199. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and CNCS will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Replays are generally available one hour after a call ends. The toll-free phone number for the replay is 888-397-5639. TTY: 800-833-3722. The end replay date is August 24, 2016 at 10:59 p.m. (CT).

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    I. Chair's Remarks II. CEO Report III. Presentation—Star of Service IV. Public Comments V. Final Comments and Adjournment Members of the public who would like to comment on the business of the Board may do so in writing or in person. Individuals may submit written comments to [email protected] subject line: JUNE 2016 CNCS BOARD MEETING by 4:00 p.m. (ET) on June 20, 2016. Individuals attending the meeting in person who would like to comment will be asked to sign-in upon arrival. Comments are requested to be limited to 2 minutes. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodation should notify David Premo at [email protected] or 202-606-6717 by 5 p.m. (ET) on June 17, 2016.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Dave Premo, Program Support Specialist, Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone: 202-606-6717. Fax: 202-606-3460. TTY: 800-833-3722. Email: [email protected]

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Jeremy Joseph, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14367 Filed 6-14-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information:

    Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program.

    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.021A.

    Dates:

    Applications Available: June 16, 2016.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 1, 2016.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad (GPA) Program is to promote, improve, and develop modern foreign languages and area studies at varying levels of education. The program provides opportunities for faculty, teachers, and undergraduate and graduate students to conduct individual and group projects overseas to carry out research and study in the fields of modern foreign languages and area studies. This competition will support both Fulbright-Hays GPA short-term projects (GPA short-term projects) and Fulbright-Hays GPA long-term projects (GPA long-term projects).

    There are three types of GPA short-term projects: (1) Short-term seminar projects of four to six weeks in length designed to increase the linguistic or cultural competency of U.S. students and educators by focusing on a particular aspect of area study, such as the culture of an area or country of study (34 CFR 664.11); (2) curriculum development projects of four to eight weeks in length that provide participants an opportunity to acquire resource materials for curriculum development in modern foreign language and area studies for use and dissemination in the United States (34 CFR 664.12); and (3) group research or study projects of three to twelve months in duration designed to give participants the opportunity to undertake research or study in a foreign country (34 CFR 664.13).

    GPA long-term projects are advanced overseas intensive language projects that may be carried out during a full year, an academic year, a semester, a trimester, a quarter, or a summer. GPA long-term projects are designed to take advantage of the opportunities in the foreign country that are not present in the United States when providing intensive advanced foreign language training. Only participants who have successfully completed at least two academic years of training in the language to be studied are eligible for language training under this program. In addition, the language to be studied must be indigenous to the host country and maximum use must be made of local institutions and personnel (34 CFR 664.14).

    Applicants may submit only one application under this notice and must identify whether they are applying for a short-term project or a long-term project.

    Priorities: This notice contains one absolute priority and four competitive preference priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), the absolute priority is from the regulations for this program (34 CFR 664.32). Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2 are from the notice of final priorities and definitions (NFP) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Competitive Preference Priority 3 is from the regulations for this program (34 CFR 664.32), and Competitive Preference Priority 4 is from the notice of final priorities published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2010 (75 FR 59050).

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is:

    Specific Geographic Regions of the World.

    A group project that focuses on one or more of the following geographic regions of the world: Africa, East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, the Western Hemisphere (Central and South America, Mexico, and the Caribbean), Eastern and Central Europe and Eurasia, and the Near East.

    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities.

    Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award three additional points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 1; three additional points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2; one additional point to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 3; and up to an additional three points to an application, depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 4. Applicants for short-term projects may address competitive preference priorities 1, 3, and 4. Applicants for long-term projects may address competitive preference priorities 2, 3, and 4. An applicant must identify the priority or priorities that it believes it meets and provide documentation supporting its claims.

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority 1: Applications for GPA Short-term Projects from Selected Institutions and Organizations (3 Points).

    Applications for GPA short-term projects from the following types of institutions and organizations:

    ○ Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) ○ Community colleges ○ New applicants ○ State educational agencies (SEAs)

    Competitive Preference Priority 2: Applications for GPA Long-term Projects from Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) (3 Points).

    Applications for GPA long-term advanced overseas intensive language training projects from MSIs.

    Competitive Preference Priority 3: Substantive Training and Thematic Focus on Priority Languages (1 Point).

    Applications that propose GPA short-term or GPA long-term projects that provide substantive training and thematic focus on any of the 78 priority languages selected from the U.S. Department of Education's list of Less Commonly Taught Languages: Akan (Twi-Fante), Albanian, Amharic, Arabic (all dialects), Armenian, Azeri (Azerbaijani), Balochi, Bamanakan (Bamana, Bambara, Mandikan, Mandingo, Maninka, Dyula), Belarusian, Bengali (Bangla), Berber (all languages), Bosnian, Bulgarian, Burmese, Cebuano (Visayan), Chechen, Chinese (Cantonese), Chinese (Gan), Chinese (Mandarin), Chinese (Min), Chinese (Wu), Croatian, Dari, Dinka, Georgian, Gujarati, Hausa, Hebrew (Modern), Hindi, Igbo, Indonesian, Japanese, Javanese, Kannada, Kashmiri, Kazakh, Khmer (Cambodian), Kirghiz, Korean, Kurdish (Kurmanji), Kurdish (Sorani), Lao, Malay (Bahasa Melayu or Malaysian), Malayalam, Marathi, Mongolian, Nepali, Oromo, Panjabi, Pashto, Persian (Farsi), Polish, Portuguese (all varieties), Quechua, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Sinhala (Sinhalese), Somali, Swahili, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Tibetan, Tigrigna, Turkish, Turkmen, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uyghur/Uigur, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Wolof, Xhosa, Yoruba, and Zulu.

    Competitive Preference Priority 4: Inclusion of K-12 Educators (Up to 3 Points).

    Applications that propose short-term projects abroad that develop and improve foreign language studies, area studies, or both at elementary and secondary schools by including K-12 teachers or K-12 administrators as at least 50 percent of the project participants.

    Definitions:

    The following definitions are from the NFP and are designed to provide clarity for applicants addressing the competitive preference priorities.

    Minority-serving institution (MSI) means an institution that is eligible to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).

    Community college means an institution that meets the definition in section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)); or an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that awards degrees and certificates, more than 50 percent of which are not bachelor's degrees (or an equivalent).

    New applicant means any applicant that has not received a discretionary grant from the Department of Education under the Fulbright-Hays Act prior to the deadline date for applications under this program.

    State educational agency (SEA) means the State board of education or other agency or officer primarily responsible for the supervision of public elementary and secondary schools in a State. In the absence of this officer or agency, it is an officer or agency designated by the Governor or State law.

    Program Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 664. (e) The NFP. (f) The notice of final priorities for this program published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2010 (75 FR 59050).

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $2,792,440.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards:

    Short-term projects: $50,000-$100,000.

    Long-term projects: $50,000-$250,000.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards:

    Short-term projects: $80,059.

    Long-term projects: $185,025.

    Maximum Award: We will reject any GPA short-term project application that proposes a budget exceeding $100,000 for a single project period of 18 months. We will reject any GPA long-term project application that proposes a budget exceeding $250,000 for a single budget period of 24 months.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 20.

    Short-term projects: 15.

    Long-term projects: 5.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period:

    Short-term projects: Up to 18 months.

    Long-term projects: Up to 24 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: (1) IHEs, (2) State departments of education, (3) Private nonprofit educational organizations, and (4) Consortia of these entities.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: www.Grants.gov. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.021A.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program.

    Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative (Part III) to no more than 40 pages, using the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative may be single spaced and will count toward the page limit.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    • The 40-page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance face sheet (SF 424); the supplemental information form required by the Department of Education; Part II, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524); Part IV, assurances, certifications, and the response to section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA); the table of contents; the one-page project abstract; the appendices; or the line-item budget. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative (Part III). If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested, these items will be counted as part of the application narrative for purposes of the page-limit requirement.

    We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: June 16, 2016.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 1, 2016.

    Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We specify unallowable costs in 34 CFR 664.33. We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements:

    Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the Fulbright-Hays GPA Program, CFDA number 84.021A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the Fulbright-Hays GPA Program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.021, not 84.021A).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

    • You will not receive additional point value because

    you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the project narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason, it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

    These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because--

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement for Fulbright-Hays GPA to: Reha Mallory, Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E213, Washington, DC 20202. FAX: (202) 453-7502.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.021A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing

    stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.021A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 664.31 and are as follows: (a) Plan of operation (20 points); (b) Quality of key personnel (10 points); (c) Budget and cost effectiveness (10 points); (d) Evaluation plan (20 points); (e) Adequacy of resources (5 points); (f) Potential impact of the project on the development of the study of modern foreign languages and area studies in American education (15 points); (g) The project's relevance to the applicant's educational goals and its relationship to its program development in modern foreign languages and area studies (10 points); and (h) The extent to which direct experience abroad is necessary to achieve the project's objectives and the effectiveness with which relevant host country resources will be utilized (10 points). Additional information about these criteria is in the application package for this program.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    For FY 2016, GPA short-term project applications will be reviewed by separate panels according to world area. GPA long-term projects will be reviewed by one panel across world areas. A rank order from highest to lowest score will be developed for each of the two types of projects and will be used for funding purposes.

    3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. Grantees are required to use the electronic data instrument International Resource Information System (IRIS) to complete the final report. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the following measures will be used by the Department to evaluate the success of the GPA short-term program the percentage of GPA participants who disseminated information about or materials from their group project abroad through more than one outreach activity within six months of returning to their home institution. The long-term program, i.e., advanced overseas intensive language projects, will be evaluated by the percentage participants who increased their reading, writing, and/or listening/speaking foreign language scores by one proficiency level. The efficiency is the cost per GPA participant who increased his/her foreign language score in reading, writing, and/or listening/speaking by at least one proficiency level.

    The information provided by grantees in their performance reports submitted via IRIS will be the source of data for this measure. Reporting screens for institutions can be viewed at: http://iris.ed.gov/iris/pdfs/gpa_director.pdf and http://iris.ed.gov/iris/pdfs/gpa_participant.pdf.

    VII. Agency Contact For Further Information Contact:

    Reha Mallory, Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E213, Washington, DC 20202. FAX: (202) 453-7502 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or PDF. To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Lynn B. Mahaffie, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and Innovation, Delegated the Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14303 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2814-024] City of Paterson, New Jersey, Great Falls Hydroelectric Company; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    b. Project No.: 2814-024.

    c. Date Filed: February 26, 2016.

    d. Submitted By: The City of Paterson, New Jersey and Great Falls Hydroelectric Company, as co-licensees.

    e. Name of Project: Great Falls Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Passaic River near the city of Paterson, New Jersey. The project does not occupy federal land.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert Gates, Senior Vice President of Operations, Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, 65 Madison Avenue, Suite 500, Morristown, NJ 07960; (973) 998-8400; email—[email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Millard at (202) 502-8256; or email at [email protected].

    j. The City of Paterson, New Jersey and Great Falls Hydroelectric Company, as co-licensees, filed a request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on February 26, 2016. The City of Paterson, New Jersey and Great Falls Hydroelectric Company provided public notice of the request on March 9, 2016. In a letter dated June 10, 2016, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved the City of Paterson, New Jersey and Great Falls Hydroelectric Company's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.

    l. With this notice, we are designating the City of Paterson, New Jersey and Great Falls Hydroelectric Company as the Commission's non-federal representatives for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

    m. The City of Paterson, New Jersey and Great Falls Hydroelectric Company filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.

    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 2814-024. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10, each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by February 28, 2019.

    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14221 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2146-196] Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Non-project use of project lands and waters.

    b. Project No: 2146-196.

    c. Date Filed: April 7, 2016, as supplemented June 1, 2016.

    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.

    e. Name of Project: Coosa River Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The Logan Martin Development (Logan Martin Lake) in St. Clair County, Alabama.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Justin Bearden, Corporate Real Estate, 600 North 18th Street, Birmingham, AL, 35203, (205) 257-6769.

    i. FERC Contact: Kevin Anderson, (202) 502-6465, [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: July 11, 2016.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2146-196.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Request: Alabama Power Company proposes to permit Sahyog, LLC to construct and operate, for commercial use, three boat storage structures, three boat piers, a gravel parking area and driveway, and an asphalt turnaround on 6.69 acres of project lands. Alabama Power Company also proposes to permit the continued use of an existing boat ramp (proposed for widening), pier, and boardwalk that predate its permitting program. Approximately 105,716 square feet of project lands would be disturbed during construction.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14220 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1802-000] Hermiston Generating Company, L.P.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Hermiston Generating Company, L.P.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 30, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic 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.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14219 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1788-001.

    Applicants: LE Energy, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to June 7, 2016 LE Energy, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 6/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20160610-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1908-000.

    Applicants: International Transmission Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Cancellation of Facilities Agreement in Compliance with Docket No. ER12-1757 to be effective 3/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20160610-5254.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1909-000.

    Applicants: International Transmission Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Cancellation of Operating Agreement in Compliance with Docket No. ER12-1765 to be effective 3/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20160610-5257.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1910-000.

    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Cancellation of Concurrence to Operating Agreement to be effective 3/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20160610-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1911-000.

    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Cancellation of Concurrence to Facilities Agreement to be effective 3/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20160610-5268.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14217 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2739-012; ER14-2499-003; ER10-2755-010; ER10-2751-007; ER10-2743-007.

    Applicants: LS Power Marketing, LLC, Oneta Power, LLC, Las Vegas Power Company, LLC, Renaissance Power, L.L.C, Bluegrass Generation Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Supplement to December 30, 2015 Updated Market Power Analysis in Southwest Power Pool Region of the LS Power Development, LLC subsidiaries.

    Filed Date: 6/9/16.

    Accession Number: 20160609-5272.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2794-018; ER14-2672-003; ER12-1825-016.

    Applicants: EDF Trading North America, LLC, EDF Energy Services, LLC, EDF Industrial Power Services (CA), LLC.

    Description: Supplement to December 30, 2015 Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southwest Power Pool Region of the EDF Sellers.

    Filed Date: 6/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160608-5113.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-897-005.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-06-09 Filing in Compliance with May 31 Order Delaying CPM Effective Date to be effective 9/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/9/16.

    Accession Number: 20160609-5265.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1904-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: Request for Limited Waiver of ISO New England Inc.

    Filed Date: 6/9/16.

    Accession Number: 20160609-5275.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1905-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3197 KCP&L GMO and City of Galt, MO Interconnection Agr to be effective 6/9/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20160610-5053.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1906-000.

