Federal Register Vol. 81, No.17,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 17 (January 27, 2016)

Page Range4573-4874
FR Document

81_FR_17
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 4635 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 4726 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Exchange's Schedule of Fees and Charges To Define the Term “Exchange Traded Products” and To Provide for the Proration of Annual Fees Applicable to Exchange Traded Products That Have LiquidatedPDF
81 FR 4689 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Establishing the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances Proprietary Market Data ProductPDF
81 FR 4731 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2PDF
81 FR 4724 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend a Quote Spread Parameter ProvisionPDF
81 FR 4682 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.24, Retail Price Improvement Program, To Extend the Pilot PeriodPDF
81 FR 4710 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
81 FR 4624 - Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemptions for Oxytetracycline and Streptomycin; Solicitation of Public CommentPDF
81 FR 4671 - Notice of Public Comment Period on Revised; Federal Advisory Committee Work ProductsPDF
81 FR 4574 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Boilers; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 4680 - Draft NUREG/CR-7209, A Compendium of Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response Analyses to Severe Fire Accident ScenariosPDF
81 FR 4615 - NOAA Commercial Space PolicyPDF
81 FR 4619 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho National LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 4618 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, PaducahPDF
81 FR 4633 - Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue DebtsPDF
81 FR 4736 - Privacy Act; System of Records: Digital Outreach and Communications, State-79PDF
81 FR 4618 - Environmental Management Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 4613 - Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
81 FR 4620 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
81 FR 4612 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 4738 - Decision; Notice of Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council VacancyPDF
81 FR 4618 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
81 FR 4599 - Applicability of Normal Retirement Age Regulations to Governmental Pension PlansPDF
81 FR 4628 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Public Health Service Guideline on Infectious Disease Issues in XenotransplantationPDF
81 FR 4588 - Safety Zone; Transit Restrictions, Lower Mississippi River Mile Marker 365.0-361.0PDF
81 FR 4623 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area SourcesPDF
81 FR 4622 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BBBB)PDF
81 FR 4626 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to Diesel Fuel Sold in 2001 and Later Years; Tax-Exempt (Dyed) Highway Diesel Fuel; and Non-Road Locomotive & Marine Diesel Fuel (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 4838 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Endangered North Atlantic Right WhalePDF
81 FR 4586 - Safety Zone; Transit Restrictions, Lower Mississippi River Mile Marker 311.0-319.0PDF
81 FR 4590 - Safety Zone; Bayou Chene Beginning at Mile 130.0 on the Atchafalaya River Extending Through the Bayou Chene Ending at Mile 85.0 on the Intercoastal Waterway Morgan City, LAPDF
81 FR 4739 - Mounir R. Khouri; Public Interest Exclusion OrderPDF
81 FR 4636 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: “Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally-Owned Residential Properties and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance”PDF
81 FR 4670 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments; Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 4804 - Request for Comment Regarding Overhead Transfer Rate MethodologyPDF
81 FR 4679 - Request for Comment Regarding National Credit Union Administration Draft 2017-2021 Strategic PlanPDF
81 FR 4594 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the Gulf of AlaskaPDF
81 FR 4674 - Request for Comment Regarding National Credit Union Administration Operating Fee Schedule MethodologyPDF
81 FR 4739 - List of Countries Requiring Cooperation With an International BoycottPDF
81 FR 4573 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal AwardsPDF
81 FR 4741 - Open Meeting of the Financial Research Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 4739 - Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce BenefitsPDF
81 FR 4681 - Information Collection: NRC's Policy Statement on Cooperation With States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production and Utilization FacilitiesPDF
81 FR 4740 - Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce BenefitsPDF
81 FR 4638 - Native American Policy for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicePDF
81 FR 4614 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
81 FR 4611 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 4632 - Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals'); Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 4608 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 4612 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 4673 - Revision of OMB Circular No. A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities”PDF
81 FR 4648 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CAPDF
81 FR 4652 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CAPDF
81 FR 4575 - Technical AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 4734 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 4659 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CAPDF
81 FR 4735 - Mississippi Disaster Number MS-00083PDF
81 FR 4735 - Washington Disaster #WA-00064PDF
81 FR 4651 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CAPDF
81 FR 4735 - ALABAMA Disaster #AL-00059PDF
81 FR 4657 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CAPDF
81 FR 4646 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CAPDF
81 FR 4655 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CAPDF
81 FR 4662 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CAPDF
81 FR 4645 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate a Cultural Item: Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, NYPDF
81 FR 4654 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, Charleston, SC; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 4662 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Boulder City, NVPDF
81 FR 4650 - Notice of Inventory Completion: San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, CAPDF
81 FR 4741 - Sentencing Guidelines for United States CourtsPDF
81 FR 4627 - Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, President's Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities MeetingPDF
81 FR 4633 - HHS-Operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Meeting; March 31, 2016PDF
81 FR 4577 - Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation, Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes, Head-Up Display (HUD) With Vision-System VideoPDF
81 FR 4596 - Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Boeing 767-2C Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
81 FR 4579 - Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X, Limit Pilot ForcesPDF
81 FR 4627 - Petition of COSCO Container Lines Company Limited for an Exemption From Commission Regulations; Notice of Filing and Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 4592 - Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licensing and Financial Responsibility Requirements, and General DutiesPDF
81 FR 4623 - Sulfoxaflor; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public CommentPDF
81 FR 4620 - Access to Confidential Business Information By Eastern Research Group, IncorporatedPDF
81 FR 4583 - Cuban Assets Control RegulationsPDF
81 FR 4580 - Cuba Licensing Policy RevisionsPDF
81 FR 4574 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment Nos. 0-3, Revision 1PDF
81 FR 4627 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 4598 - Extension of Comment Period for Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction IssuersPDF
81 FR 4712 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the First Trust Municipal High Income ETF of First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund IIIPDF
81 FR 4728 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Price Protection Mechanisms for Quotes and OrdersPDF
81 FR 4708 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Price Protection Mechanisms for Quotes and OrdersPDF
81 FR 4684 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Limit Order Protection and a Market Order ProtectionPDF
81 FR 4672 - Occupational Safety and Health State Plans; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
81 FR 4724 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating To Listing and Trading of Shares of the Cumberland Municipal Bond ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
81 FR 4695 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares, to List and Trade Shares of the iShares iBonds Dec 2023 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2024 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2025 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF of the iShares U.S. ETF TrustPDF
81 FR 4728 - Self-Regulatory Organization; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting an Extension to Limited Exemption From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS in Connection With the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement ProgramPDF
81 FR 4721 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding SQF Port FeesPDF
81 FR 4687 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Options Regulatory FeePDF
81 FR 4693 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Subsection (a)(7) of Rule 7003, Registration and Processing FeesPDF
81 FR 4691 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Subsection (a)(7) of Rule 7003, Registration and Processing FeesPDF
81 FR 4734 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 11.27 To Implement the Quoting and Trading Requirements of the Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 4634 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 4635 - National Institute of Nursing Research Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 4634 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 4635 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 4621 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; EPA's Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards ProgramPDF
81 FR 4605 - Disguised Payments for Services; HearingPDF
81 FR 4609 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics Study (CEP)PDF
81 FR 4615 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 4674 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Ad Hoc Task Force on Big Data; MeetingPDF
81 FR 4637 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Requisition for Disbursements of Sections 202 & 811 Capital Advance/Loan FundsPDF
81 FR 4617 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 4593 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Removal of Unnecessary Construction Clauses and Editorial ChangesPDF
81 FR 4606 - Procedures Related to the Mail Classification SchedulePDF
81 FR 4748 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray ValvesPDF

Issue

81 17 Wednesday, January 27, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4608 2016-01608 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Bayou Chene Beginning at Mile 130.0 on the Atchafalaya River Extending Through the Bayou Chene Ending at Mile 85.0 on the Intercoastal Waterway Morgan City, LA, 4590-4592 2016-01631 Transit Restrictions, Lower Mississippi River Mile Marker 311.0 - 319.0, 4586-4588 2016-01632 Transit Restrictions, Lower Mississippi River Mile Marker 365.0 - 361.0, 4588-4590 2016-01637 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4612 2016-01607
Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Meetings: Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, 4627-4628 2016-01586 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4617-4618 2016-01504 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 4615-4617 2016-01517 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Information Administration