    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Amendments to Rate Schedule—Docket No. ER16-1452—Clone to be effective 6/17/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20160610-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1907-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-06-10_AS Qualification Filing to be effective 8/9/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20160610-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14216 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1788-001] LE Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding LE Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 30, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic 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.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14218 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1804-000] Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 29, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic 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.

    Dated: June 9, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14148 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14759-000] City of Paterson, New Jersey; Notice of Effective Date of Withdrawal of Notice of Intent

    On February 29, 2016, the City of Paterson, New Jersey (City) filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the 10.95-megawatt Great Falls Hydroelectric Project located on the Passaic River near the city of Paterson, New Jersey. On May 18, 2016, the City filed a letter informing the Commission that it was withdrawing its NOI for the above-referenced project.

    Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 a withdrawal of a pleading is effective at the end of 15 days from the date of filing the notice of withdrawal. No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal; thus, the withdrawal is effective on June 2, 2016.

    1 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2015).

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14222 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Payment of Past Response Costs: Lincoln Park Superfund Site, Canyon City, Fremont County, Colorado AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed agreement; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of section 122(h)(l) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9604, 9606(a), 9607 and 9622, notice is hereby given of the proposed administrative settlement under section 122(h)(l) of CERCLA, between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.) (“Settling Party”). The proposed Settlement Agreement requires the Settling Party to pay for past oversight costs. The Settling Party consents to and will not contest the authority of the United States to enter into the Agreement or to implement or enforce its terms. The Settling Parties recognize that the Agreement has been negotiated in good faith and that the Agreement is entered into without the admission or adjudication of any issue of fact or law.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 18, 2016. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the agreement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

    ADDRESSES:

    The proposed agreement and additional background information relating to the agreement, as well as the Agency's response to any comments are or will be available for public inspection at the EPA Superfund Record Center, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado, by appointment.

    Comments and requests for a copy of the proposed agreement should be addressed to Sharon Abendschan, Enforcement Specialist, Environmental Protection Agency-Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-RC, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202 and should reference the Lincoln Park Superfund Site, Canyon City, Fremont County, Colorado.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Moores, Enforcement Attorney, Legal Enforcement Program, Environmental Protection Agency-Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-L, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 312-6857.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Suzanne Bohan, Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14294 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0323; FRL-9947-50] Pyridate; Receipt of Applications for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received specific exemption requests from the Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin Departments of Agriculture to use the herbicide pyridate (CAS No. 55512-33-9) on mint (peppermint and spearmint) to control redroot pigweed and kochia. The applicants propose a use of a pesticide that was voluntarily canceled in 2004, and which is now considered to be unregistered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA is soliciting public comment before making the decision whether or not to grant the exemptions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0323, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC) (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under section 18 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136p, at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a federal or state agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin Departments of Agriculture have requested the EPA Administrator to issue specific exemptions for the use of pyridate on mint (peppermint and spearmint) to control redroot pigweed and kochia. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request. The applicants' submissions which provide an explanation of the need for the exemption as well as the proposed use pattern can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in their section 18 emergency exemption application requests for use of pyridate on mint to control redroot pigweeds and kochia.

    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the applications themselves. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for specific exemptions proposing use of a pesticide that was voluntarily canceled in 2004, and which is now considered to be unregistered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

    This notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the six applications. The Agency, will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue specific exemptions requested by the Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin Departments of Agriculture.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: June 8, 2016. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14288 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9947-82-Region 1] Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not To Sue Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as Amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986; In Re: Ely Copper Mine Superfund Site, Located in Vershire, Vermont AGENCY:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The EPA is hereby providing notice of a proposed settlement agreement concerning the Ely Copper Mine Superfund Site in Vershire, Vermont. The settlement agreement is entered into pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and the authority of the Attorney General of the United States to compromise and settle claims of the United States. The proposed settlement agreement is with the following parties: Green Crow Corporation (“Green Crow”) and Dwight Hill Forest, LLC (“Dwight Hill”) (together the “settling parties”). Under the proposed settlement, Green Crow, a company specializing in the timberland and wood products industries, will effectuate transfer of the main site property to Dwight Hill, but remain involved in the timber harvesting and management of the property. Green Crow will also be responsible for seven years of monitoring and thirty years of maintenance of the remedy at the site. In addition, the proposed settlement requires the settling parties to: Allow EPA to remove and use borrow material located on the site property and on an adjacent property owned by Green Crow, provide EPA and its contractors access to the site property and Green Crow's adjacent property, and prepare and record any documents necessary to implement institutional controls. The proposed settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a).

    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the US EPA Region 1 OSRR Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be addressed to the Regional Hearing Clerk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mailcode ORA18-1, Boston, MA 02109 and should refer to: In re: Green Crow Corporation, U.S. EPA Region 1 Docket No. CERCLA-01-2016-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The proposed settlement and additional background information relating to the settlement are available for public inspection at the Vershire Town Hall, 6894 VT Rt. 113, Vershire, VT or at the US EPA Region 1 OSRR Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109. In addition, a copy of the proposed settlement agreement can be obtained from Ann Gardner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mailcode OES04-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912, or by email at [email protected] Additional information on the Ely Copper Mine Superfund Site can be found through the U.S. EPA Region I Web site at http://www.epa.gov/region1/cleanup/index.html.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Bryan Olson, Director, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration, U.S. EPA, Region 1.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14296 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0179, 3060-0500 and 3060-1203] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before July 18, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0179.

    Title: Section 73.1590, Equipment Performance Measurements.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 13,049 respondents and 13,049 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-18 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 12,335 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1590(d) requires licensees of AM, FM and TV stations to make audio and video equipment performance measurements for each main transmitter. These measurements and a description of the equipment and procedures used in making the measurements must be kept on file at the transmitter or remote control point for two years. In addition, this information must be made available to the FCC upon request.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0500.

    Title: Section 76.1713, Resolution of Complaints.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 10,750 respondents and 21,500 responses.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 1-17 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping and third party disclosure requirements; annual reporting requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 193,500 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 4(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.1713 states cable system operators shall establish a process for resolving complaints from subscribers about the quality of the television signal delivered. Commission and franchising authorities, upon request. These records shall be maintained for at least a one-year period. Prior to being referred to the Commission, complaints from subscribers about the quality of the television signal delivered must be referred to the local franchising authority and the cable system operator.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1203.

    Title: Section 79.107—User Interfaces Provided by Digital Apparatus; Section 79.108—Video Programming Guides and Menus Provided by Navigation Devices; Section 79.110—Complaint Procedures for User Interfaces, Menus and Guides, and Activating Accessibility Features on Digital Apparatus and Navigation Devices.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions; and state, local, or tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,245 respondents; 517,052 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.0167 hours to 10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 716(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 617(g).

    Total Annual Burden: 24,153 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $70,500.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's updated system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints and Inquiries,” which became effective on January 25, 2010. The Commission believes that it provides sufficient safeguards to protect the privacy of individuals who file complaints under 47 CFR 79.110.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for Informal Complaints and Inquiries was completed on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy-Impact-Assessment.html. The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN.

    Needs and Uses: On November 20, 2015, in document FCC 15-156, the Commission released a Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 12-108, FCC 15-156, adopting additional rules implementing Sections 204 and 205 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) related to accessible user interfaces and video programming guides and menus. These rules are codified at 47 CFR 79.107 and 79.108. First, the Second Report and Order implements Section 204's requirement that both the “appropriate built-in apparatus functions” and the “on-screen text menus or other visual indicators built in to the digital apparatus” to access such functions be “usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired” by relying on the existing definition of “usable” in Section 6.3(l) of the Commission's rules. The 6.3(l) definition of “usable” requires that “individuals with disabilities have access to the full functionality and documentation for the product, including instructions, product information (including accessible feature information), documentation, bills and technical support which is provided to individuals without disabilities.” In addition, the Second Report and Order adopts information, documentation, and training requirements comparable to those in Section 6.11 of the Commission's rules for entities covered by both Section 204 and Section 205 of the CVAA. The Second Report and Order also adopts consumer notification requirements for equipment manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation devices that will require manufacturers to publicize the availability of accessible devices on manufacturer Web sites that must be accessible to those with disabilities. The Second Report and Order requires MVPDs, as well as manufacturers, to ensure that the contact office or person listed on their Web site is able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features.

    The following rule sections and other requirements contain new and revised information collection requirements for which the Commission is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

    (1) Usability requirements for manufacturers of digital apparatus.

    The Second Report and Order adopts usability requirements for digital apparatus covered by 47 CFR 79.107. A digital apparatus manufacturer must make functions that are used for the reception, play back, or display of video programming, as well as on-screen text menus or other visual indicators used to access these functions, usable to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.107(a)(5), the term “usable” means that individuals with disabilities have access to information and documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, including instructions, product information (including accessible feature information), documentation, bills, and technical support which are provided to individuals without disabilities.

    (2) Information, documentation, and training requirements for manufacturers of digital apparatus.

    Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.107(d), manufacturers of digital apparatus must ensure access to information and documentation provided to customers, including user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and product support communications, regarding both the product in general and the accessibility features of the product. Manufacturers of digital apparatus must include the contact method for obtaining this information and documentation in general product information. Manufacturers should take such other steps as necessary including providing a description of the accessibility and compatibility features of the product and end-user product documentation upon request in alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge; and ensuring usable customer support and technical support in the call centers and service centers which support their products at no additional charge. In developing training programs, manufacturers of digital apparatus must consider the following topics: (i) Accessibility requirements of individuals with disabilities; (ii) means of communicating with individuals with disabilities; (iii) commonly used adaptive technology used with the manufacturer's products; (iv) designing for accessibility; and (v) solutions for accessibility and compatibility.

    (3) Information, documentation, and training requirements for covered MVPDs and manufacturers of navigation devices.

    Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.108(f), covered MVPDs and manufacturers of navigation devices must ensure access to information and documentation provided to customers, including user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and product support communications, regarding both the product in general and the accessibility features of the product. MVPDs and manufacturers of navigation devices must include the contact method for obtaining this information and documentation in general product information. MVPDs and manufacturers should take such other steps as necessary including providing a description of the accessibility and compatibility features of the product and end-user product documentation upon request in alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge; and ensuring usable customer support and technical support in the call centers and service centers which support their products at no additional charge. In developing training programs, MVPDs and manufacturers of navigation devices must consider the following topics: (i) Accessibility requirements of individuals with disabilities; (ii) means of communicating with individuals with disabilities; (iii) commonly used adaptive technology used with the manufacturer's products; (iv) designing for accessibility; and (v) solutions for accessibility and compatibility. If a consumer with a disability requests an accessible navigation device, this also constitutes a request for a description of the accessibility features of the device and end-user product documentation in accessible formats.

    (4) Notifications by covered manufacturers regarding the availability of accessible digital apparatus. Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.107(e), manufacturers of digital apparatus must provide notice on their official Web sites about the availability of accessible devices. Manufacturers must prominently display information about accessible devices and solutions on their Web sites in a way that makes such information available to all consumers and in a format that is accessible to people with disabilities. The notice for digital apparatus must publicize the availability of accessible devices and the specific person, office or entity who can answer consumer questions about which products contain the required accessibility features. The contact office or person listed on the Web site must be able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features.

    (5) Notifications by covered manufacturers regarding the availability of accessible navigation devices.

    Pursuant to 47 CFR 79.108(d)(2), manufacturers of navigation devices must provide notice on their official Web sites about the availability of accessible devices. Manufacturers must prominently display information about accessible devices and solutions on their Web sites in a way that makes such information available to all consumers and in a format that is accessible to people with disabilities. The notice for navigation devices must publicize the availability of accessible devices and separate solutions and explain the means for making requests for accessible equipment and the specific person, office, or entity to whom such requests are to be made. The contact office or person listed on the Web site must be able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14223 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10477, Parkway Bank, Lenoir, North Carolina

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Parkway Bank, Lenoir, North Carolina, (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Parkway Bank on April 26, 2013. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14260 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 14, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. QCR Holdings, Inc., Moline, Illinois, to acquire 100 percent of Community State Bank, Ankeny, Iowa.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 10, 2016. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14191 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 13, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Simmons First National Corporation, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, to acquire 100 percent of Citizens National Bank, Athens, Tennessee.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Flagship Financial Group, Inc., Eden Prairie, Minnesota; to acquire Landmark Investor Group, Inc., Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire Landmark Community Bank, Isanti, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 13, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14256 Filed 6-15-16; 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

    Proposed Projects: New Automated Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Annual Report Form.

    Title: Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Annual Report.

    OMB No.:

    Description: Section 678E of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act requires States, including the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories, to annually prepare and submit a report on the measured performance of the State and the eligible entities in the State. Prior to the participation of the State in the performance measurement system, the State shall include in the report any information collected by the State relating to such performance. Each State shall also include in the report an accounting of the expenditure of funds received by the State through the CSBG program, including an accounting of funds spent on administrative costs by the State and the eligible entities, and funds spent by the eligible entities on the direct delivery of local services, and shall include information on the number of and characteristics of clients served under the subtitle in the State, based on data collected from the eligible entities. The State shall also include in the report a summary describing the training and technical assistance offered by the State.

    This request will support new automated Annual Report forms, streamlining the administrative information, and incorporating Results Oriented Management and Accountability (required in Section 676(b)(12) of the CSBG Act). The revised and automated forms may impose an added first-use burden; however, this burden will diminish substantially in subsequent years. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained by visiting http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/csbg.

    Respondents: State Governments, including the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories and CSBG Eligible Entities (Community Action Agencies).

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • CSBG Annual Report (States) 52 1 164 8,528 CSBG Annual Report (Eligible Entities) 1,035 1 242 250,470

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 258,998.

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap. 35) 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. 2016-14229 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Tribal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Implementation Plan Guidance and Form 1: Demographic and Service Utilization Data.

    OMB No.: 0970-0389 (expired).

    Description: Social Security Act, Title V, Section 511 (42 U.S.C. 711), as amended by the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 114-10), created the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV) and authorized the Secretary of HHS (in Section 511(h)(2)(A)) to award grants to Indian tribes (or a consortium of Indian tribes), tribal organizations, or urban Indian organizations to conduct an early childhood home visiting program. The legislation set aside 3 percent of the total MIECHV program appropriation (authorized in Section 511(j)) for grants to tribal entities. Tribal MIECHV grants, to the greatest extent practicable, are to be consistent with the requirements of the MIECHV grants to states and jurisdictions (authorized in Section 511(c)), and include conducting a needs assessment and establishing quantifiable, measurable benchmarks.

    The Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Care and Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Early Childhood Development, in collaboration with the Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, awarded grants for the Tribal MIECHV Program. The Tribal MIECHV grant awards support 5-year cooperative agreements to conduct community needs and readiness assessments, plan for and implement high-quality, culturally-relevant, evidence-based home visiting programs in at-risk Tribal communities, and engage in rigorous evaluation activities to build the knowledge base on home visiting among American Indian and Alaska Native populations.

    In Year 1 of the cooperative agreement, grantees must (1) conduct a comprehensive community needs and readiness assessment and (2) develop a plan to respond to identified needs. Grantees will be required to conduct or update a needs and readiness assessment and develop an implementation plan to respond to those needs, including a plan for demographic and service utilization data, performance measurement, and continuous quality improvement, and participating in or conducting rigorous evaluation activities. Grantees are expected to submit the implementation plan by the end of Year 1 of the grant, with draft submission milestones throughout the first year. As part of the non-competing continuation application for Years 3-5 of the grant, Tribal MIECHV grantees will update their implementation plans as necessary to ensure that the plan accurately reflects activities to be completed throughout the remainder of the grant.

    Following each year that Tribal MIECHV grantees implement home visiting services, they must also submit Form 1: Demographic and Service Utilization Data.

    Respondents: Tribal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Grantees. (The information collection does not include direct interaction with individuals or families that receive the services).

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Tribal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Implementation Plan Guidance 25 1 1000 25,000 Tribal MIECHV Form 1 Demographic & Service Utilization Data & Service Data 25 1 500 12,500 Estimated Annual Burden Hours 37,500

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 37,500.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14244 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [CFDA Number: 93.676] Announcement of the Award of Two Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grants Under the Unaccompanied Children's (UC) Program AGENCY:

    Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of award of two single-source program expansion supplement grants under the Unaccompanied Children's (UC) Program.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), announces the award of two single-source program expansion supplement grants for a total of $16,476,723 under the Unaccompanied Children's (UC) Program.

    Organization Location Amount BCFS Health and Human Services San Antonio, TX $9,525,387 Southwest Key, Inc Austin, TX 6,951,336

    ORR has been identifying additional capacity to provide shelter for potential increases in apprehensions of Unaccompanied Children at the U.S. Southern Border. Planning for increased shelter capacity is a prudent step to ensure that ORR is able to meet its responsibility, by law, to provide shelter for Unaccompanied Children referred to its care by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    The expansion supplement grants will support the need to increase shelter capacity to accommodate the increasing numbers of UCs being referred by DHS. Both grantees have the infrastructure, licensing, experience and appropriate level of trained staff to meet the service requirements and the urgent need for expansion of services. The grantees provide residential services to UC in the care and custody of ORR, as well as services to include counseling, case management, and additional support services to the family or to the UC and their sponsor when a UC is released from ORR's care and custody.

    DATES:

    Supplemental award funds will support activities from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jallyn Sualog, Director, Division of Children's Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 330 C. Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ORR is continuously monitoring its capacity to shelter the unaccompanied children referred to HHS, as well as the information received from interagency partners, to inform any future decisions or actions.

    ORR has specific requirements for the provision of services. Award recipients must have the infrastructure, licensing, experience, and appropriate level of trained staff to meet those requirements. The expansion of the existing program and its services through this supplemental award is a key strategy for ORR to be prepared to meet its responsibility to provide shelter for Unaccompanied Children referred to its care by DHS and so that the US Border Patrol can continue its vital national security mission to prevent illegal migration, trafficking, and protect the borders of the United States.

    Statutory Authority:

    This program is authorized by—

    (A) Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which in March 2003, transferred responsibility for the care and custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children from the Commissioner of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Director of ORR of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    (B) The Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), as well as the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-457), which authorizes post release services under certain conditions to eligible children. All programs must comply with the Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), pertinent regulations and ORR policies and procedures.

    Christopher Beach, Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Office of Administration, Office of Financial Services, Division of Grants Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14267 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0350] Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, ‘Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process”; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, ‘Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process.' ” FDA has developed this guidance document to assist industry in preparing Premarket Applications (PMAs), Humanitarian Device Exceptions (HDEs), Investigational Device Applications (IDEs), Premarket Notifications (510(k)s), and de novo requests for medical devices that come into direct contact or indirect contact with the human body in order to determine the potential for an unacceptable adverse biological response resulting from contact of the component materials of the device with the body.

    The purpose of this guidance is to provide further clarification and updated information on the use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, “Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process” to support applications to FDA. This guidance supersedes Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) Blue Book Memorandum #G95-1 (1995), entitled “Use of International Standard ISO-10993, ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part 1: Evaluation and Testing.' ”

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0350 for “Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, `Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process.' ” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled “Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, `Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process' ” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Goode, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1212, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6374.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA has developed this guidance document to assist industry in PMAs, HDEs, IDEs, 510(k)s, and de novo requests for medical devices that come into direct contact or indirect contact with the human body in order to determine the potential for an unacceptable adverse biological response resulting from contact of the component materials of the device with the body.

    The purpose of this guidance is to provide further clarification and updated information on the use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, “Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process” to support applications to FDA. This guidance supersedes ODE Blue Book Memorandum #G95-1 (1995), entitled “Use of International Standard ISO-10993, `Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part 1: Evaluation and Testing.' ”

    The scope of this document is limited to the biological evaluation of sterile and non-sterile medical devices that come into direct or indirect contact with the human body and covers the following topics: Use of risk assessments for biocompatibility evaluations for a proposed medical device; use of ISO 10993-1 and the FDA-modified matrix to determine the relevant biocompatibility endpoints for an evaluation; general biocompatibility testing considerations, including test article preparation; specific considerations for the following testing: Cytotoxicity, sensitization, hemocompatibility, pyrogenicity, implantation, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and degradation assessments; chemical assessment recommendations; and considerations for labeling devices as “-free.”

    A draft of this guidance was made available in the Federal Register on April 23, 2013, and the comment period closed on July 22, 2013. The final guidance was revised in response to the comments to emphasize use of risk assessment and leveraging of prior information within a submission to potentially reduce the need for new biocompatibility testing.

    Commenters also requested additional details regarding biocompatibility testing of devices in contact with gas pathways and color additives used in medical devices. FDA has determined that these concepts would be appropriately addressed in separate guidance documents and have therefore been removed from this final guidance.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, “Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, `Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process' ” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1811 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 58 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0119; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in the guidance document “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.

    Dated: June 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14190 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Pediatric Clinical Investigator Training; Public Workshop AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development are announcing a 2-day public workshop entitled “Pediatric Clinical Investigator Training.” The purpose of this workshop is to provide investigators with training and expertise in designing and conducting clinical trials in pediatric patients that will lead to appropriate labeling. Although we have learned a lot about conducting pediatric trials over the past two decades, there are still challenges that need to be addressed. The training course is intended to provide investigators with: (1) A clear understanding of some of the challenges of studying products in the pediatric population, including: Pediatric study design, neonates, biomarkers, endpoints, orphan drugs and rare disease trial design, formulations; (2) an overview of extrapolation as it relates to the pediatric population; and (3) an overview of ethically appropriate methods related to the design of clinical trials in the pediatric population.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will be held on September 12 and 13, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Registration to attend the workshop should be completed by September 6, 2016. (See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions).

    ADDRESSES:

    This public workshop will be held at the DoubleTree Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terrie L. Crescenzi, Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]; or Betsy Sanford, Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In July 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) made permanent the pediatric initiatives, Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and Pediatric Research Equity Act, which have stimulated pediatric research over the past two decades. The National Institutes of Health section of BPCA legislation, however, is due for reauthorization in 2017. Though much progress has been made, pediatric trials for the purpose of developing product use information are still performed less frequently than adult trials. As such, current standards for trials are much more oriented to adult scientific, ethical, and clinical processes. This situation is due, in part, to the fact that pediatric trials have both scientific challenges and unique attributes and requirements which must be met if the data are to be accepted or used by FDA.

    The development of safe and effective products in the pediatric population presents many challenges. These challenges include trial design, appropriate endpoints, extrapolation of data from adults, and ethical issues. It is extremely important that pediatric researchers recognize and understand the challenges and differences between the standards for adult trials and pediatric trials. Researchers are responsible for ensuring the safe and ethical treatment of pediatric patients and obtaining adequate and reliable data to support regulatory decisions. There is a critical need for further pediatric research on medical products to obtain additional data which will help ensure that these products are safe and effective in the pediatric population. Much of the progress which has been made in obtaining proper therapeutic information in pediatrics has occurred in the older and more populous pediatric populations. The challenge of obtaining data from non-verbal children, neonates, and for conditions existing in limited populations is much more difficult. This need reinforces our responsibility to educate clinical investigators to assure that children are only enrolled in research that is scientifically necessary, ethically sound, and designed to meet the challenges of review by FDA.

    II. Workshop Attendance and Participation

    If you wish to attend this workshop, visit http://pedsinvesttrain.eventbrite.com. Please register by September 6, 2016. Those who are unable to attend the workshop in person can register to view a live Webcast of the workshop. You will be asked to indicate in your registration if you plan to attend in person or via the Webcast. Your registration will also require your complete contact information, including name, title, affiliation, address, email address, and phone number. Seating will be limited so early registration is recommended. Registration is free and will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Onsite registration on the day of the workshop will be based on space availability. Persons attending the workshop are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    Registration information, the agenda, and additional background materials can be found at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/MeetingsConferencesWorkshops/ucm392506.htm.

    Webcast: The workshop will be Webcast live and available on the Internet.

    The live Webcast on September 12, 2016, will be available at: https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1093258. After the morning session, users will be automatically redirected to the afternoon link. Should you lose connection over lunch, please use the following link for the afternoon session (note that it is different from the morning's session): https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1093259. On September 13, 2016, the live Webcast will be available at: https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1093263. After the morning session, users will be automatically redirected to the afternoon link. Should you lose connection over lunch, please use the following link for the afternoon session (note that it is different from the morning's session): https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1093265. The Webcast will only be for listening and there will not be an opportunity for Webcast participants to speak. The Webcast will be posted after the workshop at: http://wcms.fda.gov/FDAgov/NewsEvents/MeetingsConferencesWorkshops/ucm392506.htm?ssSourceSiteId=null&SSContributor=true, approximately 30 days after the workshop.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Betsy Sanford (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14230 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1495] Factors To Consider Regarding Benefit-Risk in Medical Device Product Availability, Compliance, and Enforcement Decisions; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Factors to Consider Regarding Benefit-Risk in Medical Device Product Availability, Compliance, and Enforcement Decisions.” This draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to provide clarity for FDA staff and industry regarding the benefit and risk factors FDA may consider in prioritizing resources for compliance and enforcement efforts to maximize medical device quality and patient safety. Although product availability and other medical device compliance and enforcement decisions are generally fact-specific, FDA believes that consideration of the factors listed in the draft guidance, when relevant, will improve the consistency and transparency of those decisions and that a shared understanding of benefit and risk will better align industry's and FDA's focus on actions that maximize benefit to patients, improve medical device quality, and reduce risk to patients. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1495 for the draft guidance entitled “Factors to Consider Regarding Benefit-Risk in Medical Device Product Availability, Compliance, and Enforcement Decisions.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ann M. Ferriter, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3680, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to provide a shared benefit-risk framework for FDA and stakeholders and to set forth overarching principles. FDA may consider the types of benefit-risk factors described in the draft guidance—including reliable patient preference information from a representative sample—on a case-by-case basis when determining the appropriate regulatory action to take and to help ensure that informed and science-based decisions are made to the greatest extent practicable. Factors may be weighted differently for different types of decisions.

    In addition, the draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to harmonize FDA's approach to weighing benefits and risks for medical device product availability, compliance, and enforcement decisions with FDA's benefit-risk framework for evaluating medical device marketing and investigational device exemption (IDE) applications. The benefit-risk factors in the draft guidance also support evaluation of medical devices with real world evidence.

    The principles described in the draft guidance may be applicable to industry and FDA decisions. The benefit-risk factors may be considered when device manufacturers evaluate appropriate responses to nonconforming product or regulatory compliance issues, such as determining whether to limit the availability of a medical device (e.g., a voluntary recall or market withdrawal). FDA may evaluate the benefit-risk factors during, for example, assessments of device shortage situations, selection of the appropriate regulatory engagement mechanism following an inspection during which regulatory non-compliance was observed, evaluation of recalls and consideration of petitions for variance from those sections of the Quality System regulation (21 CFR part 820) for which there were inspectional observations during a premarket approval (PMA) preapproval inspection. Premarket review decisions, such as premarket notification (510(k)) substantial equivalence determinations, de novo classification, and PMA, humanitarian device exemption (HDE) or IDE application approval decisions, are beyond the scope of this draft guidance.

    The draft guidance applies to both diagnostic and therapeutic medical devices subject to, and exempt from, premarket review. The scope of the draft guidance excludes medical devices regulated by FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); combination products, as defined in 21 CFR 3.2(e), for which the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is not the lead Center; and electronic products that are not devices as defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321) as regulated by CDRH under the Electronic Product Radiation Control (ERPC) provisions in the FD&C Act and implementing regulations (21 CFR Subchapter J—Radiological Health). This draft guidance does not apply to products (e.g., drugs, biologics, dietary supplements, foods, tobacco products, or cosmetics) regulated by other FDA Centers.

    II. Significant of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Factors to Consider Regarding Benefit-Risk in Medical Device Product Availability, Compliance, and Enforcement Decisions.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Factors to Consider regarding Benefit-Risk in Medical Device Product Availability, Compliance, and Enforcement Decisions” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1500065 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 7, subpart C, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0249. The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 803, regarding medical device reporting, have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0291, 0910-0437, and 0910-0471. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 806 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0359. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 810, regarding medical device recall authority, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0432. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts B and E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 820, regarding the Quality System regulation, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 822, regarding postmarket surveillance of medical devices, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0449.

    Dated: June 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14200 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 28, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., and June 29, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lauren D. Tesh, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: On June 28, 2016, information will be presented to gauge investigator interest in exploring potential pediatric development plans for four products in various stages of development for adult cancer indications. The subcommittee will consider and discuss issues concerning diseases to be studied, patient populations to be included, and possible study designs in the development of these products for pediatric use. The discussion will also provide information to the Agency pertinent to the formulation of written requests for pediatric studies, if appropriate. The products under consideration are: (1) VENETOCLAX, application sponsored by AbbVie, Inc.; (2) TAZEMETOSTAT, application sponsored by Epizyme, Inc.; and (3) ATEZOLIZUMAB, application sponsored by Roche/Genentech.