RULES Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Boilers; Correction, 4574-4575 2016-01655 Energy Conservation Program: Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, 4748-4802 2016-00068 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4618 2016-01640 Charter Renewals: Environmental Management Advisory Board, 4618 2016-01647 Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho National Laboratory, 4619-4620 2016-01652 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah, 4618-4619 2016-01650
Energy Information Energy Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4620 2016-01645 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Access to Confidential Business Information: Eastern Research Group, Inc., 4620-4621 2016-01568 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, 4623 2016-01636 NSPS for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999, 4622-4623 2016-01635 Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to Diesel Fuel Sold in 2001 and Later Years; for Tax-Exempt (Dyed) Highway Diesel Fuel; Non-Road Locomotive and Marine Diesel Fuel (Renewal), 4626 2016-01634 Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards Program, 4621-4622 2016-01523 Emergency Exemptions; Applications: Oxytetracycline and Streptomycin, 4624-4626 2016-01659 Sulfoxaflor, 4623-4624 2016-01571 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X, Limit Pilot Forces, 4579-4580 2016-01581 Dassault Aviation, Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes, Head-Up Display (HUD) with Vision-System Video, 4577-4579 2016-01583 PROPOSED RULES Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Boeing 767-2C Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 4596-4598 2016-01582 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission RULES Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licensing and Financial Responsibility Requirements, and General Duties, 4592-4593 2016-01578 NOTICES Petitions: COSCO Container Lines Co., Ltd., 4627 2016-01579 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 4627 2016-01546 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Native American Policy for the Fish and Wildlife Service, 4638-4645 2016-01615 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Public Health Service Guideline on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation, 4628-4631 2016-01638 Guidance: Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals (Emerging Signals), 4632-4633 2016-01610 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics Study, 4609-4610 2016-01518 Uniform Grant Application for Non-Entitlement Discretionary Grants, 4608-4609 2016-01609 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office RULES Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 4583-4586 2016-01559 General Services General Services Administration RULES Acquisition Regulations: Removal of Unnecessary Construction Clauses and Editorial Changes, 4593-4594 2016-01422 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Interest Rate on Overdue Debts, 4633 2016-01649 Meetings: HHS-Operated Risk Adjustment Methodology, 4633-4634 2016-01584
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally-Owned Residential Properties and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance, 4636-4637 2016-01628 Requisition for Disbursements of Sections 202 and 811 Capital Advance/Loan Funds, 4637-4638 2016-01512 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Cuba Licensing Policy Revisions, 4580-4583 2016-01557 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Applicability of Normal Retirement Age Regulations to Governmental Pension Plans, 4599-4605 2016-01639 Disguised Payments for Services; Hearing, 4605-4606 2016-01520 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 4613-4614 2016-01646 Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, 4612-4613 2016-01644 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Diaper Disposal Systems and Components Thereof, Including Diaper Refill Cassettes, 4670-4671 2016-01627 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Federal Advisory Committee Work Products, 4671-4672 2016-01656 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, 4673-4674 2016-01606 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: Science Committee Ad Hoc Task Force on Big Data, 4674 2016-01514 National Credit National Credit Union Administration RULES Technical Amendments, 4575-4577 2016-01602 NOTICES Draft 2017-2021 Strategic Plan, 4679-4680 2016-01625 Operating Fee Schedule Methodology, 4674-4679 2016-01623 Overhead Transfer Rate Methodology, 4804-4835 2016-01626 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 2016-01525 4634-4635 2016-01526 National Human Genome Research Institute, 4634 2016-01528 National Institute of Nursing Research, 4635 2016-01527 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical Habitat for Endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, 4838-4874 2016-01633 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the Gulf of Alaska, 4594-4595 2016-01624 NOTICES Commercial Space Policy, 4615 2016-01653 Exclusive Licenses, 4614-4615 2016-01614 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, Charleston, SC; Correction, 4654-4655 2016-01590 Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 2016-01592 4659-4670 2016-01600 Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA, 4657-4659 2016-01595 Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, 4646-4648, 4652-4654 2016-01594 2016-01603 National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Boulder City, NV, 4662 2016-01589 San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, CA, 4650-4651 2016-01588 Repatriation of Cultural Items: Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY, 4645-4646 2016-01591 Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 4655-4657 2016-01593 Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA, 4651-4652 2016-01597 Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, 4648-4650 2016-01605 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR Cask System, 4574 2016-01547 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Policy Statement on Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production and Utilization Facilities, 4681-4682 2016-01617 Draft NUREG: A Compendium of Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response Analyses to Severe Fire Accident Scenarios, 4680-4681 2016-01654 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Occupational Safety and Health State Plans, 4672-4673 2016-01537 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Procedures Related to the Mail Classification Schedule, 4606-4607 2016-01407 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4611-4612 2016-01611 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers; Extension of Comment Period, 4598-4599 2016-01545 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 2016-01529 4695-4708, 4734 2016-01535 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 2016-01534 4682-4684, 4728 2016-01664 C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 4708-4710 2016-01539 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 4728-4731 2016-01540 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 4710-4712 2016-01663 NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 4721-4723 2016-01533 NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC, 4724-4726 2016-01665 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 4684-4689, 4691-4695, 4712-4721, 4731-4734 2016-01530 2016-01531 2016-01532 2016-01538 2016-01542 2016-01666 NYSE Arca, Inc., 4689-4691, 4724, 4726-4728 2016-01536 2016-01667 2016-01668 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4734-4735 2016-01601 Disaster Declarations: Alabama, 4735 2016-01596 Mississippi, 4735 2016-01599 Washington, 4735-4736 2016-01598 State Department State Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 4736-4738 2016-01648 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4635-4636 2016-01671 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council Vacancy, 4738-4739 2016-01642 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

NOTICES Public Interest Exclusion Orders: Mounir R. Khouri, 4739 2016-01630
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

RULES Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 4573 2016-01620 NOTICES Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott, 4739 2016-01622 Meetings: Financial Research Advisory Committee, 4741 2016-01619 Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce Benefits, 4739-4741 2016-01616 2016-01618
U.S. Sentencing United States Sentencing Commission NOTICES Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts, 4741-4745 2016-01587 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 4748-4802 2016-00068 Part III National Credit Union Administration, 4804-4835 2016-01626 Part IV Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 4838-4874 2016-01633 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 17 Wednesday, January 27, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 2 CFR Part 1000 RIN 1505-AC48 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards AGENCY:

Department of the Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of the Treasury publishes this rule to adopt as a final rule, without change, a joint interim final rule published with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for all federal award-making agencies that implemented guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). This rule is necessary to incorporate into regulation and thus bring into effect the Uniform Guidance as required by OMB for the Department of the Treasury.

DATES:

Effective date: February 26, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Briskin, Special Counsel to the Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Ethics & Regulation, (202) 622-0450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On December 19, 2014, OMB published a rulemaking in the Federal Register finalizing the guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (79 FR 75867). As a part of the same rulemaking, OMB issued the interim final Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards which contained a separate section for each federal awarding agency. Where applicable, agencies provided additional language beyond that included in 2 CFR part 200, consistent with their existing policy, to provide more detail with respect to how they intend to implement the policy, where appropriate. Treasury's regulations are contained in 2 CFR part 1000 (79 FR 76047).

The interim final rule went into effect on December 26, 2014. The public comment period for the interim final rule closed on February 17, 2015. The Department of the Treasury received no comments from members of the public in response to its section of the joint interim final rule. Accordingly, the Department adopts as a final rule without change the interim rule amending title 2 to add chapter X of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866

This regulatory action is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this rule is not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency that is issuing a final rule to provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis or certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute because this rule pertains to grants, which the APA expressly exempts from notice and comment rulemaking requirements. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

Review Under Executive Order 13132

OMB determined that the joint interim final rule does not have any Federalism implications, as required by Executive Order 13132.

Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires that covered agencies prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires covered agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. OMB determined that the joint interim final rule will not result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, this final rule adopting the interim final rule without change does not include a budgetary impact statement or specifically address the regulatory alternatives considered.

Congressional Review Act

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801), and the Department of the Treasury will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Accordingly, the interim rule amending title 2 to add chapter X of the Code of Federal Regulations, which was published at 79 FR 75867, on December 19, 2014, is adopted as a final rule without change.

Brodi Fontenot, Assistant Secretary for Management, Department of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2016-01620 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2015-0186] RIN 3150-AJ65 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment Nos. 0-3, Revision 1 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of February 1, 2016, for the direct final rule that was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2015. This direct final rule amended the NRC's spent fuel storage regulations by revising the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Revision 1 to Amendment Nos. 0-3 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1031. Revision 1 to Amendment Nos. 0-3 to CoC No. 1031 makes changes to the Technical Specifications (TS), including correcting a typographical error in two actual boron loadings in TS 4.1.1(a), and revising the decay times in Tables B2-4 (for Amendment Nos. 0 and 1) and B2-5 (for Amendment Nos. 2 and 3) in Appendix B of the TSs for minimum additional decay time required for spent fuel assemblies that contain nonfuel hardware.

DATES:

Effective date: The effective date of February 1, 2016, for the direct final rule published November 18, 2015 (80 FR 71929), is confirmed.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0186 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0186. 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]

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Solomon Sahle, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3781; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Discussion

On November 18, 2015 (80 FR 71929), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in § 72.214 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising the NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR® Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Revision 1 to Amendment Nos. 0-3 to CoC No. 1031. Revision 1 to Amendment Nos. 0-3 to CoC No. 1031 makes changes to the TSs, including correcting a typographical error in two actual boron loadings in TS 4.1.1(a), and revising the decay times in Tables B2-4 (for Amendment Nos. 0 and 1) and B2-5 (for Amendment Nos. 2 and 3) in Appendix B of the TSs for minimum additional decay time required for spent fuel assemblies that contain nonfuel hardware.

II. Public Comments on the Companion Proposed Rule

In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on February 1, 2016. The NRC did not receive any comments on the direct final rule. Therefore, this direct final rule will become effective as scheduled.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of January, 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-01547 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-STD-0047] RIN 1904-AC88 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Boilers; Correction AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule; technical correction.

SUMMARY:

On January 15, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule in the Federal Register that amended the energy conservation standards for residential boilers (81 FR 2319). Due to a drafting error, that document recited an ambiguous/erroneous date for compliance with the amended standards at one place in the final rule's preamble. However, the compliance date was correctly provided in the DATES section, as well as the regulatory text. Nevertheless, in order to prevent any confusion, this final rule corrects this error.

DATES:

Effective Date: January 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email: [email protected]

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On January 15, 2016, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy published a final rule in the Federal Register titled, “Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Boilers” (hereafter referred to as the “January 2016 final rule”). 81 FR 2319. Since the publication of that final rule, it has come to DOE's attention that, due to a technical oversight, a certain part of the January 2016 final rule incorrectly recites the compliance date for the amended standards for residential boilers. Specifically in the third column of page 2321, the final rule states, “These standards apply to all residential boilers listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date five years after January 15, 2021.” As properly reflected in the DATES section and the regulatory text, the compliance date is January 15, 2021. The erroneous language conflated “the date five years after publication of the final rule” with an instruction to the Federal Register to insert a date five years after date of publication of the final rule. This final rule corrects this error.

II. Need for Correction

As published, the compliance date reported on page 2321 of the January 15, 2016 final rule could potentially result in confusion regarding the date upon which compliance with the amended energy conservation standards for residential boilers is required. Because this final rule would simply correct the erroneous compliance date in this one location, thereby making it consistent with the proper compliance date reported at other places in the final rule, the change addressed in this document is technical in nature.

Correction

In final rule FR Doc. 2016-00025, appearing on page 2319 in the issue of Friday, January 15, 2016, the following correction should be made:

On page 2321, third column, second paragraph, the last sentence is corrected to read as follows:

These standards apply to all residential boilers listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 15, 2021.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 21, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2016-01655 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 790 RIN 3133-AE57 Technical Amendments AGENCY:

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The NCUA Board is amending the section of NCUA's regulations addressing the description of NCUA to make minor, non-substantive technical corrections. The technical amendments update the regulations to reflect current agency office functions and responsibilities and will not cause any substantive changes.