    On June 29, 2016, during the morning session, information will be presented to gauge investigator interest in exploring potential pediatric development plans for two products in various stages of development for adult cancer indications. The subcommittee will consider and discuss issues concerning diseases to be studied, patient populations to be included, and possible study designs in the development of these products for pediatric use. The discussion will also provide information to the Agency pertinent to the formulation of written requests for pediatric studies, if appropriate. The products under consideration are: (1) LOXO-101, application sponsored by Loxo Oncology, Inc.; and (2) ENTRECTINIB, application sponsored by Ignyta, Inc.

    During the afternoon session, information will be presented on the current unmet clinical need in the nearly uniformly fatal brain tumor, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), which occurs predominantly in the pediatric age group. The diagnosis of DIPG is typically based on characteristic radiographic and clinical features in lieu of brain biopsy, and histological confirmation. Recent data has demonstrated that the biology and pathophysiology of these tumors differ. There are no approved drugs for this disease. Clinical investigators seek to exploit precision medicine approaches to DIPG and use potentially predictive information from the genomic signature of tumors at either diagnosis or relapse. This information can be used to select specific molecularly targeted drugs based on the genetic aberrations of an individual patient's tumor. The Agency will seek the input of the subcommittee, including an assessment of benefit/risk given the potential for an adverse event associated with a surgical intervention in the brainstem.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the subcommittee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June 21, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 8:50 a.m. and 9:10 a.m., 11 a.m. and 11:20 a.m., 1:55 p.m. and 2:15 p.m., and 3:50 p.m. and 4:05 p.m. on June 28, 2016, and between approximately 8:50 a.m. and 9:10 a.m., 10:55 a.m. and 11:15 a.m., and 3 p.m. and 3:20 p.m. on June 29, 2016. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June 16, 2016. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 17, 2016.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lauren D. Tesh at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14212 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Tribal Management Grant Program; Extension of Due Dates AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of due dates.

    SUMMARY:

    This document extends due dates in the Fiscal Year 2016 Tribal Management Grant Program funding announcement that was published in the Federal Register (81 FR 20396) on April 7, 2016. Several key dates have been extended.

    DATES:

    The Application Deadline Date, Signed Tribal Resolutions Due Date, and Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date are all extended to June 17, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Eagle Hawk, Deputy Director, Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08E17, Rockville, MD 20857, telephone (301) 443-1104. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Dated: June 9, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14235 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Notice of Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service; Correction AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service (IHS), Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Indian Health Service published a document in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016, for the Notice of Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service. The notice contained the incorrect U.S. Code regarding consultation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CAPT Chris Buchanan, Acting Director, Great Plains Area, Indian Health Service, 115 4th Ave. SE., Suite 309, Aberdeen, South Dakota, (605) 226-7584, Fax (605) 226-7541.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of June 3, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-13135, on page 35787, in the first column, under the heading “SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: fourth paragraph,” delete “[42 U.S.C. 9835, Section 640(l)(4)(A)],” and insert “2 U.S.C. 1534.”

    Dated: June 9, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14232 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: July 12, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3An.12N, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Rebecca H. Johnson, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2771, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 10, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14196 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Selected Topics in Transfusion Medicine.

    Date: July 5-6, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ai-Ping Zou, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9497, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Non-HIV Anti Infective Therapeutics.

    Date: July 7-8, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Wyndham Grand Chicago Riverfront, 71 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.

    Contact Person: Neerja Kaushik-Basu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3198 MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2306, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Diabetes, Musculoskeletal, and Toxin Exposure Epidemiology.

    Date: July 8, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: George Vogler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3140, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 237-2693, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cancer Drug Development and Therapeutics.

    Date: July 12-13, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Lilia Topol, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6192, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-0131, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cartilage and Bone Biology.

    Date: July 13, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Maria Nurminskaya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1222, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 10, 2016. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14192 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Mentored Basic Research and Pathways to Independence Award Applications.

    Date: July 12-13, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Jeanette M Hosseini, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2020, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 10, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14194 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Interventions/Biomarkers.

    Date: July 8, 2016.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: David I. Sommers, Ph.D., Scientific Review, Officer Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6154, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-7861 [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 10, 2016. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14197 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Joint meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board and NCI Board of Scientific Advisors, June 20, 2016, 04:30 p.m. to June 21, 2016, 05:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, C Wing, 6th Floor, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2016, 81 FR 30316.

    This meeting is being amended to change the start time of the open session on June 21, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. The meeting is partially closed to the public.

    Dated: June 9, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14193 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Human Immunology Project Consortium.

    Date: July 13-20, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, Ballroom A,B,C, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Paul A. Amstad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G41, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 240-669-5067, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 10, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14195 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection New Date for the October 2016 Customs Broker License Examination AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has changed the date on which the semi-annual written examination for an individual broker's license will be held in October 2016.

    DATES:

    The customs broker's license examination scheduled for October 2016 will be held on Wednesday, October 5.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Lugo, Broker Management Branch, Office of Trade, (202) 863-6015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), provides that a person (an individual, corporation, association, or partnership) must hold a valid customs broker's license and permit in order to transact customs business on behalf of others, sets forth standards for the issuance of broker's licenses and permits, and provides for the taking of disciplinary action against brokers that have engaged in specified types of infractions. This section also provides that an examination may be conducted to assess an applicant's qualifications for a license.

    The regulations issued under the authority of section 641 are set forth in Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 111 (19 CFR 111). Part 111 sets forth the regulations regarding the licensing of, and granting of permits to, persons seeking to transact customs business as customs brokers. These regulations also include the qualifications required of applicants and the procedures for applying for licenses and permits. 19 CFR 111.11 sets forth the basic requirements for a broker's license and, in 19 CFR 111.11(a)(4), provides that an applicant for an individual broker's license must attain a passing grade (75 percent or higher) on a written examination.

    19 CFR 111.13 sets forth the requirements and procedures for the written examination for an individual broker's license and states that written customs broker license examinations will be given on the first Monday in April and October unless the regularly scheduled examination date conflicts with a national holiday, religious observance, or other foreseeable event.

    CBP recognizes that the first Monday in October 2016 coincides with the observance of the religious holiday of Rosh Hashanah. In consideration of this conflict, CBP has decided to change the regularly scheduled date of the examination. This document announces that CBP has scheduled the October 2016 broker license examination for Wednesday, October 5, 2016.

    Dated: June 6, 2016. Brenda B. Smith, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Trade.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14215 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-16-021] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    June 24, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-534-537 and 731-TA-1274-1278 (Final) (Corrosion-Resistant Steel products from China, India, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on July 7, 2016.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 8, 2016. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14342 Filed 6-14-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1103-0111] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested Extension: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    Community Relations Service (CRS), Department of Justice

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    CRS will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gilbert Moore, Deputy Director, Community Relations Service, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6000, Washington, DC 20530. Office Phone: 202-305-2925.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies 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. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision and extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: CRS “Quality of Service” Survey.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is 1103-0111. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Community Relations Service.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: State and local elected officials, law enforcement executives, Education Administrators, community leaders, and others who receive CRS services. Abstract: The CRS Survey will be provided to those who engage in CRS services as our work concludes in a case. The result of the Survey, in aggregate, will be used to ensure that CRS is providing quality services, and to identify needed modifications and enhancements.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The Survey will be distributed to key participants in CRS cases at the conclusion of each case. This is estimated to be five people per case. CRS conducts approximately 500 cases per year. As such, CRS anticipates distributing approximately 2,500 surveys per year. Since the Survey is voluntary, CRS anticipates a response rate of approximately ten percent, which would result in 250 responses annually. It is estimated that completing the Survey will take less than three minutes per respondent. The estimated total public burden hours associated with this collection is 12.5 hours per fiscal year.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 125 annual total CRS burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14257 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-17-P
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice DATE AND TIME:

    The Legal Services Corporation's Finance Committee will meet telephonically on June 22, 2016. The meeting will commence at 3:30 p.m., EDT, and will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.

    LOCATION:

    John N. Erlenborn Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007.

    PUBLIC OBSERVATION:

    Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.

    CALL-IN DIRECTIONS FOR OPEN SESSIONS:

    • Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;

    • When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348

    • When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.

    Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Chair may solicit comments from the public. STATUS OF MEETING:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Approval of agenda 2. Discussion with Management regarding recommendations for LSC's fiscal year 2018 budget request • Jim Sandman, President • Carol Bergman, Director, Government Relations and Public Affairs 3. Discussion with Inspector General regarding the OIG's fiscal year 2018 budget request • Jeffery Schanz, Inspector General • David Maddox, Assistant Inspector General for Management & Evaluation 4. Consider and act on FY 2018 Budget Request Resolution 2016-XXX 5. Public comment 6. Consider and act on other business 7. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting. CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

    Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to [email protected]

    ACCESSIBILITY:

    LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals needing other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or [email protected], at least 2 business days in advance of the meeting. If a request is made without advance notice, LSC will make every effort to accommodate the request but cannot guarantee that all requests can be fulfilled.

    Dated: June 14, 2016. Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14401 Filed 6-14-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Humanities Meetings of Humanities Panel AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Humanities, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold twenty-seven meetings of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during July, 2016. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates. The meetings will open at 8:30 a.m. and will convene by 5:00 p.m. on the dates specified below.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at the National Endowment for the Humanities at Constitution Center at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW., Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202)606-8322; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:

    1. Date: July 11, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of British Literature for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    2. Date: July 12, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of American History, Social Sciences for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    3. Date: July 12, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of History and Politics for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    4. Date: July 18, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Arts, Literature, Media, and Communication for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    5. Date: July 18, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Arts, Literature, and Philosophy for the Awards for Faculty grant program, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    6. Date: July 19, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications for Humanities Access Grants, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants.

    7. Date: July 19, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Philosophy for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    8. Date: July 19, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Philosophy for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    9. Date: July 20, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of American Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    10. Date: July 20, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Middle Eastern Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    11. Date: July 21, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications for Humanities Access Grants, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants.

    12. Date: July 21, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Communication, Media, Rhetoric, and Language for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    13. Date: July 21, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Cinema and Theater Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    14. Date: July 22, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of American Literature for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    15. Date: July 22, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Art History for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    16. Date: July 25, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Music and Dance for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    17. Date: July 25, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications for Fellowships for Advanced Social Science Research on Japan, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    18. Date: July 26, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications for Humanities Access Grants, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants.

    19. Date: July 26, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of American History for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    20. Date: July 26, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of American History for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    21. Date: July 27, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Religious Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    22. Date: July 27, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Political Science, Urban Studies, and Jurisprudence for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    23. Date: July 28, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Comparative Literature and Literary Theory for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    24. Date: July 28, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of German and Slavic Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    25. Date: July 28, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications for Humanities Access Grants, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants.

    26. Date: July 29, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Art History for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    27. Date: July 29, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of British Literature for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14243 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Large Scale Networking (LSN)—Joint Engineering Team (JET) AGENCY:

    The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO), National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    Contact: Dr. Grant Miller at [email protected] or (703) 292-4873. Reference the NITRD Web site at: http://www.nitrd.gov/.

    Date/Location: The JET meetings are held on the third Tuesday of each month, 11:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Please note that public seating for these meetings is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. WebEx and/or Teleconference participation is available for each meeting. Please reference the JET Web site for updates.

    JET Web site: The agendas, minutes, and other meeting materials and information can be found on the JET Web site at: https://www.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/index.php?title=Joint_Engineering_Team_(JET).

    SUMMARY:

    The JET, established in 1997, provides for information sharing among Federal agencies and non-Federal participants with interest in high performance research networking and networking to support science applications. The JET reports to the Large Scale Networking (LSN) Interagency Working Group (IWG).

    Public Comments: The government seeks individual input; attendees/participants may provide individual advice only. Members of the public are welcome to submit their comments to [email protected] Please note that under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available to the public via the JET Web site.

    Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on June 13, 2016.

    Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14250 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Large Scale Networking (LSN)—Middleware and Grid Interagency Coordination (MAGIC) Team AGENCY:

    The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO), National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    Contact: Dr. Grant Miller at [email protected] or (703) 292-4873. Reference the NITRD Web site at: http://www.nitrd.gov/.

    Date/Location: The MAGIC Team meetings are held on the first Wednesday of each month, 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Please note that public seating for these meetings is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. WebEx and/or Teleconference participation is available for each meeting. Please reference the MAGIC Team Web site for updates.

    MAGIC Web site: The agendas, minutes, and other meeting materials and information can be found on the MAGIC Web site at: https://www.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/index.php?title=Middleware_And_Grid_Interagency_Coordination_(MAGIC).

    SUMMARY:

    The MAGIC Team, established in 2002, provides a forum for information sharing among Federal agencies and non-Federal participants with interests and responsibility for middleware, Grid, and cloud projects. The MAGIC Team reports to the Large Scale Networking (LSN) Interagency Working Group (IWG).

    Public Comments: The government seeks individual input; attendees/participants may provide individual advice only. Members of the public are welcome to submit their comments to [email protected] Please note that under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available to the public via the MAGIC Team Web site.

    Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on June 13, 2016.

    Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14249 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Faster Administration of Science and Technology Education and Research (FASTER) Community of Practice (CoP) AGENCY:

    The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO), National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    Contact: Mr. Fouad Ramia at [email protected] or (703) 292-4873. Reference the NITRD Web site at: http://www.nitrd.gov/.

    Date/Location: The FASTER CoP meetings will be held monthly (July 2016-June 2017) at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Please note that public seating for these meetings is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. WebEx and/or Teleconference participation is available for each meeting. Please reference the FASTER CoP Web site for meeting dates and times.

    FASTER Web site: The agendas, minutes, and other meeting materials and information can be found on the FASTER Web site at: https://www.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/index.php?title=FASTER.

    SUMMARY:

    The goal of the FASTER CoP is to enhance collaboration and accelerate agencies' adoption of advanced IT capabilities developed by Government-sponsored IT research. FASTER, seeks to accelerate deployment of promising research technologies; share protocol information, standards, and best practices; and coordinate and disseminate technology assessment and testbed results.

    Public Comments: The government seeks individual input; attendees/participants may provide individual advice only. Members of the public are welcome to submit their comments to [email protected] Please note that under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available to the public via the FASTER CoP Web site.

    Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on June 13, 2016.

    Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14251 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-38; NRC-2016-0111] Duke Energy; McGuire Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for its review and approval of the decommissioning funding plan submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), on December 13, 2012, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at McGuire Nuclear Station (MCG) in Huntersville, North Carolina.