DATES:

The final rule is effective on January 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Dent, Associate General Counsel, or Jacqueline Lussier, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 or telephone: (703) 518-6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Purpose of the Final Rule II. Regulatory Amendments III. Regulatory Procedures I. Background and Purpose of the Final Rule Why is the NCUA Board issuing this rule? Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

The NCUA Board (Board) is issuing this rule to accurately reflect the functions and responsibilities of the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) and the direct reporting line for its director.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) 1 required several agencies to establish OMWI offices with each OMWI Director appointed by and reporting to “the agency administrator.” 2 The Dodd-Frank Act defines the term “agency administrator” as “the head of an agency.” 3 NCUA's Office of General Counsel determined that at NCUA, the Chairman is the “agency administrator” or the head of the agency for reporting purposes. Additionally, pursuant to delegated authorities, the Executive Director could serve as the reporting conduit to the Chairman.

1 12 U.S.C. 5452.

2Id. at Section 5452(b)(1).

3Id. at Section 5452(g)(2).

In 2011, the Board appointed an OMWI Director who began reporting to the Executive Director under delegated Board authority. The Dodd-Frank Act does not prohibit this delegation.

Subsequently, in November 2013, the Board added the equal employment opportunity (EEO) program to OMWI's functions, removing the program from the Office of the Executive Director. The Board regarded the realignment as strengthening OMWI's compliance with Dodd-Frank Act requirements concerning equal employment opportunity and diversity of the agency workforce and senior management.

NCUA implemented the realignment in January 2014, but the Executive Director remained the EEO Director due to a vacancy in the OMWI Director's position. In July 2015, NCUA hired an OMWI Director and, accordingly, is transferring the EEO Director designation to the OMWI Director.

In implementing federal anti-discrimination laws, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires each executive agency to designate an EEO Director who “shall be under the immediate supervision of the agency head.” 4 This regulatory requirement does not permit further delegation. Accordingly, assigning the EEO Director designation to the OMWI Director necessitates a change in the OMWI Director's direct reporting line.

4 29 CFR 1614.102(b)(4) (emphasis added).

In addition, other agencies that were required to establish an OMWI office currently have the OMWI Director reporting directly to the agency's top official.5

5 OMWI Directors report to the Comptroller of the Currency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman, the Federal Housing Finance Agency Director, the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, and the Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman.

For the reasons discussed above, this final rule amends the description of OMWI to reflect the transfer of the designation of Director of EEO to the OMWI Director. This rule change also amends the description of OMWI to reflect that the OMWI Director reports directly to the NCUA Chairman.

Office of the Executive Director

This final rule amends the description of the Office of the Executive Director to delete the statement that the Executive Director serves as the Director of EEO because this designation has transferred to the Director of OMWI.

In addition, the list of offices in the description that are coordinated by the Executive Director is outdated. This final rule amends the description to update the list of offices currently coordinated by the Executive Director. This rule change reflects all current offices within NCUA's organizational structure.

To effect these changes, the Board is making two conforming technical amendments to part 790, as described in section II.

II. Regulatory Amendments Part 790—Changes to NCUA's Central Office Structure

As discussed above, the Board is amending part 790 of NCUA's regulations to conform it to NCUA's current central office structure.

Office of Minority and Women Inclusion

The final rule amends the description of OMWI to reflect that the Director of OMWI is the NCUA's Director of EEO. Previously, the Executive Director served as the agency's EEO Director. The final rule also amends the description to reflect that the Director of OMWI reports directly to the NCUA Chairman. Previously, the OMWI Director reported to the Executive Director, who in turn reported directly to the NCUA Chairman.

Office of the Executive Director

The final rule amends the description of the Office of the Executive Director to delete the statement that the Executive Director serves as the Director of EEO because this designation has transferred to the Director of OMWI.

The final rule also amends the list of offices coordinated by the Executive Director to reflect NCUA's current organizational structure.

III. Regulatory Procedures Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $100 million in assets). This final rule only makes non-substantive, technical changes. NCUA certifies that these technical amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden.6 For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. NCUA has determined that the technical amendments in this final rule do not increase the paperwork requirements under the PRA or regulations of the Office of Management and Budget.

6 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR part 1320.

Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.7

7 Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

Final Rule

Generally, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires a federal agency to provide the public with notice and the opportunity to comment on agency rulemakings. The amendments in this rule are non-substantive and technical, involve only matters relating to agency management and personnel and are exempt from APA notice and comment requirements.8 They reflect changes to NCUA's organizational structure. The APA permits an agency to forego the notice and comment period under certain circumstances, such as when a rulemaking is technical and non-substantive. NCUA finds that, in this instance, notice and public comment are unnecessary under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA.9 NCUA also finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date requirement under section 553(d)(3) of the APA.10 The rule, therefore, will be effective immediately upon publication.

8 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) and 553(b)(3)(B).

9 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

10 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 790

Organization and functions (Government agencies).

By the National Credit Union Administration Board on January 21, 2016. Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.

For the reasons discussed above, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR part 790 as follows:

PART 790—DESCRIPTION OF NCUA; REQUESTS FOR AGENCY ACTION 1. The authority citation for part 790 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1766, 1789, 1795f.

2. In § 790.2, revise paragraphs (b)(6) and (13) to read as follows:
§ 790.2 Central and field office organization.

(b) * * *

(6) Office of the Executive Director. The Executive Director reports to the entire NCUA Board. The Executive Director translates NCUA Board policy decisions into workable programs, delegates responsibility for these programs to appropriate staff members, and coordinates the activities of the senior executive staff, which includes: The General Counsel; the Regional Directors; and the Office Directors for the Asset Management and Assistance Center, Chief Economist, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer, Consumer Protection, Continuity and Security Management, Examination and Insurance, Human Resources, Minority and Women Inclusion, National Examinations and Supervision, Public and Congressional Affairs and Small Credit Union Initiatives. Because of the nature of the attorney/client relationship between the Board and General Counsel, the General Counsel may be directed by the Board not to disclose discussions and/or assignments with anyone, including the Executive Director. The Executive Director is otherwise to be privy to all matters within senior executive staff's responsibility. The Office of the Executive Director also supervises the agency's ombudsman. The ombudsman investigates complaints and recommends solutions on regulatory issues that cannot be resolved at the regional level.

(13) Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. The Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) was established pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The Director of OMWI reports to the NCUA Chairman. OMWI has the responsibility for all NCUA matters relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities. Specific duties of the office include developing and implementing standards for: Equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the workforce and senior management of NCUA; increased participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts of NCUA, including standards for coordinating technical assistance to such businesses; assessing the diversity policies and practices of credit unions regulated by NCUA; and preserving credit unions run by minorities and/or serving minorities. The Director of OMWI also serves as NCUA's Director of Equal Employment Opportunity.

[FR Doc. 2016-01602 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-5878; Special Conditions No. 25-608-SC] Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation, Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes, Head-Up Display (HUD) With Vision-System Video AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with a vision system that displays video imagery on the head-up display (HUD). The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Dassault Aviation on January 27, 2016. We must receive your comments by March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-5878 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dale Dunford, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2239; facsimile 425-227-1100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On September 24, 2012, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), on behalf of Dassault Aviation, applied for a design change to type certificate no. A50NM to install the Elbit Systems head-up display, which is an enhanced-flight vision system (EFVS) and synthetic vision system (SVS). The change includes the display of a vision-system video on the HUD.

Video display on the HUD constitutes new and unusual technology for which the FAA has no certification criteria. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.773 does not permit visual distortions and reflections in the pilot's view out the airplane windshield that could interfere with the pilot's normal duties, and was not written in anticipation of such technology. Special conditions are therefore issued as prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Dassault Aviation must show that the Model Falcon 2000EX airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A50NM, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. The regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations listed in type certificate no. A50NM are as follows:

14 CFR part 25, effective February 1, 1965, including the latest applicable requirements of Amendments 25-1 through 25-98. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model Falcon 2000EX airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 2000EX airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Model Falcon 2000EX airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Enhanced-flight vision system and synthetic vision system that display video imagery on a HUD.

Discussion

For many years the FAA has approved, on transport-category airplanes, the use of HUD that display flight symbols without a significant visual obstruction of the outside view. When the FAA began to evaluate the display of enhanced vision-system (EVS) imagery on the HUD, significant potential to obscure the outside view became apparent, contrary to the requirements of 14 CFR 25.773. This rule does not permit distortions and reflections in the pilot-compartment view, through the airplane windshield, that interferes with normal duties, and the rule was not written in anticipation of such technology. The video image potentially interferes with the pilot's ability to see the natural scene in the center of the forward field of view. Therefore, the FAA issued special conditions for such HUD/EVS installations to ensure that the level of safety required by § 25.773 would be met even when the image might partially obscure the outside view. While many of the characteristics of EVS and SVS video differ in some ways, they have one thing in common: The potential for interference with the outside view through the airplane windshield.

Although the pilot readily may be able to see around and through small, individual, stroke-written symbols on the HUD, the pilot may not be able to see, without some interference of the outside view, around or through the image that fills the display. Nevertheless, the vision-system video may be capable of meeting the required level of safety when considering the combined view of the image and the outside scene visible to the pilot through the image. It is essential that the pilot can use this combination of image and natural view of the outside scene as safely and effectively as the pilot-compartment view currently available without the vision-system image.

Because § 25.773 does not provide for any alternatives or considerations for such a new and novel system, the FAA establishes safety requirements that assure an equivalent level of safety and effectiveness of the pilot-compartment view as intended by that rule. The purpose of these special conditions is to provide the unique pilot-compartment-view requirements for the EFVS/SVS installation.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 2000EX airplane. Should the applicant apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the public notice and comment period in several prior instances, and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the HUD/EVS modification to the Falcon 2000EX airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register.

The FAA requests comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type-certification basis for Dassault Aviation Falcon 2000EX airplanes.

1. During any phase of flight in which it is to be used, the vision-system video imagery on the HUD must not degrade flight safety or interfere with the effective use of outside visual references for required pilot tasks.