    DATES:

    The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on June 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0111 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0111. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. In addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the section of this document entitled, Availability of Documents.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Baum, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0018, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of the decommissioning funding plan (DFP) for the McGuire ISFSI. Duke submitted a DFP for NRC review and approval by letter dated December 13, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12353A033). The NRC staff has prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML16144A261) in support of its review of Duke's DFP, in accordance with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the DFP for the McGuire ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and, accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted because under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) or 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) do not apply to the DFP reviews, since the categorical exclusions only apply to license amendments and the 10 CFR 72.30 DFP reviews and approvals are not license amendments.

    II. Environmental Assessment Background

    The McGuire ISFSI is located in Huntersville, North Carolina. Duke is authorized by NRC, under License No. SFGL-11, to store spent nuclear fuel at the McGuire ISFSI.

    The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76 FR 35512). The final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFP submitted by Duke on December 13, 2012. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether Duke's DFP contains the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and whether Duke has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.

    Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of Duke's DFP submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b). To approve the DFP, the NRC will evaluate whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. NRC will also evaluate whether the aggregate dollar amount of Duke's financial instruments provide adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e).

    The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, nor does it require any new construction or land disturbing activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's review and approval of Duke's DFP. The scope of the proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination for the ISFSI or any other part of McGuire.

    Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action provides a means for Duke to demonstrate that it will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403).

    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC's approval of the DFP will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of the DFP will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the approval of the DFP is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to the environment.

    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” NRC's approval of Duke's DFP constitutes a federal undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the DFP is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

    Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, prior to taking a proposed action, a federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitats, the federal agency is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. In accordance with 50 CFR 402.13, the NRC has engaged in informal consultation with the FWS. The NRC has determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. The FWS has concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

    Alternative to the Proposed Action

    In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny Duke's DFP. A denial of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) does not support the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the rulemaking EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional legacy sites. Thus, denying Duke's DFP, which the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b), will undermine the licensee's decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

    Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a draft of its EA to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services on August 10, 2015, and gave them 30 days to respond. The State never responded. The NRC also consulted with the FWS. The FWS concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review and approval of the DFP, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b), will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), the FONSI incorporates the EA by reference.

    IV. Availability of Documents

    The following documents, related to this Notice, can be found using any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    Date Document ADAMS
  • Accession
  • No.
  • December 13, 2012 Submission of MCG decommissioning funding plan ML12353A033 February 1, 2009 Environmental Assessment for Final Rule—Decommissioning Planning ML090500648 May 31, 2016 NRC staff's Final EA for the approval of the decommissioning funding plan ML16144A261
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Bernard H. White IV, Acting Branch Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14252 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-03; NRC-2016-0114] Duke Energy; H.B. Robinson Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for its review and approval of the decommissioning funding plan submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), on December 13, 2012, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 (HBR), located in Darlington County, South Carolina.

    DATES:

    The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on June 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0114 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0114. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3464; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. In addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Baum, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.-0001; telephone: 301-415-0018, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of the decommissioning funding plan (DFP) for the H.B. Robinson ISFSI. Duke submitted a DFP for NRC review and approval by letter dated December 13, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No.ML12353A033). The NRC staff has prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML16141B198) in support of its review of Duke's DFP, in accordance with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the DFP for the H.B. Robinson ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and, accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted because under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) or 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(11) do not apply to the DFP reviews, since the categorical exclusion only apply to license amendments and the 10 CFR 72.30 DFP reviews and approvals are not license amendment.

    II. Environmental Assessment Background

    The H.B. Robinson ISFSI is located in Darlington County, South Carolina. Duke is authorized by the NRC, under License Nos. SNM-2502 and SFGL-26, to store spent nuclear fuel at the H.B. Robinson ISFSI.

    The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011 (76 FR 35512), the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations. The final rule amended the NRC regulation in 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFP submitted by Duke on December 13, 2012. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether Duke's DFP contains the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and whether Duke has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.

    Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of Duke's DFP submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b). To approve the DFP, the NRC will evaluate whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. The NRC will also evaluate whether the aggregate dollar amount of Duke's financial instruments provide adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e).

    The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, nor does it require any new construction or land disturbing activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's review and approval of Duke's DFP. The scope of the proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination for the ISFSI or any other part of H.B. Robinson.

    Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action provides a means for Duke to demonstrate that it will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403).

    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC's approval of the DFP will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of the DFP will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the approval of the DFP is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to the environment.

    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” NRC's approval of Duke's DFP constitutes a federal undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the DFP is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

    Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, prior to taking a proposed action, a federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitats, the federal agency is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. In accordance with 50 CFR 402.13, the NRC has engaged in informal consultation with the FWS. The NRC has determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. The FWS has concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

    Alternative to the Proposed Action

    In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny Duke's DFP. A denial of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) does not support the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the rulemaking EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional legacy sites. Thus, denying Duke's DFP, which the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b), will undermine Duke's decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

    Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a draft of its EA to the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services on August 10, 2015, and gave them 30 days to respond. The State never responded. The NRC also consulted with the FWS. The FWS concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review and approval of the DFP, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b), will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), the FONSI incorporates the EA by reference.

    IV. Availability of Documents

    The following documents, related to this Notice, can be found using any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    Date Document ADAMS
  • Accession
  • No.
  • December 13, 2012 Submission of Duke's decommissioning funding plan ML12353A033 February 1, 2009 Environmental Assessment for Final Rule—Decommissioning Planning ML090500648 May 31, 2016 NRC staff's Final EA for the approval of the decommissioning funding plan ML16141B198
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Bernard H. White IV, Acting Branch Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14258 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-06; NRC-2016-0112] Duke Energy; Brunswick Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for its review and approval of the decommissioning funding plan submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), on December 13, 2012, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) in Brunswick County, North Carolina.

    DATES:

    The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on June 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0112 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0112. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. In addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the section of this document entitled, Availability of Documents.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Baum, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0018, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of the decommissioning funding plan (DFP) for the Brunswick ISFSI. Duke submitted a DFP for NRC review and approval by letter dated December 13, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12353A033). The NRC staff has prepared a Final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML16144A362) in support of its review of Duke's DFP, in accordance with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the DFP for the Brunswick ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and, accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted because under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) or 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(11) do not apply to the DFP reviews, since the categorical exclusion only apply to license amendments and the 10 CFR 72.30 DFP reviews and approvals are not license amendment.

    II. Environmental Assessment Background

    The Brunswick ISFSI is located in Southport, North Carolina. Duke is authorized by NRC, under License No. SFGL-41, to store spent nuclear fuel at the Brunswick ISFSI.

    The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76 FR 35512). The final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFP submitted by Duke on December 13, 2012. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether Duke's DFP contains the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and whether Duke has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.

    Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of Duke's DFP submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b). To approve the DFP, the NRC will evaluate whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. NRC will also evaluate whether the aggregate dollar amount of Duke's financial instruments provide adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e).

    The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, nor does it require any new construction or land disturbing activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's review and approval of the Duke's DFP. The scope of the proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination for the ISFSI or any other part of BSEP.

    Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action provides a means for Duke to demonstrate that it will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403).

    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC's approval of the DFP will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of the DFP will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the approval of the DFP is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to the environment.

    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” NRC's approval of Duke's DFP constitutes a federal undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the DFP is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

    Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, prior to taking a proposed action, a federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitats, the federal agency is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. In accordance with 50 CFR 402.13, the NRC has engaged in informal consultation with the FWS. The NRC has determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. The FWS has concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

    Alternative to the Proposed Action

    In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny Duke's DFP. A denial of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) does not support the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the rulemaking EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional legacy sites. Thus, denying the licensee's DFP, which the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b), will undermine the licensee's decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

    Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a draft of its EA to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services on August 10, 2015, and gave them 30 days to respond. The State never responded. The NRC also consulted with the FWS. The FWS concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review and approval of the DFP, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b), will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), the FONSI incorporates the EA by reference.

    IV. Availability of Documents

    The following documents, related to this Notice, can be found using any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    Date Document ADAMS
  • Accession No.
  • December 13, 2012 Submission of Duke's decommissioning funding plan ML12353A033 February 1, 2009 Environmental Assessment for Final Rule—Decommissioning Planning ML090500648 May 31, 2016 NRC staff's Final EA for the approval of the decommissioning funding plan ML16144A362
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Bernard H. White IV, Acting Branch Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14253 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-45; NRC-2016-0113] Duke Energy; Catawba Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for its review and approval of the decommissioning funding plan submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), on December 13, 2012, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS), located in York County, South Carolina.

    DATES:

    The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on June 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0113 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0113. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. In addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Baum, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0018, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of the decommissioning funding plan (DFP) for the Catawba ISFSI. Duke submitted a DFP for NRC review and approval by letter dated December 13, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12353A033). The NRC staff has prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML16144A026) in support of its review of Duke's DFP, in accordance with the NRC's regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that approval of Duke's DFP for the Catawba ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and, accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted because under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) or 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) do not apply to the DFP reviews, since the categorical exclusion only apply to license amendments and the 10 CFR 72.30 DFP reviews and approvals are not license amendment.

    II. Environmental Assessment Background

    The Catawba ISFSI is located in York County, South Carolina is authorized by the NRC, under License No. SFGL-31, to store spent nuclear fuel at the Catawba ISFSI.

    The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011 (76 FR 35512), the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations. The final rule amended the NRC regulation in 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFP submitted by Duke on December 13, 2012. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether Duke's DFP contains the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and whether Duke has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.

    Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of Duke's DFP submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b). To approve the DFP, the NRC will evaluate whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. The NRC will also evaluate whether the aggregate dollar amount of Duke's financial instruments provide adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e).

    The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, nor does it require any new construction or land disturbing activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's review and approval of Duke's DFP. The scope of the proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination for the ISFSI, or any other part of Catawba.

    Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action provides a means for Duke to demonstrate that it will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403).

    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC's approval of the DFP will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of the DFP will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the approval of the DFP is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to the environment.

    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” NRC's approval of Duke's DFP constitutes a federal undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the DFP is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

    Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, prior to taking a proposed action, a federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitats, the federal agency is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. In accordance with 50 CFR 402.13, the NRC has engaged in informal consultation with the FWS. The NRC has determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. The FWS has concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

    Alternative to the Proposed Action

    In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny Duke's DFP. A denial of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) does not support the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the rulemaking EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional legacy sites. Thus, denying Duke's DFP, which the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b), will undermine Duke's decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

    Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a draft of its EA to the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services on August 10, 2015, and gave them 30 days to respond. The State never responded. The NRC also consulted with the FWS. The FWS concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review and approval of the DFP, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b), will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), the FONSI incorporates the EA by reference.

    IV. Availability of Documents

    The following documents, related to this Notice, can be found using any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    Date Document ADAMS
  • Accession No.
  • December 13, 2012 Submission of Duke decommissioning funding plan ML12353A033 February 1, 2009 Environmental Assessment for Final Rule—Decommissioning Planning ML090500648 May 31, 2016 NRC staff's Final EA for the approval of the decommissioning funding plan ML16144A026
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Bernard H. White IV, Acting Branch Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14261 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-04; NRC-2016-0110] Duke Energy; Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for its review and approval of the decommissioning funding plan submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), on December 13, 2012, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at Oconee Nuclear Station in Oconee County, South Carolina.

    DATES:

    The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on June 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0110 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0110. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. In addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the section of this document entitled, Availability of Documents.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Baum, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0018, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of the decommissioning funding plan (DFP) for the Oconee ISFSI. Duke submitted a DFP for NRC review and approval by letter dated December 13, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12353A033). The NRC staff has prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML16141A277) in support of its review of Duke's DFP, in accordance with the NRC regulations in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Based on the EA, the NRC staff has determined that approval of the DFP for the Oconee ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and, accordingly, the staff has concluded that a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC staff further finds that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not warranted because under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) or 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) do not apply to the DFP reviews, since the categorical exclusion only apply to license amendments and the 10 CFR 72.30 DFP reviews and approvals are not license amendment.

    II. Environmental Assessment Background

    The Oconee ISFSI is located in Oconee County, South Carolina. Duke is authorized by the NRC, under License No. SFGL-06 and SNM-2503 to store spent nuclear fuel at the Oconee ISFSI.

    The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76 FR 35512). The final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP. The purpose of the DFP is to demonstrate the licensee's financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. The NRC staff is reviewing the DFP submitted by Duke on December 13, 2012. Specifically, the NRC must determine whether Duke's DFP contains the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and whether Duke has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI.

    Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of Duke's DFP submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b). To approve the DFP, the NRC will evaluate whether the decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403. NRC will also evaluate whether the aggregate dollar amount of Duke's financial instruments provide adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e).

    The proposed action does not require any changes to the ISFSI's licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, nor does it require any new construction or land disturbing activities. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRC's review and approval of the Duke's DFP. The scope of the proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of any decontamination or decommissioning activity or license termination for the ISFSI or any other part of Oconee Nuclear Station.

    Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action provides a means for Duke to demonstrate that it will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI, including the reduction of the residual radioactivity at the ISFSI to the level specified by the applicable NRC license termination regulations concerning release of the property (10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403).

    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC's approval of the DFP will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize any changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRC's approval of the DFP will not result in any changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any construction activity or facility modification. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the approval of the DFP is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in any significant impact to the environment.

    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” NRC's approval of Duke's DFP constitutes a federal undertaking. The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the DFP is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

    Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, prior to taking a proposed action, a federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitats, the federal agency is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. In accordance with 50 CFR 402.13, the NRC has engaged in informal consultation with the FWS. The NRC has determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or their critical habitats because the NRC's approval of Duke's DFP will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. The FWS has concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

    Alternative to the Proposed Action

    In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is to deny Duke's DFP. A denial of a DFP that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b) does not support the regulatory intent of the 2011 rulemaking. As noted in the rulemaking EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648), not promulgating the 2011 final rule would have increased the likelihood of additional legacy sites. Thus, denying Duke's DFP, which the NRC has found to meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(b), will undermine the licensee's decommissioning planning. On this basis, the NRC has concluded that the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative.

    Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff consulted with other agencies and parties regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC provided a draft of its EA to the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services on August 10, 2015, and gave them 30 days to respond. The State never responded. The NRC also consulted with the FWS. The FWS concurred with the NRC's determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the review and approval of the DFP, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b), will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of any solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the DFP will not authorize any construction activity, facility modification, or any other land-disturbing activity. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action and as such, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action but will issue this FONSI. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.32(a)(4), the FONSI incorporates the EA by reference.

    IV. Availability of Documents

    The following documents, related to this Notice, can be found using any of the methods provided in the following table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    Date Document ADAMS
  • Accession No.
  • December 13, 2012 Submission of Duke's decommissioning funding plan ML12353A033 February 1, 2009 Environmental Assessment for Final Rule—Decommissioning Planning ML090500648 May 31, 2016 NRC staff's Final EA for the approval of the decommissioning funding plan ML16141A277
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Bernard H. White IV, Acting Branch Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14262 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    PEACE CORPS Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review AGENCY:

    Peace Corps.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the Federal Register preceding submission to OMB. We are conducting this process in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at [email protected] Email comments must be made in text and not in attachments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Health History Form.

    OMB Control Number: 0420-0510.

    Type of Request: Revison.

    Affected Public: Individuals.

    Respondents Obligation to Reply: Voluntary.

    Respondents: Potential and current volunteers.

    Burdent to the Public:

    a. Estimated number of respondents: 23,000.

    b. Estimated average burden per response: 45 minutes.

    c. Frequency of response: One Time.

    d. Annual reporting burden: 17,250 hours.

    General Description of Collection: The information collected is required for consideration for Peace Corps Volunteer service. The information in the Health History Form, will be used by the Peace Corps Office of Medical Services to determine whether an Applicant will, with reasonable accommodation, be able to perform the essential functions of a Peace Corps Volunteer and complete a tour of service without undue disruption due to health problems and, if so, to establish the level of medical and programmatic support, if any, that may be required to reasonably accommodate the Applicant.

    Request for Comment: Peace Corps invites comments on whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for proper performance of the functions of the Peace Corps, including whether the information will have practical use; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the information to be collected; and, ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    This notice is issued in Washington, DC, on June 9, 2016. Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14214 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6051-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2016-152 and CP2016-196; CP2016-195; CP2016-197; CP2016-198] New Postal Products AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: June 20, 2016 (Comment due date applies to all Docket Nos. listed above).

    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. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

    The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service has filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The requests(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

    Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

    The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

    II. Docketed Proceeding(s)

    1. Docket No(s).: MC2016-152 and CP2016-196; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Global Plus 3 to the Competitive Products List and Notice of Filing a Global Plus 3 Contract Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 10, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Natalie R. Ward; Comments Due: June 20, 2016.

    2. Docket No(s).: CP2016-195; Filing Title: Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 1C Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 10, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35; Public Representative: Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya; Comments Due: June 20, 2016.

    3. Docket No(s).: CP2016-197; Filing Title: Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 1C Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 10, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35; Public Representative: Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya; Comments Due: June 20, 2016.

    4. Docket No(s).: CP2016-198; Filing Title: Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 1C Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: June 10, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35; Public Representative: Cassie D'Souza; Comments Due: June 20, 2016.

    This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14255 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL SERVICE International Product Change—Global Plus 3 Contracts AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add the Global Plus 3 product to the Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective date: June 16, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642, on June 10, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to add Global Plus 3 to the Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2016-152 and CP2016-196.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14213 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IA-4418/803-00227] Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P.; Notice of Application June 10, 2016. AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Notice of application for an exemptive order under Section 206A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and Rule 206(4)-5(e).

    Applicant:

    Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P. (“Applicant” or “Adviser”).

    Relevant Advisers Act Sections:

    Exemption requested under section 206A of the Advisers Act and rule 206(4)-5(e) from rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Advisers Act.

    Summary of Application:

    Applicant requests that the Commission issue an order under section 206A of the Advisers Act and rule 206(4)-5(e) exempting it from rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Advisers Act to permit Applicant to receive compensation from a government entity for investment advisory services provided to the government entity within the two-year period following a contribution by an individual who subsequently became a covered associate of the Applicant to an official of the government entity.

    Filing Dates:

    The application was filed on December 19, 2014, and amended and restated applications were filed on May 26, 2015 and May 2, 2016.

    Hearing or Notification of Hearing:

    An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving Applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 5, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Advisers Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

    ADDRESSES:

    Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicant: Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P., c/o D. Forest Wolfe, Esq., 245 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10167.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vanessa M. Meeks, Senior Counsel, or Melissa R. Harke, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/iareleases.shtml or by calling (202) 551-8090.

    Applicant's Representations

    1. Applicant is a Delaware limited partnership registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Applicant provides discretionary investment advisory services to private funds (the “Funds”). Each of these Funds is a covered investment pool as defined in Rule 206(4)-5(f)(3)(ii). One of the private funds for which the Applicant acts as investment adviser is AG Core Plus Realty Fund IV, L.P. (”Core Plus IV”), a fund excluded from the definition of investment company by Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

    2. The individual who made the campaign contribution that triggered the two-year compensation ban (the “Contribution”) is Christopher Williams (the “Contributor”). The Contributor was hired by the Adviser on September 29, 2014 to serve as a senior investment professional at the Adviser and co-manager of a new investment strategy for the Adviser. The Contributor made the Contribution at a time when he was not working for an investment adviser and almost a year before he would begin working for the Adviser (indeed, months before he entered into employment discussions with the Adviser).

    3. An investor in the Funds is a public pension plan identified as a government entity, as defined in Rule 206(4)-5(f)(5)(ii), with respect to the State of Illinois (the “Client”).

    4. The recipient of the Contribution was Bruce Rauner (the “Recipient”), who was a private citizen then running for Governor of Illinois. The investment decisions for the Client, including the hiring of an investment adviser, are overseen by a nine-member board of trustees, with five gubernatorial appointments, two other state elected officials sitting ex officio, and the chairs of two retirement boards sitting ex officio. Due to the Governor's power of appointment, a candidate for Governor such as the Recipient is an “official” of the Client. The Recipient was elected governor of Illinois on November 4, 2014 and took office on January 12, 2015. The Recipient appointed five members between January 30, 2015 and June 5, 2015.

    5. The Contribution that triggered rule 206(4)-5's prohibition on compensation under rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) was given on November 7, 2013 for the amount of $892.17 as an in-kind contribution to Citizens for Rauner. The Contribution consisted of payments to two vendors to defray expenses of a small meet-and-greet reception (the “Reception”) for the Rauner campaign. The Contributor's first and only meeting with Bruce Rauner consisted of a 5 to 10 minute conversation at the Reception on November 7, 2013. The Contributor did not seek out or initiate contact with the Recipient. At the time of the Contribution, the Contributor had no intention of soliciting investment advisory business from the Client or any other government entity of which Rauner was an official. At no time did any employees of the Adviser other than the Contributor have any knowledge that the Contribution had been made prior to its discovery by the Adviser in October 2014 as a result of its routine new employee onboarding procedures.

    6. The Client's contacts with the Adviser date back to at least 2001, before the Contributor was employed by the Adviser. On September 25, 2014, the Client committed to a substantial investment in one of the Funds, Core Plus IV, a Fund that does not participate in the strategy for which the Contributor is a co-manager. A procedure has been established to segregate any compensation (including carried interest and management fees) attributable to the Client's investment in Core Plus IV and withhold them from the Adviser. The Contributor has no role with respect to the Client. The Client is not considered a prospective investor for the investment strategy for which he is a co-manager. The Contributor has had no contact with any representative of the Client, and no contact with any member of the Client's board.

    7. The Contribution was discovered by the Adviser's compliance department in the course of new employee onboarding that included review of a political contribution questionnaire on which the Contributor disclosed the Contribution. Within one week of discovering the Contribution on October 3, 2014, the Adviser and Contributor obtained the Recipient's agreement to return the full Contribution. A check refunding the full amount of the Contribution was received on October 24, 2014. The Adviser promptly notified the Client of the Contribution and resulting two-year prohibition on compensation absent exemptive relief from the Commission. The Adviser told the Client that fees charged to the Client's capital account in the Core Plus IV would be placed in escrow and that, absent exemptive relief from the Commission, those fees would be refunded and no additional fees would be charged to the Client for the duration of the two-year period.

    8. The Adviser's Pay-to-Play Policies and Procedures (“Policy”) were adopted and implemented before the Contribution was made. The Policy was initially adopted in May 2009, more than a year before rule 206(4)-5 (the “Rule”) was adopted. All contributions to federal, state and local office incumbents and candidates are subject to pre-clearance, not post-contribution reporting, by employees under the Policy. There is no de minimis exception from pre-clearance for small contributions to these state and local officials. All employees of the Adviser are subject to the Policy. In June 2010—before the Rule was adopted—the Adviser instituted a Political Contribution Questionnaire that all new employees of the Adviser are required to complete regarding all political contributions of any size at any level for the three year period before beginning employment.

    Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Advisers Act prohibits a registered investment adviser from providing investment advisory services for compensation to a government entity within two years after a contribution to an official of the government entity is made by the investment adviser or any covered associate of the investment adviser. The Client is a “government entity,” as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(5), the Contributor is a “covered associate” as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(2), and the Recipient is an “official” as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(6). Rule 206(4)-5(c) provides that when a government entity invests in a covered investment pool, the investment adviser to that covered investment pool is treated as providing advisory services directly to the government entity. The Funds are “covered investment pools,” as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(3)(ii).

    2. Section 206A of the Advisers Act grants the Commission the authority to “conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person or transaction . . . from any provision or provisions of [the Advisers Act] or of any rule or regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of [the Advisers Act].”

    3. Rule 206(4)-5(e) provides that the Commission may exempt an investment adviser from the prohibition under Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) upon consideration of the factors listed below, among others:

    (1) Whether the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Advisers Act;

    (2) Whether the investment adviser: (i) Before the contribution resulting in the prohibition was made, adopted and implemented policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the rule; and (ii) prior to or at the time the contribution which resulted in such prohibition was made, had no actual knowledge of the contribution; and (iii) after learning of the contribution: (A) Has taken all available steps to cause the contributor involved in making the contribution which resulted in such prohibition to obtain a return of the contribution; and (B) has taken such other remedial or preventive measures as may be appropriate under the circumstances;

    (3) Whether, at the time of the contribution, the contributor was a covered associate or otherwise an employee of the investment adviser, or was seeking such employment;

    (4) The timing and amount of the contribution which resulted in the prohibition;

    (5) The nature of the election (e.g., federal, state or local); and

    (6) The contributor's apparent intent or motive in making the contribution which resulted in the prohibition, as evidenced by the facts and circumstances surrounding such contribution.

    4. Applicant requests an order pursuant to section 206A and rule 206(4)-5(e), exempting it from the two-year prohibition on compensation imposed by rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) with respect to investment advisory services provided to the Client within the two-year period following the Contribution.

    5. Applicant submits that the exemption is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Advisers Act. Applicant further submits that the other factors set forth in rule 206(4)-5(e) similarly weigh in favor of granting an exemption to the Applicant to avoid consequences disproportionate to the violation.

    6. Applicant contends that given the nature of the Rule violation and the lack of any evidence that the Adviser or the Contributor intended to, or actually did, interfere with the Client's merit-based process for the selection or retention of advisory services, the interests of the Client are best served by allowing the Adviser and the Client to continue their relationship uninterrupted. Applicant states that causing the Adviser to serve without compensation for the remainder of the two year period could result in a financial loss that is more than 300 times the amount of the Contribution. Applicant suggests that the policy underlying the Rule is served by ensuring that no improper influence is exercised over investment decisions by governmental entities as a result of campaign contributions and not by withholding compensation as a result of unintentional violations.

    7. Applicant represents that it had adopted and implemented the Policy which is fully compliant with, and more rigorous than, the Rule's requirements and that it had also implemented a political contribution questionnaire for all new employees, and performed compliance testing that included random searches of campaign contribution databases for the names of employees. Applicant notes that it was this questionnaire that was effective in identifying the Contribution.

    8. Applicant asserts that actual knowledge of the Contribution at the time of its making cannot be imputed to the Adviser, given that the Contributor was not an employee of the Adviser and had not yet participated in any of the discussions that would ultimately lead to his employment with the Adviser. Applicant represents that at no time did any employees of the Adviser other than the Contributor have any knowledge that the Contribution had been made prior to its discovery by the Adviser in October 2014 as part of its standard employee onboarding process.

    9. Applicant asserts that after learning of the Contribution, the Adviser and the Contributor took all available steps to obtain a return of the Contribution and implement additional measures to prevent a future error, including modification of the new employee onboarding process to require the completion of the political contribution questionnaire before the Adviser's final decision to hire a new employee.

    10. Applicant states that it informed the Contributor that he could have no contact with any representative of the Client other than potentially making substantive presentations to the Client's representatives and consultants about the investment strategy the Contributor manages in the event the Client requested a presentation of that strategy. The Contributor was directed to maintain a log of such interactions in accordance with the retention requirements set forth in Rule 204-2(e). Applicant further states that the Contributor ultimately had no contact with any representative of the Client and no contact with any member of the Client's board.

    11. Applicant notes that it has had ongoing contacts with the Client that predate the Contributor's employment with the Adviser, and that the Contribution was consistent with the political affiliation of the Contributor and his wife. Applicant asserts that the Contributor also had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the campaign given that he and his family live in Illinois. Applicant also asserts that the Contributor's action in making a contribution that would later trigger a ban resulted from his lack of knowledge about the Rule's look-back provisions and, thus, his failure to appreciate the fact that the Contribution might impact potential future activities for an investment advisory firm.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14211 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78035; File No. SR-BatsBYX-2016-13] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.23, Opening Process June 10, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on June 9, 2016, Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. 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)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.23, Opening Process, to await a two-sided quotation from the listing exchange prior to re-opening a security for trading following a halt, suspension, or pause in trading.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.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 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 parts 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 Rule 11.23, Opening Process, to await a two-sided quotation from the listing exchange prior to re-opening a security for trading following a halt, suspension, or pause in trading.

    Exchange Rule 11.23 describes the Exchange's current Opening and Re-Opening Process. Subparagraph (e) to Rule 11.23 states that while a security is subject to a halt, suspension, or pause in trading, the Exchange will accept orders for queuing prior to the resumption of trading in the security for participation in the Re-Opening Process. Subparagraph (a) to Rule 11.23 states that, prior to the beginning of the Regular Trading Hours, Users 5 who wish to participate in the Opening Process may enter orders to buy or sell.6 Subparagraph (a)(2) to Rule 11.23 provides that, with certain exceptions,7 all orders with a time-in-force instruction of Regular Hours Only may participate in the Opening Process. Subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.23 states that the Re-Opening Process will occur in the same manner described in Rule 11.23(a)(2) and (b) described above,8 also with certain exceptions.9

    5See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).