2. To avoid unacceptable interference with the safe and effective use of the pilot-compartment view, the vision system must meet the following requirements:

a. The vision-system design must minimize unacceptable display characteristics or artifacts (e.g., terrain shadowing against a dark background) that obscure the desired image of the scene, impair the pilot's ability to detect and identify visual references, mask flight hazards, distract the pilot, or otherwise degrade task performance or safety.

b. Control of vision-system display brightness must be sufficiently effective in dynamically changing background (ambient) lighting conditions to avoid pilot distraction, impairment of the pilot's ability to detect and identify visual references, masking of flight hazards, or to otherwise degrade task performance or safety. If automatic control for image brightness is not provided, it must be shown that a single, manual setting is satisfactory for the range of lighting conditions encountered during a time-critical, high-workload phase of flight (e.g., low-visibility instrument approach).

c. A readily accessible control must be provided that permits the pilot to immediately deactivate and reactivate display of the vision-system video image on demand, without having to remove hands from the primary flight controls (yoke or equivalent) or thrust control.

d. The vision-system video image on the HUD must not impair the pilot's use of guidance information, or degrade the presentation and pilot awareness of essential flight information displayed on the HUD, such as alerts, airspeed, attitude, altitude and direction, approach guidance, windshear guidance, TCAS resolution advisories, or unusual-attitude recovery cues.

e. The vision-system video image and the HUD symbols, which are spatially referenced to the pitch scale, outside view, and image, must be scaled and aligned (i.e., conformal) to the external scene. In addition, the vision-system video image and the HUD symbols—when considered singly or in combination—must not be misleading, cause pilot confusion, or increase workload. Airplane attitudes or cross-wind conditions may cause certain symbols and graphic elements (e.g., the zero-pitch line or flight-path vector) to reach field-of-view limits, such that they cannot be positioned in alignment with the image and external scene. In such cases, these symbols may be displayed but with an altered appearance (“ghosting”) that makes the pilot aware that the symbols and graphics are no longer displayed conformally. The combined use of symbols and runway image may not be used for path monitoring when path symbols are no longer conformal (i.e., in alignment with the real-world view out the airplane window).

f. A HUD system used to display vision-system video images must, if previously certified, continue to meet all of the requirements of the original approval.

3. The safety and performance of the pilot tasks associated with the use of the pilot-compartment view must be not be degraded by the display of the vision-system video image. These tasks include the following:

a. Detection, accurate identification, and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other flight hazards.

b. Accurate identification and utilization of visual references required for every task relevant to the phase of flight.

4. Appropriate limitations must be stated in the Operating Limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual to prohibit the use of vision systems for functions that have not been found to be acceptable.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 19, 2016. Michael Kaszycki Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-01583 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1076; Special Conditions No. 25-607-SC] Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X, Limit Pilot Forces AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is an electronic flight-control system with pilot controls through a side stick instead of a conventional control stick. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Dassault Aviation on January 27, 2016. We must receive your comments by March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1076 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Freisthler, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1119; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On July 1, 2012, Dassault applied for a type certificate for their new Model Falcon 5X airplane. This airplane is a large transport-category airplane to be operated in private/corporate transportation with a maximum of 19 passengers. The Falcon 5X is expected to have a range of 5,200 nm at Mach 0.80. The Model Falcon 5X airplane incorporates a low, swept wing with winglets, and twin rear-fuselage-mounted Snecma Silvercrest turbofan engines. The fuselage is about 23 m long with a 26 m wingspan. The maximum altitude is 51,000 ft and maximum take-off weight is 30,225 kg. The Model Falcon 5X airplane also features the newest generation of Dassault Aviation's EASy flight deck.

The current limit pilot forces requirement in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 is inadequate for addressing an airplane with electronic flight controls that affect maneuvering.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault Aviation must show that the Model Falcon 5X airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-136.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model Falcon 5X airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model Falcon 5X airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Model Falcon 5X airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

This airplane is equipped with an electronic flight-control system that includes pilot controls through a side stick instead of through a conventional control stick.

Discussion

The Dassault Falcon 5X airplane is equipped with a side stick instead of a conventional control stick. The requirement of § 25.397(c), which defines limit pilot forces and torques, applies to conventional wheel or stick control and is therefore not adequate for this new side-stick design.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model Falcon 5X airplane. Should Dassault Aviation apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued, in lieu of § 25.397(c), as part of the type-certification basis for the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X airplane.

For Model Falcon 5X airplanes equipped with side-stick controls designed for forces to be applied by one wrist and not arms, the limit pilot forces are as follows.

1. For all components between and including the side-stick control-assembly handle and its control stops:

Pitch Roll Nose up, 200 lbf Nose left, 100 lbf. Nose down, 200 lbf Nose right, 100 lbf.

2. For all other components of the side-stick control assembly, but excluding the internal components of the electrical sensor assemblies, to avoid damage to the control system as the result of an in-flight jam:

Pitch Roll Nose up, 125 lbf Nose left, 50 lbf. Nose down, 125 lbf Nose right, 50 lbf. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 20, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-01581 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 746 [Docket No. 151208999-5999-01] RIN 0694-AG79 Cuba Licensing Policy Revisions AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the exceptions to the general policy of denial in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for exports and reexports to Cuba by identifying additional types of exports and reexports that are subject to a general policy of approval: items for safety of civil aviation and safe operation of commercial aircraft engaged in international air transportation, certain telecommunications and agricultural items, items to human rights organizations or individuals and non-governmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba, and items for use by U.S. news bureaus. This rule also amends the exceptions to the general policy of denial in the EAR for exports and reexports to Cuba by identifying types of exports and reexports that will be reviewed to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether such transactions meet the needs of the Cuban people, including exports and reexports for this purpose made to state-owned enterprises and agencies and organizations of the Cuban government that provide goods and services to the Cuban people. BIS is making these changes to further implement the Administration's policy of empowering and engaging the Cuban people. This rule retains the prohibition on the export or reexport of items subject to the EAR to Cuba without a license or applicable license exception.

DATES:

This rule is effective January 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 17, 2014, the President announced a historic new approach in U.S. policy toward Cuba. This approach recognized that increased commerce benefits the American and Cuban people, and sought to make the lives of ordinary Cubans easier and more prosperous. On January 16, 2015, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to create License Exception Support for the Cuban People (SCP), which authorizes the export and reexport, without a license, of certain items to, among other objectives, improve the living conditions of the Cuban people (see 80 FR 2286). That rule also established a licensing policy of case-by-case review of license applications for the export and reexport to Cuba of telecommunications items to contribute to the ability of the Cuban people to communicate with one another and with people in the United States and the rest of the world.

On July 22, 2015, BIS published a rule implementing the May 29, 2015, rescission of Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism (see 80 FR 43314). That rule expanded certain license exception availability for exports and reexports to Cuba, including making general aviation aircraft eligible for temporary sojourns to Cuba.

On September 21, 2015, BIS published a rule to enhance support for the Cuban people (see 80 FR 56898). This rule expanded the scope of transactions that are eligible for License Exception SCP and made certain vessels on temporary sojourn to Cuba eligible for a license exception.

To further engage and empower the Cuban people, this rule amends the licensing policy in § 746.2 of the EAR to add a general policy of approval for certain exports and reexports previously subject to case-by case review and a policy of case-by-case review for exports and reexports of items not eligible for License Exception SCP to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including exports and reexports for this purpose made to state-owned enterprises and agencies and organizations of the Cuban government that provide goods and services to the Cuban people. BIS is taking this action in coordination with the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR part 515). The specific terms and limitations of this policy are more fully discussed below.

Specific Changes Made by This Rule

This rule revises the licensing policy from possible approval on a case-by-case basis to a general policy of approval for exports and reexports of:

• Telecommunications items that would improve communications to, from, and among the Cuban people;

• Certain commodities and software to human rights organizations or to individuals and non-governmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba;

• Commodities and software to U.S. news bureaus in Cuba whose primary purpose is the gathering and dissemination of news to the general public; and

• Agricultural items that are outside the scope of “agricultural commodities” as defined in part 772 of the EAR (such as insecticides, pesticides and herbicides) as well as agricultural commodities not eligible for License Exception Agricultural commodities (AGR) (such as those that are specified in an entry on the Commerce Control List, i.e., are not designated EAR99).

• Items that are necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation and the safe operation of commercial aircraft engaged in international air transportation, including the export or reexport of such aircraft leased to state-owned enterprises. Given a substantial increase in air travel to and from Cuba, BIS is making the change to emphasize the importance of civil aviation safety and to recognize that access to aircraft used in international air transportation that meet U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and European Aviation Safety Agency operating standards by Cuban state-owned enterprises contributes to that safety.

These revisions are consistent with long-standing licensing practice for such exports and reexports.

This rule also amends the exceptions to the general policy of denial by adopting a case-by-case review policy for exports and reexports of certain items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including exports and reexports to state-owned enterprises, agencies, and other organizations of the Cuban government that provide goods and services for the use and benefit of the Cuban people. This case-by-case review policy includes exports and reexports of items for agricultural production, artistic endeavors (including the creation of public content, historic and cultural works and preservation), education, food processing, disaster preparedness, relief and response, public health and sanitation, residential construction and renovation and public transportation. The policy also includes exports and reexports of items for use in construction of: facilities for treating public water supplies, facilities for supplying electricity or other energy to the Cuban people, sports and recreation facilities, and other infrastructure that directly benefits the Cuban people. Additionally, it includes exports and reexports to wholesalers and retailers of items for domestic consumption by the Cuban people.

BIS is implementing this policy to further facilitate exports and reexports to meet the needs of the Cuban people. This licensing policy is consistent with long-standing policy to support the Cuban people. Accordingly, BIS will continue to apply a general policy of denial for applications to export or reexport items for use by state-owned enterprises, agencies, or other organizations of the Cuban government that primarily generate revenue for the state, including those engaged in tourism and those engaged in the extraction or production of minerals or other raw materials. Additionally, applications to export or reexport items destined to the Cuban military, police, intelligence and security services remain subject to a general policy of denial. Licenses issued under this case-by-case review licensing policy generally will have a condition prohibiting both reexports from Cuba to any other destination and uses that enable or facilitate the export of goods or services from Cuba to third countries. BIS anticipates these revisions will significantly benefit the Cuban people, while not significantly increasing overall exports to Cuba's state-run economy.

This rule also adds the term “reexport” to the existing statement of a policy of case-by-case review of applications for aircraft or vessels on temporary sojourn to Cuba. The change reflects BIS's practice of generally applying the same licensing policy to exports and reexports of a given item.

Finally, this rule consolidates the statements of licensing policy for exports and reexports to Cuba. Prior to this rule, the policies were described in six paragraphs and like policies existed in several non-adjacent paragraphs with slightly different wording. Under this rule, the policies will be stated in three paragraphs based upon licensing policy. One paragraph applies to medicine and medical devices, which are subject to certain statutorily mandated policies. This rule makes no changes to the text of that paragraph. A second paragraph describes transactions that are subject to a general policy of approval, including transactions for which the general policy of approval predates this rule. A third paragraph describes transactions that may be authorized on a case-by-case basis, including transactions for which the policy of case-by-case review predates this rule. Additionally, the rule adopts uniform terminology to describe case-by-case review of license applications and removes some superfluous text. All of the changes described in this paragraph are intended to improve clarity and readability of the EAR, and none of them are substantive changes to licensing policy.

Export Administration Act

Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

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

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

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (see 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). This rule is a part of a foreign policy initiative to change the nature of the relationship between Cuba and the United States announced by the President on December 17, 2014. Delay in implementing this rule to obtain public comment would undermine the foreign policy objectives that the rule is intended to implement. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 746

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 15 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter C is amended as follows:

PART 746—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 746 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 287c; Sec 1503, Pub. L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 559; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 614; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; Presidential Determination 2003-23 of May 7, 2003, 68 FR 26459, May 16, 2003; Presidential Determination 2007-7 of December 7, 2006, 72 FR 1899 (January 16, 2007); Notice of May 6, 2015, 80 FR 26815 (May 8, 2015); Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

2. Section 746.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) and removing paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6) to read as follows:
§ 746.2 Cuba.

(b) * * *

(2) Exports and reexports that generally will be approved. Applications for licenses to export or reexport the following generally will be approved:

(i) Telecommunications items that would improve communications to, from, and among the Cuban people;

(ii) Commodities and software to human rights organizations or to individuals and non-governmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba;

(iii) Commodities and software to U.S. news bureaus in Cuba whose primary purpose is the gathering and dissemination of news to the general public;

(iv) Agricultural items that are outside the scope of agricultural commodities as defined in part 772 of the EAR, such as insecticides, pesticides and herbicides, and agricultural commodities not eligible for License Exception AGR;

(v) Items necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation and the safe operation of commercial aircraft engaged in international air transportation, including the export or reexport of such aircraft leased to state-owned enterprises; and

(vi) Items necessary for the environmental protection of U.S. and international air quality, waters, or coastlines (including items related to renewable energy or energy efficiency).

(3) Exports and reexports that may be authorized on a case-by-case basis. (i) Applications for licenses to export or reexport items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including exports and reexports of such items to state-owned enterprises, agencies, and other organizations of the Cuban government that provide goods and services for the use and benefit of the Cuban people may be authorized on a case-by-case basis. This policy of case-by-case review includes applications for licenses to export or reexport items for:

(A) Agricultural production, artistic endeavors (including the creation of public content, historic and cultural works and preservation), education, food processing, disaster preparedness, relief and response, public health and sanitation, residential construction and renovation and public transportation;

(B) Wholesale and retail distribution for domestic consumption by the Cuban people; and

(C) Construction of facilities for treating public water supplies, facilities for supplying electricity or other energy to the Cuban people, sports and recreation facilities, and other infrastructure that directly benefits the Cuban people.

Note 1 to paragraph (b)(3)(i):

Licenses issued pursuant to the policy set forth in this paragraph generally will have a condition prohibiting both reexports from Cuba to any other destination and uses that enable or facilitate the export of goods or services from Cuba to third countries.

Note 2 to paragraph (b)(3)(i):

The policy of case-by-case review in this paragraph is intended to facilitate exports and reexports to meet the needs of the Cuban people. Accordingly, BIS generally will deny applications to export or reexport items for use by state-owned enterprises, agencies, and other organizations that primarily generate revenue for the state, including those engaged in tourism and those engaged in the extraction or production of minerals or other raw materials. Applications for export or reexport of items destined to the Cuban military, police, intelligence or security services also generally will be denied.

(ii) Applications for exports or reexports of aircraft or vessels on temporary sojourn to Cuba either to deliver humanitarian goods or services, or consistent with the foreign policy interests of the United States, may be authorized on a case-by-case basis.

Dated: January 21, 2016. Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce.
[FR Doc. 2016-01557 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Part 515 Cuban Assets Control Regulations AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to further implement elements of the policy announced by the President on December 17, 2014 to engage and empower the Cuban people. These amendments remove certain payment and financing restrictions for authorized exports and reexports to Cuba of items other than agricultural items or commodities and further facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized purposes by allowing blocked space, code-sharing, and leasing arrangements with Cuban airlines and authorizing additional travel-related and other transactions directly incident to the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels. These amendments also authorize additional transactions related to professional meetings and other events, disaster preparedness and response projects, and information and informational materials, including transactions incident to professional media or artistic productions in Cuba.

DATES:

Effective: January 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic and Facsimile Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (www.treasury.gov/ofac). Certain general information pertaining to OFAC's sanctions programs also is available via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: 202-622-0077.

Background

The Department of the Treasury issued the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 (the “Regulations”), on July 8, 1963, under the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5 et seq.). OFAC has amended the Regulations on numerous occasions.

Most recently, on January 16 and September 21, 2015, OFAC amended the Regulations, in coordinated actions with the Department of Commerce, to implement certain policy measures announced by the President on December 17, 2014 to further engage and empower the Cuban people. Today, OFAC and the Department of Commerce are taking additional coordinated actions in support of the President's Cuba policy.

The Department of Commerce is amending the exceptions to the general policy of denial in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for exports and reexports to Cuba by identifying additional types of exports and reexports that are subject to a general policy of approval, including items for safety of civil aviation and safe operation of commercial aircraft engaged in international air transportation. Commerce is also amending the exception to the general policy of denial in the EAR for exports and reexports to Cuba by identifying types of exports and reexports that will be reviewed to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether such transactions meet the needs of the Cuban People.

OFAC is making additional amendments to the Regulations with respect to non-agricultural export trade financing and travel and related services, as set forth below.

Non-Agricultural Export Trade Financing

OFAC is amending section 515.533(a) to remove the former limitations on payment and financing terms for all exports from the United States or reexports of 100 percent U.S.-origin items from a third country that are licensed or otherwise authorized by the Department of Commerce, other than exports of agricultural items or commodities. As required by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, 22 U.S.C. 7207(b)(1), such agricultural exports continue to be authorized only if one of the payment and financing terms specified in the statute are used. OFAC also is amending section 515.584 to add an authorization for depository institutions to provide financing for such authorized exports and making a conforming change to section 515.421.

Travel and Related Services

Carrier services by air. In parallel with the Department of Commerce's amendments relating to the safety of civil aviation, OFAC is amending section 515.572 to authorize the entry into blocked space, code-sharing, and leasing arrangements to facilitate the provision of carrier services by air authorized pursuant to section 515.572(a)(2), including the entry into such arrangements with a national of Cuba.

Temporary sojourn. OFAC is amending section 515.533 to authorize travel-related and other transactions directly incident to the facilitation of the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels as authorized by the Department of Commerce for travel between the United States and Cuba, including by certain personnel required for normal operation and service on board a vessel or aircraft or to provide services to a vessel in port or aircraft on the ground.

Transactions related to information and informational materials. OFAC is amending section 515.545 to expand the general license authorizing travel-related and other transactions that are directly incident to the export, import, or transmission of informational materials to include professional media or artistic productions in Cuba. Such productions include media programs (such as movies and television programs), music recordings, and the creation of artworks. OFAC is removing a restriction in an existing general license and explicitly authorizing transactions relating to the creation, dissemination, or artistic or other substantive alteration or enhancement of informational materials, including employment of Cuban nationals and the remittance of royalties or other payments. OFAC also is making a conforming change to section 515.206.

Professional meetings. OFAC is amending section 515.564 to authorize travel-related and other transactions to organize professional meetings or conferences in Cuba.

Public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions. OFAC is amending section 515.567 to authorize travel-related and other transactions to organize amateur and semi-professional international sports federation competitions and public performances, clinics, workshops, other athletic or non-athletic competitions, and exhibitions in Cuba. OFAC is also removing the existing requirements for certain events that all U.S. profits from the event after costs be donated to an independent nongovernmental organization in Cuba or a U.S.-based charity and that workshops and clinics be organized and run, at least in part, by the authorized traveler.

Humanitarian projects. OFAC is amending section 515.575 to expand the list of authorized humanitarian projects to include disaster preparedness and response.

Public Participation

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”) and section 515.572 of this part. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information are covered by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 1505-0164, 1505-0167, and 1505-0168. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 515

Administrative practice and procedure, Banking, Carrier services, Cuba, Financial transactions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel restrictions.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 515 as set forth below:

PART 515—CUBAN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 515 continues to read as follows: Authority:

22 U.S.C. 2370(a), 6001-6010, 7201-7211; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. App 1-44; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104-114, 110 Stat. 785 (22 U.S.C. 6021-6091); Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 111-8, 123 Stat. 524; Pub. L. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034; E.O. 9193, 7 FR 5205, 3 CFR, 1938-1943 Comp., p. 1174; E.O. 9989, 13 FR 4891, 3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., p. 748; Proc. 3447, 27 FR 1085, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 157; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 614.

Subpart B—Prohibitions
2. Amend § 515.206 by removing Examples #1-4 and adding a Note to paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 515.206 Exempt transactions. Note to paragraph (a):

See § 515.545 for general licenses authorizing certain travel-related and other transactions that are directly incident to the export, import, or transmission of informational materials and certain transactions related to the creation, dissemination, or artistic or other substantive alteration or enhancement of informational materials.

Subpart D—Interpretations 3. Amend § 515.421 by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
§ 515.421 Transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction.

(a) * * *

(4) In the case of export or reexport-related transactions authorized by § 515.533(a), payment or financing that is not authorized by § 515.533 or § 515.584(f).

Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations, and Statements of Licensing Policy 4. Amend § 515.533 by revising the introductory text to paragraph (a)(2), redesignating the note to paragraph (a) as Note 1 to paragraph (a), adding Note 2 to paragraph (a), and revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 515.533 Exportations from the United States to Cuba; reexportations of 100% U.S.-origin items to Cuba; negotiation of executory contracts.