    6 Orders cancelled prior to the Opening Process will not participate in the Opening Process.

    7 The following order types and instruction may not participate in the opening process: BYX Post Only Orders, ISOs not modified by Rule 11.23(a)(1) above, and Minimum Quantity Orders. See Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(2). Limit orders with a Reserve Quantity may participate to the full extent of their displayed size and Reserve Quantity. Id. Discretionary Orders may participate only up to their ranked price for buy orders or down to their ranked price for sell orders. Id. The discretionary range of such orders will not be eligible for participation in the Opening Process. Id. All Pegged Orders and Mid-Point Peg Orders, as defined in Rule 11.9(c)(8) and (9), will be eligible for execution in the Opening Process based on their pegged prices. Id.

    8 Subparagraph (b) to Rule 11.23 states that the Exchange will open by performing the Opening Process in which the System will attempt to match buy and sell orders that are executable at the midpoint of the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”). Furthermore, subparagraph (b) of Rule 11.23 also states that all orders executable at the midpoint of the NBBO will continue to be processed in time sequence, beginning with the order with the oldest time stamp. Matches occur until there are no remaining contra-side orders or there is an imbalance of orders. An imbalance of orders may result in orders that cannot be executed in whole or in part. Any unexecuted orders may then be placed by the System on the BYX Book, cancelled, executed, or routed to away Trading Centers in accordance with the Users' instructions pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.13(a)(2).

    9 Orders without a time-in-force instruction of Regular Hours Only are eligible to participate in the Re-Opening Process, but IOC, FOK, BYX Post Only Orders, and Minimum Quantity Orders will be cancelled or rejected, as applicable, and any ISO that is not IOC or FOK will be converted into a non-ISO and be queued for participation in the Re-Opening Process. See Exchange Rule 11.23(e)(1).

    Subparagraph (e)(1) to Exchange Rule 11.23 also sets forth the process by which the System sets the price of the Re-Opening Process. Currently, the System 10 sets the price of the Re-Opening Process at the midpoint of the: (i) First NBBO subsequent to the first reported trade on the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause; or (ii) NBBO when the first two-sided quotation is published by the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause if no first trade is reported by the listing exchange within one second of publication of the first two-sided quotation by the listing exchange.

    10See Exchange Rule 1.5(aa).

    The Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.23 to now await a two-sided quotation from the listing exchange prior to opening a security for trading. As amended, subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.23 would state that the System would set the price of the Re-Opening Process at the midpoint of the first NBBO subsequent to the first reported trade and first two-sided quotation on the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause. The Exchange will utilize the current NBBO to calculate the security's re-opening price once a trade and two-sided quotation are received from the listing exchange, regardless of the order in which the trade or quotation are received. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enable the listing market's quotation to be incorporated into the NBBO, which the Exchange would, in turn, utilize in its calculation of the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange believes doing so would result in a re-opening price that more closely reflects the market prices and conditions for that security. Under subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.23, the Exchange will continue to alternatively set the price of the Re-Opening Process at the midpoint of the NBBO when the first two-sided quotation is published by the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause if no first trade is reported by the listing exchange within one second of publication of the first two-sided quotation by the listing exchange.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 11 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 12 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system because it enables the System to execute the Re-Opening Process at a price that is objectively established by the market for the security. The proposal would enable the listing market's quotation to be incorporated into the NBBO, which the Exchange would, in turn, utilize in its calculation of the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange believes doing so would result in a re-opening price that more closely reflect the market prices and conditions for that security. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it ensures a midpoint price that the Exchange believes would accurately reflect the market for the security.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will enable the Exchange to incorporate the listing market's quotation into its calculation of the midpoint of the NBBO, resulting in a re-opening price that would more closely reflect the opening market prices and conditions for that security. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote competition by enhancing the quality of the Exchange's opening process.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.14

    13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 15 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 16 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow market participants to immediately realize the benefits of what may be more accurate re-opening prices. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.17

    15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    17 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    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 change should be approved or 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 No. SR-BatsBYX-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 No. SR-BatsBYX-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 No. SR-BatsBYX-2016-13, and should be submitted on or before July 7, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.18

    18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14206 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78034; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-25] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.24, Opening Process for Non-BZX-Listed Securities June 10, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on June 9, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. 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)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 11.24, Opening Process for Non-BZX-Listed Securities, to await a two-sided quotation from the listing exchange prior to re-opening a security for trading following a halt, suspension, or pause in trading. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial and provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.5 The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative waiting period contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.6

    5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    6Id.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.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 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 parts 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 Rule 11.24, Opening Process for Non-BZX-Listed Securities, to await a two-sided quotation from the listing exchange prior to re-opening a security for trading following a halt, suspension, or pause in trading.7

    7 The re-opening process for BZX-Listed Securities is set forth under Exchange Rule 11.23(d).

    Exchange Rule 11.24 describes the Exchange's current Opening and Re-Opening Process for non-BZX-Listed securities. Subparagraph (e) to Rule 11.24 states that while a non-BZX-listed security is subject to a halt, suspension, or pause in trading, the Exchange will accept orders for queuing prior to the resumption of trading in the security for participation in the Re-Opening Process. Subparagraph (a) to Rule 11.24 states that, prior to the beginning of the Regular Trading Hours, Users 8 who wish to participate in the Opening Process may enter orders to buy or sell.9 Subparagraph (a)(2) to Rule 11.24 provides that, with certain exceptions,10 all orders with a time-in-force instruction of Regular Hours Only may participate in the Opening Process. Subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.24 states that the Re-Opening Process will occur in the same manner described in Rule 11.24(a)(2) and (b) described above,11 also with certain exceptions.12

    8See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).

    9 Orders cancelled prior to the Opening Process will not participate in the Opening Process.

    10 The following order types and instruction may not participate in the opening process: BZX Post Only Orders, Partial Post Only at Limit Orders, ISOs not modified by Rule 11.24(a)(1) above, and Minimum Quantity Orders. See Exchange Rule 11.24(a)(2). Limit orders with a Reserve Quantity may participate to the full extent of their displayed size and Reserve Quantity. Id. Discretionary Orders may participate only up to their ranked price for buy orders or down to their ranked price for sell orders. Id. The discretionary range of such orders will not be eligible for participation in the Opening Process. Id. All Pegged Orders and Mid-Point Peg Orders, as defined in Rule 11.9(c)(8) and (9), will be eligible for execution in the Opening Process based on their pegged prices. Id.

    11 Subparagraph (b) to Rule 11.24 states that the Exchange will open by performing the Opening Process in which the System will attempt to match buy and sell orders that are executable at the midpoint of the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”). Furthermore, subparagraph (b) of Rule 11.24 also states that all orders executable at the midpoint of the NBBO will continue to be processed in time sequence, beginning with the order with the oldest time stamp. Matches occur until there are no remaining contra-side orders or there is an imbalance of orders. An imbalance of orders may result in orders that cannot be executed in whole or in part. Any unexecuted orders may then be placed by the System on the BZX Book, cancelled, executed, or routed to away Trading Centers in accordance with the Users' instructions pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.13(a)(2).

    12 Orders without a time-in-force instruction of Regular Hours Only are eligible to participate in the Re-Opening Process, but IOC, FOK, BZX Post Only Orders, and Minimum Quantity Orders will be cancelled or rejected, as applicable, and any ISO that is not IOC or FOK will be converted into a non-ISO and be queued for participation in the Re-Opening Process. See Exchange Rule 11.24(e)(1).

    Subparagraph (e)(1) to Exchange Rule 11.24 also sets forth the process by which the System sets the price of the Re-Opening Process. Currently, the System 13 sets the price of the Re-Opening Process at the midpoint of the: (i) First NBBO subsequent to the first reported trade on the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause; or (ii) NBBO when the first two-sided quotation is published by the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause if no first trade is reported by the listing exchange within one second of publication of the first two-sided quotation by the listing exchange.

    13See Exchange Rule 1.5(aa).

    The Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.24 to now await a two-sided quotation from the listing exchange prior to opening a security for trading. As amended, subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.24 would state that the System would set the price of the Re-Opening Process at the midpoint of the first NBBO subsequent to the first reported trade and first two-sided quotation on the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause. The Exchange will utilize the current NBBO to calculate the security's re-opening price once a trade and two-sided quotation are received from the listing exchange, regardless of the order in which the trade or quotation are received. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enable the listing market's quotation to be incorporated into the NBBO, which the Exchange would, in turn, utilize in its calculation of the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange believes doing so would result in a re-opening price that more closely reflects the market prices and conditions for that security. Under subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.24, the Exchange will continue to alternatively set the price of the Re-Opening Process at the midpoint of the NBBO when the first two-sided quotation is published by the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause if no first trade is reported by the listing exchange within one second of publication of the first two-sided quotation by the listing exchange.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 14 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 15 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system because it enables the System to execute the Re-Opening Process at a price that is objectively established by the market for the security. The proposal would enable the listing market's quotation to be incorporated into the NBBO, which the Exchange would, in turn, utilize in its calculation of the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange believes doing so would result in a re-opening price that more closely reflect the market prices and conditions for that security. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it ensures a midpoint price that the Exchange believes would accurately reflect the market for the security.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will enable the Exchange to incorporate the listing market's quotation into its calculation of the midpoint of the NBBO, resulting in a re-opening price that would more closely reflect the opening market prices and conditions for that security. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote competition by enhancing the quality of the Exchange's opening process.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 16 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.17

    16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 18 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 19 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow market participants to immediately realize the benefits of what may be more accurate re-opening prices. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.20

    18 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    19 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    20 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    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 change should be approved or 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 No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-25 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 No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-25. 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 No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-25, and should be submitted on or before July 7, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.21

    21 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14205 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of Enterprise Energy, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading June 14, 2016.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Enterprise Energy, Inc. (CIK No. 0001587285) because of recent, unusual and unexplained market activity and potentially manipulative transactions in the company's stock. Enterprise Energy, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business listed as Las Vegas, Nevada, with stock quoted on OTC Link (previously “Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. under the ticker symbol EYGY.

    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of Enterprise Energy, Inc. is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 14, 2016, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 27, 2016.

    By the Commission.

    Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14379 Filed 6-14-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78037; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-052] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Extension of the Exchange's Penny Pilot Program and Replacement of Penny Pilot Issues That Have Been Delisted June 10, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on June 8, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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

    Nasdaq is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Chapter VI, Section 5 (Minimum Increments) 3 of the rules of the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”) to extend through December 31, 2016 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier, the Penny Pilot Program in options classes in certain issues (“Penny Pilot” or “Pilot”), and to change the date when delisted classes may be replaced in the Penny Pilot.4

    3 References herein to Chapter and Series refer to rules of the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”), unless otherwise noted.

    4 The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 and was last extended in 2014. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR 18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot); and 75283 (June 24, 2015), 80 FR 37347 (June 30, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-063) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot through June 30, 2016).

    The text of the amended Exchange rule is set forth immediately below.

    Proposed new language is underlined and proposed deleted language is [bracketed].

    NASDAQ Stock Market Rules Options Rules Chapter VI Trading Systems Sec. 5 Minimum Increments

    (a) The Board may establish minimum quoting increments for options contracts traded on NOM. Such minimum increments established by the Board will be designated as a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the administration of this Section within the meaning of Section 19 of the Exchange Act and will be filed with the SEC as a rule change for effectiveness upon filing. Until such time as the Board makes a change in the increments, the following principles shall apply:

    (1)-(2) No Change.

    (3) For a pilot period scheduled to expire on [June 30]December 31, 2016 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier, if the options series is trading pursuant to the Penny Pilot program one (1) cent if the options series is trading at less than $3.00, five (5) cents if the options series is trading at $3.00 or higher, unless for QQQQs, SPY and IWM where the minimum quoting increment will be one cent for all series regardless of price. A list of such options shall be communicated to membership via an Options Trader Alert (“OTA”) posted on the Exchange's Web site.

    The Exchange may replace any pilot issues that have been delisted with the next most actively traded multiply listed options classes that are not yet included in the pilot, based on trading activity in the previous six months. The replacement issues may be added to the pilot on the second trading day following July 1, [2015]2016[ and January 1, 2016].

    (4) No Change.

    (b) No Change.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available from Nasdaq's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at Nasdaq'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, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this filing is to amend Chapter VI, Section 5 to extend the Penny Pilot through December 31, 2016 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier,5 and to change the date when delisted classes may be replaced in the Penny Pilot. The Exchange believes that extending the Penny Pilot will allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot and a determination of how the program should be structured in the future.

    5 The options exchanges in the U.S. that have pilot programs similar to the Penny Pilot (together “pilot programs”) are currently working on a proposal for permanent approval of the respective pilot programs.

    Under the Penny Pilot, the minimum price variation for all participating options classes, except for the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock (“QQQQ”), the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund (“SPY”) and the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (“IWM”), is $0.01 for all quotations in options series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in options series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ, SPY and IWM are quoted in $0.01 increments for all options series. The Penny Pilot is currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2016.

    The Exchange proposes to extend the time period of the Penny Pilot through December 31, 2016 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier, and to provide a revised date for adding replacement issues to the Penny Pilot. The Exchange proposes that any Penny Pilot Program issues that have been delisted may be replaced on the second trading day following July 1, 2016. The replacement issues will be selected based on trading activity in the previous six months.6

    6 The replacement issues will be announced to the Exchange's membership via an Options Trader Alert (OTA) posted on the Exchange's Web site. The Exchange proposes in its Penny Pilot rule that replacement issues will be selected based on trading activity in the previous six months. The replacement issues would be identified based on The Options Clearing Corporation's trading volume data. For example, for the July replacement, trading volume from December 1, 2015 through May 30, 2016 would be analyzed. The month immediately preceding the replacement issues' addition to the Pilot Program (i.e., June) would not be used for purposes of the six-month analysis.

    This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Penny Pilot Program; all classes currently participating in the Penny Pilot will remain the same and all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh the potential increase in quote traffic.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,8 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot for an additional six months through December 31, 2016 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier, and changes the date for replacing Penny Pilot issues that were delisted to the second trading day following July 1, 2016, will enable public customers and other market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options for the benefit of all market participants. This is consistent with the Act.

    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 not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, this proposal is pro-competitive because it allows Penny Pilot issues to continue trading on the Exchange.

    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot and a determination of how the Pilot should be structured in the future; and will serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

    The Pilot is an industry-wide initiative supported by all other option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot will allow for continued competition between market participants on the Exchange trading similar products as their counterparts on other exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot.

    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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.10 Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 11 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.12 However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),13 the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of the Pilot Program. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.14

    11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.