(a) * * *

(2) In the case of agricultural commodities, as that term is defined in 15 CFR part 772, or agricultural items authorized for export or reexport pursuant to 15 CFR 746.2(b)(2)(iv), only the following payment and financing terms may be used:

Note 2 to paragraph (a):

The limitation in paragraph (a)(2) applies only to payment and financing terms for exports or reexports of agricultural items or commodities and is required by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, 22 U.S.C. 7207(b)(1). For other authorized exports and reexports, paragraph (a) does not restrict payment and financing terms. See § 515.584 for an authorization for depository institutions to provide financing for authorized exports and reexports of items other than agricultural items or commodities.

(d) General license for travel-related transactions incident to exportation or reexportation of certain items. (1) The travel-related transactions set forth in § 515.560(c) and such additional transactions as are directly incident to the conduct of market research, commercial marketing, sales or contract negotiation, accompanied delivery, installation, leasing, or servicing in Cuba of items consistent with the export or reexport licensing policy of the Department of Commerce are authorized, provided that the traveler's schedule of activities does not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full-time schedule.

(2) The travel-related transactions set forth in § 515.560(c) and such additional transactions as are directly incident to the facilitation of the temporary sojourn of aircraft and vessels as authorized by 15 CFR 740.15 (License Exception Aircraft, Vessels and Spacecraft) or pursuant to other authorization by the Department of Commerce for travel between the United States and Cuba authorized pursuant to this part, including travel-related transactions by personnel who are persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction and who are required for normal operation and service on board a vessel or aircraft, as well as personnel who are persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction and who are required to provide services to a vessel in port or aircraft on the ground, provided that:

(i) The aircraft or vessel must be transporting individuals whose travel between the United States and Cuba is authorized pursuant to any section of this part other than paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and

(ii) Such travel-related transactions by such personnel are limited to the duration and scope of their duties in relation to the particular authorized temporary sojourn.

5. Amend § 515.545 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b), redesignating the Note to § 515.545 as Note 1 to § 515.545, and adding Note 2 to § 515.545 to read as follows:
§ 515.545 Transactions related to information and informational materials.

(a) Transactions relating to the creation, dissemination, artistic or other substantive alteration, or enhancement of informational materials are authorized, including employment of Cuban nationals and remittance of royalties or other payments in connection with such transactions. This section authorizes marketing related to the dissemination of such informational materials but does not authorize other marketing or business consulting services.

(b) General license. (1) The travel-related transactions set forth in § 515.560(c) and such additional transactions as are directly incident to the exportation, importation, or transmission of information or informational materials as defined in § 515.332 are authorized, provided that the traveler's schedule of activities does not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full-time schedule.

(2) The travel-related transactions set forth in § 515.560(c) and such additional transactions as are directly incident to professional media or artistic productions of information or informational materials for exportation, importation, or transmission, including the filming or production of media programs (such as movies and television programs), the recording of music, and the creation of artworks in Cuba, are authorized, provided that the traveler is regularly employed in or has demonstrated professional experience in a field relevant to such professional media or artistic productions, and that the traveler's schedule of activities does not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full-time schedule.

Note 2 to § 515.545:

See § 515.332(a)(2) for clarification as to the types of artworks that are considered to be informational materials.

6. Amend § 515.564 by revising the introductory text to paragraph (a)(2), paragraph (a)(2)(ii), and paragraph (a)(2)(iv) and adding a note to paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
§ 515.564 Professional research and professional meetings in Cuba.

(a) * * *

(2) Professional meetings. The travel-related transactions set forth in § 515.560(c) and such additional transactions as are directly incident to travel to Cuba to attend or organize professional meetings or conferences in Cuba are authorized, provided that:

(ii) For a traveler:

(A) Attending a professional meeting or conference, the purpose of the meeting or conference directly relates to the traveler's profession, professional background, or area of expertise, including area of graduate-level full-time study;

(B) Organizing a professional meeting or conference on behalf of an entity, either the traveler's profession must be related to the organization of professional meetings or conferences or the traveler must be an employee or contractor of an entity that is organizing the professional meeting or conference.

(iv) The traveler's schedule of activities does not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full-time schedule of attendance at, or organization of, professional meetings or conferences.

Note to § 515.564(a)(2):

Transactions incident to the organization of professional meetings or conferences include marketing related to such meetings or conferences in Cuba.

7. Amend § 515.567 by revising the introductory text to paragraph (a), revising paragraph (b), redesignating the Note to § 515.567(a) and (b) as Note 1 to § 515.567(a) and (b), and adding Note 2 to § 515.567(a) and (b) to read as follows:
§ 515.567 Public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions.

(a) General license for amateur and semi-professional international sports federation competitions. The travel-related transactions set forth in § 515.560(c) and such other transactions as are directly incident to participation in athletic competitions in Cuba by amateur or semi-professional athletes or athletic teams, or organization of such competitions, are authorized, provided that:

(b) General license for public performances, clinics, workshops, other athletic or non-athletic competitions, and exhibitions. The travel-related transactions set forth in § 515.560(c) and such other transactions as are directly incident to participation in or organization of a public performance, clinic, workshop, athletic competition not covered by paragraph (a) of this section, non-athletic competition, or exhibition in Cuba by participants in or organizers of such activities are authorized, provided that the event is open for attendance, and in relevant situations participation, by the Cuban public.

Example 1 to § 515.567(a) and (b):

An amateur baseball team wishes to travel to Cuba to compete against a Cuban team in a baseball game in Cuba. The game will not be held under the auspices of the international sports federation for baseball. The baseball team's activities therefore would not qualify for the general license in paragraph (a). The game will, however, be open to the Cuban public. The baseball team's activities would qualify for the general license in paragraph (b).

Example 2 to § 515.567(a) and (b):

A U.S. concert promoter wishes to organize a musical event in Cuba that would be open to the public and feature U.S. musical groups. The organizing of the musical event in Cuba by the U.S. concert promoter and the participation by U.S. musical groups in the event would qualify for the general license in paragraph (b).

Note 2 to § 515.567(a) and (b):

Transactions incident to the organization of amateur and semi-professional international sports federation competitions and public performances, clinics, workshops, other athletic or non-athletic competitions, and exhibitions include marketing related to such events in Cuba.

8. Amend § 515.572 by revising paragraph (a)(2) and the introductory text to the Note to § 515.572 to read as follows:
§ 515.572 Authorization to provide travel services, carrier services, and remittance forwarding services.

(a) * * *

(2) Authorization to provide carrier services. (i) Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized to provide carrier services to, from, or within Cuba in connection with travel or transportation, directly or indirectly, between the United States and Cuba of persons, baggage, or cargo authorized pursuant to this part.

(ii) The entry into blocked space, code-sharing, or leasing arrangements to facilitate the provision of carrier services by air authorized pursuant to section 515.572(a)(2) is authorized, including the entry into such arrangements with a national of Cuba.

Note to § 515.572:

The following persons may be transported, directly or indirectly, between the United States and Cuba by a person authorized to provide carrier services:

9. Amend § 515.575 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 515.575 Humanitarian projects.

(b) Authorized humanitarian projects. The following projects are authorized by paragraph (a) of this section: Medical and health-related projects; construction projects intended to benefit legitimately independent civil society groups; disaster preparedness, relief, and response; historical preservation; environmental projects; projects involving formal or non-formal educational training, within Cuba or off-island, on the following topics: Entrepreneurship and business, civil education, journalism, advocacy and organizing, adult literacy, or vocational skills; community-based grassroots projects; projects suitable to the development of small-scale private enterprise; projects that are related to agricultural and rural development that promote independent activity; microfinancing projects, except for loans, extensions of credit, or other financing prohibited by § 515.208; and projects to meet basic human needs.

10. Amend § 515.584 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 515.584 Certain financial transactions involving Cuba.

(f) Depository institutions, as defined in § 515.333, are authorized to provide financing for exports or reexports of items, other than agricultural items or commodities, authorized pursuant to § 515.533, including issuing, advising, negotiating, paying, or confirming letters of credit (including letters of credit issued by a financial institution that is a national of Cuba), accepting collateral for issuing or confirming letters of credit, and processing documentary collections.

Dated: January 21, 2016. John E. Smith, Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2016-01559 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0023] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Transit Restrictions, Lower Mississippi River Mile Marker 311.0-319.0 AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is extending an established safety zone for emergency purposes for all waters of the Lower Mississippi River (LMR), extending the entire width from mile 311.0 to mile 319.0 above head of passes (AHP). This emergency safety zone is needed to protect persons, property and flood control infrastructure from the potential safety hazards associated with vessels underway transiting this area. Deviation from the safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from January 27, 2016 until 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on January 9, 2016 until January 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2016-0023]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Tyrone L. Conner, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-521-4825, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations AHP Above head of passes CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law §  Section U.S.C. United States Code COTP Captain of the Port LMR Lower Mississippi River USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers II. Background Information and Regulatory History

This temporary rule extends the location for the safety zone under 33 CFR 165.802, which provides for a safety zone on the Lower Mississippi River extending from mile 311.5 to 316.1 AHP. This temporary rule extends that location to mile 311 to 319 AHP for emergency purposes responding to high water. 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 immediate action is needed to protect persons, property and flood control infrastructure from the potential safety hazards associated with vessels underway transiting this area. Completing the full NPRM process is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because we must establish this safety zone in response to increasing high water and possible flood and high water operations taking place between January 9 and February 1, 2016. Completing the NPRM process would delay the additional safety measures necessary to protect persons, property and flood control infrastructure from the hazards associated with vessels underway.

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 impracticable and contrary to the public interest because we must establish this safety zone in response to increasing high water and possible emergency operations taking place between January 9 and February 1, 2016.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The Coast Guard received notification from the New Orleans District, Army Corps of Engineers that there is a high possibility that flood control infrastructure from mile 311.0 to mile 319.0 AHP on the Mississippi River will sustain damage if immediate action isn't taken to reduce the effects of normal traffic patterns during high water. Additionally, if the flood control infrastructure is sufficiently weakened by resulting effects of high water during this period it could fail. Loss of this section of the main line infrastructure system would be catastrophic to large sections of Louisiana. The COTP Lower Mississippi River is establishing this safety zone as an extension of the established regulation at 33 CFR 165.802, effective from 12:01 a.m. January 9, 2016 to 11:59 p.m. February 1, 2016 or until the river flood levels decrease, whichever occurs earlier.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The Coast Guard is extending the location for the safety under 33 CFR 165.802 for emergency high water response purposes. As established, 33 CFR 165.802 provides for a safety zone as follows:

• The area enclosed by the following boundary is a safety zone—from the Black Hawk Point Light, mile 316.1 AHP LMR to a point opposite Ft. Adams Light, mile 311.5 AHP along the low water reference plane above the right descending bank; thence to the levee on a line perpendicular to the channel centerline; thence along the levee to the upstream end of the Old River Overbank structure; thence along a line to the Black Hawk Point Light.

• Any vessel desiring to enter this safety zone must first obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, New Orleans. The resident engineer at Old River Control Structure (WUG-424) is delegated the authority to permit entry into this safety zone.

This rule extends the published location to mile 311.0 to mile 319.0 AHP, extending the entire width of the river and is effective from 12:01 a.m. January 9, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2016 or until the river flood levels decrease, whichever occurs earlier.

Entry into this zone is prohibited unless permission has been granted by the COTP Lower Mississippi or a designated representative or by the authority as delegated in 33 CFR 165.802. Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) will provide any changes in the schedule for this safety zone. Deviation requests will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP Lower Mississippi River may be contacted by telephone at 1-866-777-2784 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.

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 E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This emergency safety zone will restrict navigation on the Mississippi River from mile 311.0 to mile 319.0 AHP in the vicinity of Ft. Adams Light and Black Hawk Point Light from 12:01 p.m. January 9, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2016, or until the river flood levels decrease, whichever occurs earlier. Notifications to the marine community will be made through BNM, LNM, and communications with local waterway users. Notices of changes to the safety zone and effective times will also be made. Additionally, deviation requests may be made and will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

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 safety zone 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.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an emergency safety zone that will prohibit entry into this zone unless permission has been granted by the COTP Lower Mississippi or a designated representative on the Mississippi River mile 311.0 to mile 319.0 AHP. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. A new temporary § 165.T08-0023 is added to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0023 Safety Zone; Mississippi River, Mile Marker 365.0 to 354.0.

(a) Location. The following area is an emergency safety zone: All waters of the Mississippi River between mile 311.0 and mile 319.0, extending the entire width of the river.

(b) Enforcement date. This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on January 9, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2015, or until the river flood levels decrease, whichever occurs earlier.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative.

(2) Any vessel desiring to enter this safety zone must first obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, New Orleans. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at 866-777-2784. The resident engineer at Old River Control Structure (WUG-424) is delegated the authority to permit entry into this safety zone.

(d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the emergency safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

Dated: January 7, 2016. T.J. Wendt, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lower Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2016-01632 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0014] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Transit Restrictions, Lower Mississippi River Mile Marker 365.0—361.0 AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Lower Mississippi River (LMR), extending the entire width from mile 365.0 to mile 361.0. This safety zone is needed to protect persons, property and flood control infrastructure from the potential safety hazards associated with the wake from vessels underway transiting this area. Deviation from the safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from January 27, 2016 until 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on January 10, 2016 until January 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2016-0014]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Tyrone L. Conner, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-521-4825, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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 immediate action is needed to protect persons, property and flood control infrastructure from the potential safety hazards associated with the wake from vessels underway transiting this area. Completing the full NPRM process is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because we must establish this safety zone in response to increasing high water and possible flood and high water operations taking place between January 10 and February 1, 2016. Completing the NPRM process would delay the additional safety measures necessary to protect persons, property and flood control infrastructure from the hazardous associated with the wake from vessels underway.

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 impracticable and contrary to the public interest because we must establish this safety zone in response to increasing high water and possible emergency operations taking place between January 10 and February 1, 2016.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The Coast Guard received notification from the Vicksburg District, Army Corps of Engineers that there is a high possibility that the levees from mile 354.0 to mile 357.0, and at mile 365.0, including the temporary flood structures in Vidalia, LA and the waterfront in Natchez, MS will sustain damage when the Natchez gauge reaches 55 feet and higher if immediate action isn't taken to reduce the effects of normal traffic patterns during high water. Additionally, if the levee is sufficiently weakened by resulting effects of high water during this period it could fail. Loss of this section of the main line levee system would be catastrophic to large sections of Louisiana. The COTP Lower Mississippi River intends to establish a safety zone from 12:01 a.m. January 10, 2016 to 11:59 p.m. February 1, 2016 or until the river reading levels is 55 feet and falling at the Natchez, MS river gauge, whichever occurs earlier.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lower Mississippi River from mile 365.0 to mile 361.0, extending the entire width of the river from 12:01 a.m. January 10, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2016 or until the river reading levels is 55 feet and falling at the Natchez, MS river gauge, whichever occurs earlier. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless permission has been granted by the COTP Lower Mississippi or a designated representative. Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) will provide any changes in the schedule for this safety zone. Deviation requests will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP Lower Mississippi River may be contacted by telephone at 1-866-777-2784 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.

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 E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This temporary safety zone will restrict navigation on the Mississippi River from mile 365.0 to mile 361.0 in the vicinity of Natchez, Mississippi from 12:01 p.m. January 10, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2016, or until the river reading levels is 55 feet and falling at the Natchez, MS river gauge, whichever occurs earlier. Notifications to the marine community will be made through BNM, LNM, and communications with local waterway users. Notices of changes to the safety zone and effective times will also be made. Additionally, deviation requests may be made and will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

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 safety zone 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.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone that will prohibit entry into this zone unless permission has been granted by the COTP Lower Mississippi or a designated representative on the Mississippi River mile 365.0 to mile 361.0. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. A new temporary § 165.T08-0014 is added to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0014 Safety Zone; Mississippi River, Mile Marker 365.0 to 354.0.

(a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all waters of the Mississippi River between mile 365.0 and mile 361.0, extending the entire width of the river.

(b) Effective date. This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on January 10, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2015, or until the river reading levels is 55 feet and falling at the Natchez, MS river gauge, whichever occurs earlier.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative.

(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the zone must request permission from the COTP Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 866-777-2784 for COTP Lower Mississippi River.

(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Lower Mississippi River or designated representative.

(d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the emergency safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

Dated: January 7, 2016. T.J. Wendt, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lower Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2016-01637 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0016] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Bayou Chene Beginning at Mile 130.0 on the Atchafalaya River Extending Through the Bayou Chene Ending at Mile 85.0 on the Intercoastal Waterway Morgan City, LA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary emergency safety zone for all waters of the Bayou Chene beginning at mile 130.0 on the Atchafalaya River extending north through the Bayou Chene and ending at Mile 85.0 on the Intercoastal Waterway. The emergency safety zone is needed to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with high waters. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Morgan City (COTP). Deviation from the safety zone may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis as specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from January 27, 2016 until 11:59 p.m. on February 29, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8:00 a.m. on January 7, 2016 until January 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0016 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 LTJG Vanessa Taylor, Chief of Waterways, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 985-380-5334, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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 there is immediate need for additional safety measures due to the increased safety risks caused by high waters on the Atchafalaya River that result in back flooding through five surrounding parishes. On January 5, 2016, the Coast Guard determined that immediate action is necessary to establish an emergency safety zone to protect life and property from the hazards associated with and resulting from high waters. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by January 7, 2016. Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) and information sharing with waterway users will update mariners of enforcement times and any changes to the schedule during this emergency situation.

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. Providing 30 days notice would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to protect life and property from the hazards associated with and resulting from high waters.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Morgan City determined that potential hazards associated with and resulting from high waters and potential back flooding in surrounding areas require additional safety measures. This rule establishes a temporary emergency safety zone beginning at mile 130.0 on the Atchafalaya River extending north through the Bayou Chene and ending at Mile 85.0 on the Intercoastal Waterway to protect those operating in the area and assist the Coast Guard in maintaining navigational safety.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary emergency safety zone prohibiting access to the Bayou Chene extending the entire length of the waterway of the rivers beginning at 8:00 a.m. on January 7, 2016, through February 29, 2016, or until waters recede and conditions allow for safe navigation, whichever occurs earlier. Deviation from the emergency safety zone may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis as specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Deviation requests will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 985-380-5375 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule establishes a temporary emergency safety zone placing restrictions on vessels transiting the Bayou Chene. Notifications of enforcement times and any changes to the schedule will be communicated to the marine community via BNM. The impacts on navigation will be limited to ensure the safety of mariners and vessels during hazardous conditions associated with high waters.

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 safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an emergency safety measure limiting access to the area described as the Bayou Chene beginning at mile 130.0 on the Atchafalaya River extending north through the Bayou Chene and ending at Mile 85.0 of the Intercoastal Waterway. This emergency situation requires a safety zone lasting longer than one week so a preliminary environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are being prepared and will be made available as indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T08-0016 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0016 Safety Zone; Bayou Chene, beginning at mile 130.0 on the Atchafalaya River extending through the Bayou Chene ending at Mile 85.0 on the Intercoastal Waterway Morgan City, LA.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Bayou Chene beginning at mile 130.0 on the Atchafalaya River extending north through the Bayou Chene and ending at Mile 85.0 on the Intercoastal Waterway.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officers operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) Morgan City in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Morgan City at 985-380-5334. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(d) Enforcement periods. This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. on January 7, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on February 29, 2016 or until waters recede and conditions allow for safe navigation.

(e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcasts notice to mariners of the enforcement period for the emergency safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

Dated: January 6, 2016. D.G. McClellan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port Morgan City.
[FR Doc. 2016-01631 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 46 CFR Part 515 [Docket No. 13-05] RIN 3072-AC44 Ocean Transportation Intermediary Licensing and Financial Responsibility Requirements, and General Duties AGENCY:

Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION:

Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Maritime Commission corrects rules governing the licensing, financial responsibility requirements and duties of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries that were recently amended to add a section inadvertently omitted and to correct problems which occurred in production of the Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES:

This correction is effective January 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, Tel.: (202) 523-5725, Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On December 9, 2015, a Final Rule took effect significantly amending the Federal Maritime Commission's regulations governing Ocean Transportation Intermediaries (OTIs). The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2015, 80 FR 68721. A section of the regulations in place prior to the Final Rule, 46 CFR 515.17, (“Application after revocation or denial”), was inadvertently deleted when the Final Rule was published. This correction re-inserts the section content at 46 CFR 515.18, and moves another section's content to section 515.17 so that the regulations are in the proper order.