    13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    14 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 15 of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    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-NASDAQ-2016-052 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-052. 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 NASDAQ. 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-NASDAQ-2016-052 and should be submitted on or before July 7, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.16

    16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14208 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78038; File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-13] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.7, Opening Process June 10, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on June 9, 2016, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. 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)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 11.7, Opening Process, to await a two-sided quotation from the listing exchange prior to re-opening a security for trading following a halt, suspension, or pause in trading.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.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 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 parts 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 Rule 11.7, Opening Process, to await a two-sided quotation from the listing exchange prior to re-opening a security for trading following a halt, suspension, or pause in trading.

    Exchange Rule 11.7 describes the Exchange's current Opening and Re-Opening Process. Subparagraph (e) to Rule 11.7 states that while a security is subject to a halt, suspension, or pause in trading, the Exchange will accept orders for queuing prior to the resumption of trading in the security for participation in the Re-Opening Process. Subparagraph (a) to Rule 11.7 states that, prior to the beginning of the Regular Trading Hours, Users 5 who wish to participate in the Opening Process may enter orders to buy or sell.6 Subparagraph (a)(2) to Rule 11.7 provides that, with certain exceptions,7 all orders with a time-in-force instruction of Regular Hours Only may participate in the Opening Process. Subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.7 states that the Re-Opening Process will occur in the same manner described in Rule 11.7(a)(2) and (b) described above,8 also with certain exceptions.9

    5See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).

    6 Orders cancelled prior to the Opening Process will not participate in the Opening Process.

    7 The following order types and instruction may not participate in the opening process: Limit Orders with a Post Only instruction, the Discretionary Range of Limit Orders, ISOs not modified by Rule 11.7(a)(1), and orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction. See Exchange Rule 11.7(a)(2). Limit Orders with a Reserve Quantity may participate to the full extent of their displayed size and Reserve Quantity. Id. Limit Orders with a Discretionary Range may participate up to their ranked limit price for buy orders or down to their ranked limit price for sell orders. Id. All Limit Orders with a Pegged instruction, as defined in Exchange Rule 11.6(i), will be eligible for execution in the Opening Process based on their pegged prices. Id.

    8 Subparagraph (b) to Rule 11.7 states that the Exchange will open by performing the Opening Process in which the System will attempt to match buy and sell orders that are executable at the midpoint of the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”). Furthermore, subparagraph (b) of Rule 11.7 also states that all orders executable at the midpoint of the NBBO will continue to be processed in time sequence, beginning with the order with the oldest time stamp. Matches occur until there are no remaining contra-side orders or there is an imbalance of orders. An imbalance of orders may result in orders that cannot be executed in whole or in part. Any unexecuted orders may then be placed by the System on the EDGA Book, cancelled, executed, or routed to away Trading Centers in accordance with the Users' instructions pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.11.

    9 Orders without a time-in-force (“TIF”) instruction of Regular Hours Only are eligible to participate in the Re-Opening Process, but orders that include a TIF instruction of IOC or FOK, a Post Only instruction or Minimum Execution Quantity instruction will be cancelled or rejected, as applicable, and any ISO that does not include a TIF instruction of IOC or FOK will be converted into a non-ISO and be queued for participation in the Re-Opening Process. See Exchange Rule 11.7(e)(1).

    Subparagraph (e)(1) to Exchange Rule 11.7 also sets forth the process by which the System sets the price of the Re-Opening Process. Currently, the System 10 sets the price of the Re-Opening Process at the midpoint of the: (i) First NBBO subsequent to the first reported trade on the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause; or (ii) NBBO when the first two-sided quotation is published by the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause if no first trade is reported by the listing exchange within one second of publication of the first two-sided quotation by the listing exchange.

    10See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).

    The Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.7 to now await a two-sided quotation from the listing exchange prior to opening a security for trading. As amended, subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.7 would state that the System would set the price of the Re-Opening Process at the midpoint of the first NBBO subsequent to the first reported trade and first two-sided quotation on the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause. The Exchange will utilize the current NBBO to calculate the security's re-opening price once a trade and two-sided quotation are received from the listing exchange, regardless of the order in which the trade or quotation are received. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enable the listing market's quotation to be incorporated into the NBBO, which the Exchange would, in turn, utilize in its calculation of the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange believes doing so would result in a re-opening price that more closely reflects the market prices and conditions for that security. Under subparagraph (e)(1) to Rule 11.7, the Exchange will continue to alternatively set the price of the Re-Opening Process at the midpoint of the NBBO when the first two-sided quotation is published by the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause if no first trade is reported by the listing exchange within one second of publication of the first two-sided quotation by the listing exchange.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 11 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 12 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system because it enables the System to execute the Re-Opening Process at a price that is objectively established by the market for the security. The proposal would enable the listing market's quotation to be incorporated into the NBBO, which the Exchange would, in turn, utilize in its calculation of the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange believes doing so would result in a re-opening price that more closely reflect the market prices and conditions for that security. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it ensures a midpoint price that the Exchange believes would accurately reflect the market for the security.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will enable the Exchange to incorporate the listing market's quotation into its calculation of the midpoint of the NBBO, resulting in a re-opening price that would more closely reflect the opening market prices and conditions for that security. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote competition by enhancing the quality of the Exchange's opening process.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.14

    13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 15 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 16 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow market participants to immediately realize the benefits of what may be more accurate re-opening prices. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.17

    15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    17 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    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 change should be approved or 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 No. SR-BatsEDGA-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 No. SR-BatsEDGA-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 No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-13, and should be submitted on or before July 7, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.18

    18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14209 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78031; File No. SR-DTC-2016-004] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Link With Euroclear June 10, 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 June 3, 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) of the Act thereunder.3 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 The Depository Trust Company (the “Rules”) 4 in order to add new Rule 34 (EB Link) to establish a link (“EB Link”) between DTC and Euroclear Bank SA/NV (“EB”) for DTC Participants that are also EB participants (“CP Participants”) to use Securities held at DTC for EB Collateral Transactions (as defined below). The proposed Rule 34 specifies the Accounts, Free Deliveries, and the terms and conditions that together comprise collateral positioning (“Collateral Positioning” or “CP”) for CP Participants. The proposed rule change would: (i) Allow CP Participants to designate a sub-account for Collateral Positioning (a “CP Sub-Account”) of Securities selected by the CP Participant (the “CP Securities”) to Deliver to EB; and (ii) establish the Securities Account of EB (the “EB Account”) on the books of DTC to receive and hold such CP Securities. DTC understands that EB would then credit such CP Securities to an account it maintains on its books for such CP Participant for use in transfers on the books of EB (“EB Collateral Transactions”) in connection with EB's collateral management services (“EB CMS”), as described below.5

    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. Pursuant to a telephone call with DTC's internal counsel on June 9, 2016, staff in the Commission's Office of Clearance and Settlement added this footnote. DTC inadvertently omitted the footnote.

    5 On May 9, 2016, EB filed an application with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) on Form CA-1, seeking to amend its existing exemption from clearing agency registration by expanding its existing exemption to authorize EB to offer EB CMS to its U.S. participants for U.S. equities (the “EB CA-1 Amendment”). DTC understands that the EB CA-1 Amendment is necessary for EB to offer EB CMS, and consequently, the DTCC Euroclear Global Collateral Ltd. (“DEGCL”) Inventory Management Service (“DEGCL IMS”), to U.S. participants for U.S. equities. Commission approval of this proposed rule change to add new Rule 34 (EB Link) would have no effect on the authority of EB pursuant to the EB CA-1 Amendment. In addition, this proposed rule change provides that it would not be implemented until the EB CA-1 Amendment is approved by the Commission.

    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 34 (EB Link) to establish the EB Link between DTC and EB for CP Participants to use Securities held at DTC for EB Collateral Transactions. The proposed Rule 34 specifies the Accounts, Free Deliveries, and the terms and conditions that together comprise Collateral Positioning for CP Participants. The proposed rule change would: (i) Allow CP Participants to designate a CP Sub-Account of CP Securities to Deliver to EB; and (ii) establish the EB Account on the books of DTC to receive and hold such CP Securities. DTC understands that EB would then credit such CP Securities to an account it maintains on its books for such CP Participant for use in EB Collateral Transactions in connection with EB CMS, as described below.

    (i) Background (a) New Regulations Require Better Access to and Management of Securities Collateral

    New and enhanced regulatory requirements are leading derivative and financing counterparties to seek increased efficiency in the availability and deployment of collateral and streamlined margin processing. More specifically, the phase-in period of the Basel III liquidity rules,6 as well as recent regulatory changes by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,7 the U.S. prudential regulators,8 European Market Infrastructure Regulation,9 and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“BCBS”) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”),10 have resulted in increased capital requirements, mandatory central clearing of more derivatives transactions, and new margining rules for bilateral trades, driving a significant increased demand for high quality collateral.

    6 Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Basel III: A global framework for more resilient banks and the banking system, December 2010 and revised June 2011; Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Basel III: The Liquidity Coverage Ratio and liquidity risk monitoring tools, January 2013; Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Basel III: the net stable funding ratio, October 2014, available at www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3.htm.

    7 Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 81 FR 635 (January 6, 2016); 17 CFR parts 23 and 140.

    8 Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities, 80 FR 74840 (November 30, 2015); 12 CFR parts 45, 237, 349, 624 and 1221. The U.S. prudential regulators include: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency—Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Farm Credit Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

    9 European Supervisory Authorities' (ESAs) Final Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on risk-mitigation techniques for OTC-derivative contracts not cleared by a CCP under Article 11(15) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR), available at https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1398349/RTS+on+Risk+Mitigation+Techniques+for+OTC+contracts+%28JC-2016-+18%29.pdf/fb0b3387-3366-4c56-9e25-74b2a4997e1d.

    10 BCBS-IOSCO, Margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives (March 2015), available at http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d317.htm.

    These regulatory changes further include requirements for initial margin for counterparties as well as a reduction or removal of thresholds for variation margin.11 It is expected that the inclusion of initial margin will significantly increase the amount of collateral required and will create additional margin calls by affected counterparties. In addition, it is expected that the removal or reduction of thresholds for variation margin will mean any changes in underlying valuations may trigger increased margin calls requiring market participants to hold additional collateral available for posting. Also, these regulatory changes include new restrictions on eligible collateral, requiring the use of highly liquid assets, prescribed haircuts, segregation requirements, as well as a prohibition on rehypothecation for initial margin. Given these forthcoming requirements, counterparties would need to access and deploy collateral more effectively.

    11 Initial margin means money, securities, or property posted by a party to a swap as performance bond to cover potential future exposures arising from changes in the market value of the position. Variation margin means a payment made by or collateral posted by a party to a swap to cover the current exposure arising from changes in the market value of the position since the trade was executed or the previous time the position was marked to market. See 17 CFR 23.700.

    (b) Proposed Rule Change Would Support DEGCL IMS

    DEGCL is a United Kingdom (“UK”) joint venture of DTCC and Euroclear S.A./N.V. (“Euroclear”), authorized by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) in the UK as a “service company” 12 in accordance with applicable law of the UK. DEGCL was formed for the purpose of offering global information, record keeping, and processing services for derivatives collateral transactions and other types of financing transactions. DEGCL seeks to provide services to its users, including buy-side and sell-side financial institutions, in meeting their risk management and regulatory requirements for the holding and exchange of collateral, as required by these new regulatory requirements.

    12 DEGCL was authorized as a “service company” by the FCA on March 29, 2016. A “service company,” as defined in the FCA Handbook, Glossary, is: “[A] firm whose only permitted activities are making arrangements with a view to transactions in investments, and agreeing to carry on that regulated activity, and whose Part 4A permission: (a) Incorporates a limitation substantially to the effect that the firm carry on regulated activities only with market counterparties or intermediate customers; and (b) includes requirements substantially to the effect that the firm must not: (i) Guarantee, or otherwise accept responsibility for, the performance, by a participant in arrangements made by the firm in carrying on regulated activities, of obligations undertaken by that participant in connection with those arrangements; or (ii) approve any financial promotion on behalf of any other person or any specified class of persons; or (iii) in carrying on its regulated activities, provide services otherwise than in accordance with documents (of a kind specified in the requirement) provided by the firm to the FCA.” FCA Handbook, Glossary, available at https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary.

    In particular, DEGCL IMS would address the increased demand for cross-border availability of securities collateral, some of which may be held at DTC. The purpose of DEGCL IMS is to offer to its users a more global view of their collateral assets and support cross-border mobility and to integrate information and record keeping for collateral use of Securities held at DTC and EB.

    DEGCL IMS would be operated by EB and other entities in the Euroclear group, as the service provider to DEGCL, in accordance with appropriate agreements among these parties and in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. There is no direct relationship between DTC and DEGCL IMS. DEGCL IMS would be offered to any financial institution that is both a DTC Participant and a participant of EB that has elected to use EB CMS (“EB Collateral Participant”).

    EB Link and Collateral Positioning Would Offer Global Collateral Mobility for Securities Held at DTC by CP Participants

    The proposed rule change would establish the EB Link between DTC and EB through which a CP Participant could Deliver Securities from its Account to its CP Sub-Account and, from there, to the EB Account at DTC. The object is for EB to then credit the Securities to an account of the CP Participant on the books of EB for use in EB CMS.

    For purposes of the EB Link, EB has become a Participant of DTC,13 in order to establish the EB Account to which CP Securities would be credited. Accordingly, EB would act in two capacities: (i) On its own behalf as a Participant of DTC, to maintain the EB Account in which CP Securities may be held, so that EB may effect book entry transfers of those Securities on its own books and records; and (ii) on behalf of each CP Participant as the representative (the “CP Representative”) of such CP Participant, to provide instructions to DTC on the CP Participant's behalf for the Delivery of CP Securities from the CP Sub-Account, and to receive certain information (x) once each Business Day, identifying the CP Securities that are credited to the CP Sub-Account at the time of the report (the “CP Securities Report”), and (y) that specified CP Securities have been Delivered into or out of the CP Sub-Account, and/or that an instruction has been given to DTC to Deliver specified CP Securities out of the CP Sub-Account, as applicable (the “Delivery Information”).

    13 EB was accepted as a Participant on February 18, 2016. Upon approval of EB as a Participant, EB, like any other Participant, signed a Participant's Agreement pursuant to which it agreed, inter alia, that the DTC Rules shall be a part of the terms and conditions of every contract or transaction that EB may make or have with DTC, including the Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity testing requirements set forth in DTC Rule 2 (Participants and Pledgees).

    The CP Participant would authorize EB as its CP Representative, to provide instructions on its behalf, and to receive the CP Se