This correction also fixes three minor typographical errors that were created in the course of production of the Code of Federal Regulations in 46 CFR 515.42 and Appendix D to part 515.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 515

Freight, Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the Federal Maritime Commission corrects 46 CFR part 515 as follows:

PART 515—LICENSING, FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND GENERAL DUTIES FOR OCEAN TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES 1. The authority citation for part 515 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40102, 40104, 40501-40503, 40901-40904, 41101-41109, 41301-41302, 41305-41307; Pub. L. 105-383, 112 Stat. 3411; 21 U.S.C. 862.

Subpart B—Eligibility and Procedure for Licensing and Registration
§ 515.18 [Redesignated as § 515.17]
2. Redesignate § 515.18 as § 515.17.
3. Add new § 515.18 to read as follows:
§ 515.18 Application after revocation or denial.

Whenever a license has been revoked or an application has been denied because the Commission has found the licensee or applicant to be not qualified to render ocean transportation intermediary services, any further application within 3 years of the Commission's notice of revocation or denial, made by such former licensee or applicant or by another applicant employing the same qualifying individual or controlled by persons whose conduct the Commission based its determination for revocation or denial, shall be reviewed directly by the Commission.

Subpart E—Freight Forwarding Fees and Compensation 4. In § 515.42: a. Revise the section heading. b. In paragraph (c), in the last sentence, remove the numeral “2” and add in its place “_”.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 515.42 Forwarder and carrier compensation; fees.
Appendix D to Part 515 [Amended] 5. In Appendix D remove “the _, day of _” and add in its place “the _, day of_,_” every place it occurs. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01578 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 536 and 552 [Change 68; GSAR Case 2015-G508; Docket No. 2005-0013; Sequence No. 1] RIN 3090-AI81 General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Removal of Unnecessary Construction Clauses and Editorial Changes AGENCY:

Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA)

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) coverage on Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts, including provisions and clauses for solicitations and resultant contracts, to remove unnecessary regulations.

DATES:

Effective: January 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For clarification of content, contact Ms. Christina Mullins, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, by phone at 202-969-4066 or by email at [email protected] For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite GSAR case 2015-G508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The General Services Administration (GSA) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 80 FR 45498 on July 30, 2015 to revise sections of GSAR Part 536, Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts, and Part 552, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses, to remove unnecessary construction clauses. No comments were received on the proposed rule.

II. Discussion of Analysis

No changes were made to the rule as there were no comments received.

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

GSA does not expect this final rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 5 U.S.C. 601, et.seq., because the rule only deletes unnecessary sections and clauses and does not contain substantive changes. However, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) has been prepared.

There were no comments submitted in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis provided in the proposed rule. The final rule changes will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule changes do not place any new requirements on small entities. The section, provision and clause associated with project labor agreement is no longer a requirement based on Executive Order 13202 and because Executive Order 13502 was incorporated into FAR Subpart 22.5. The provisions and associated clauses for specialist, working hours, use of premises, measurements, samples, heat, and government use of equipment are considered technical requirements that are contained in the scope of work or specifications.

Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the Regulatory Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 536 and 552

Government procurement.

Dated: January 15, 2016. Jeffrey A. Koses, Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR parts 536 and 552 as set forth below:

PART 536—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 536 continues to read as follows: Authority:

40 U.S.C. 121(c).

2. Revise section 536.101 to read as follows:
536.101 Applicability.

This part supplements FAR Part 36 policies and procedures applicable to contracting for construction and architect-engineer services. Contracts for construction management services are covered by FAR Part 37 and GSAM Part 537. Part 536 shall take precedence when the acquisition involves (1) construction or architect-engineer services, and (2) when the requirement is inconsistent with another part of the GSAR.

536.271 [Removed]
3. Remove section 536.271.
536.570-3 [Removed and Reserved]
4. Remove and reserve section 536.570-3.
536.570-5 through 536.570-7 [Removed and Reserved]
5. Remove and reserve sections 536.570-5 through 536.570-7.
536.570-10 and 536.570-11 [Removed and Reserved]
6. Remove and reserve sections 536.570-10 and 536.570-11.
536.570-14 [Removed]
7. Remove section 536.570-14.
PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 8. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 552 continues to read as follows: Authority:

40 U.S.C. 121(c).

552.236-72 [Removed and Reserved]
9. Remove and reserve section 552.236-72.
552.236-74 through 552.236-76 [Removed and Reserved]
10. Remove and reserve sections 552.236-74 through 552.236-76.
552.236-79 and 552.236-80 [Removed and Reserved]
11. Removed and reserve sections 552.236-79 and 552.236-80.
552.236-83 [Removed]
12. Remove section 552.236-83.
[FR Doc. 2016-01422 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 140918791-4999-02] RIN 0648-XE410 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Temporary rule; closure.

SUMMARY:

NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2016 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 630 in the GOA.

DATES:

Effective 1,200 hrs., Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 27, 2016, through 1,200 hrs., A.l.t., March 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The A season allowance of the 2016 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 12,456 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015) and inseason adjustment (81 FR 188, January 5, 2016).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2016 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 11,856 mt and is setting aside the remaining 600 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

Classification

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a document providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 20, 2016.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Authority:

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: January 22, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-01624 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
81 17 Wednesday, January 27, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-5391; Notice No. 25-16-01-SC] Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Boeing 767-2C Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed special conditions.

SUMMARY:

This action proposes special conditions for the Boeing Model 767-2C airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is non-rechargeable lithium battery systems. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

Send your comments on or before March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-5391 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On January 18, 2010, The Boeing Company applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. A1NM to include a new Model 767-2C airplane. The Model 767-2C airplane is a twin-engine, transport-category airplane that is a freighter derivative of the Model 767-200 airplane currently approved under Type Certificate No. A1NM. The Model 767-2C airplane incorporates freighter features such as a main deck cargo door and strengthened floors to provide cargo carriage capability on the main deck. Provisions are also incorporated to support subsequent supplemental type certificate (STC) modifications which are intended to provide additional mission capabilities, including provisions to support conversion into an aerial refueling platform (i.e., tanker) configuration.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, (14 CFR) 21.101, The Boeing Company must show that the Model 767-2C airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate A1NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. The regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A1NM are 14 CFR part 25 effective February 1, 1965 including Amendments 25-1 through 25-37 with exceptions listed in the type certificate. In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions. Type Certificate No. A1NM will be updated to include a complete description of the certification basis for this airplane model.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 767-2C airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 767-2C airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery and venting capability where necessary. For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. The Model 767-2C airplane will incorporate non-rechargeable lithium batteries, which are novel or unusual design features.

Discussion

We derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport-category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the re-codification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. We basically reworded the battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4), from the CAR requirements. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery-cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy-storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery, in an emergency locator transmitter installation, demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. Air Accident Investigations Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some other known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication-management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units (LRU);

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

• Internal failures

In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

• Fast or imbalanced discharging

Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

• Flammability

Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, these batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Proposed Special Condition 1 requires that each individual cell within a battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Proposed Special Condition 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Proposed Special Condition 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Proposed Special Conditions 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrolled failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Proposed Special Conditions 3, 9 and 10 are self-explanatory, and the FAA does not provide further explanation for them at this time.

The FAA proposes Special Condition 4 to make it clear that the flammable-fluid fire-protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Proposed Special Condition 5 requires each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation to not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape. Proposed Special Condition 6 requires each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation to have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting these proposed special conditions may be the same, but they are independent requirements addressing different hazards. Proposed Special Condition 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, whereas Proposed Special Condition 6 addresses heat.

Proposed Special Conditions 7 and 8 require non-rechargeable lithium batteries to have automatic means for battery disconnection and control of battery discharge rate due to the fast-acting nature of lithium-battery chemical reactions. Manual intervention would not be timely or effective in mitigating the hazards associated with these batteries.

These special conditions will apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at Amendment 25-123. Sections 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at Amendment 25-123 will remain in effect for other battery installations.

These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model 767-2C airplane. Should the applicant apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

Accordingly, the FAA proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 767-2C airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at Amendment 25-123, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Be capable of automatically controlling the discharge rate of each cell to prevent cell imbalance, back-charging, overheating, and uncontrollable temperature and pressure.

8. Have a means to automatically disconnect from its discharging circuit in the event of an over-temperature condition, cell failure or battery failure.

9. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

10. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note 1:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a battery and battery system are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 20, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-01582 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 240 and 249 [Release No. 34-76958; File No. S7-25-15] RIN 3235-AL53 Extension of Comment Period for Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is extending the comment period for a release proposing new Rule 13q-1 and an amendment to Form SD to implement Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to disclosure of payments by resource extraction issuers [Release No. 34-76620 (Dec. 11, 2015); 80 FR 80057 (Dec. 23, 2015)]. The comment period for the proposal is divided between an initial comment period and a period for reply comments. The original initial comment period is scheduled to end on January 25, 2016 and the original period for reply comments is scheduled to end on February 16, 2016. The Commission is extending the time period in which to provide the Commission with initial comments until February 16, 2016 and to provide reply comments until March 8, 2016. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the issues and prepare their comments.

DATES:

The comment period for the proposed rule published on December 23, 2015 (80 FR 80057), is extended. Initial comments are due on February 16, 2016. Reply comments, which may respond only to issues raised in the initial comment period, are due on March 8, 2016. In developing the final rules, the Commission may rely on both new comments and comments that have been received to date, including those that were provided in connection with the prior rules that the Commission issued under Section 13(q).

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission's Internet comment forms (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml);

• Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number S7-25-15 on the subject line; or

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

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-25-15. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments also are available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

Studies, memoranda or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the SEC's Web site. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shehzad K. Niazi, Special Counsel; Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3430; or Elliot Staffin, Special Counsel; Office of International Corporate Finance, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3450, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission has requested comment on a release proposing new Rule 13q-1 and an amendment to Form SD to implement Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Section 1504 added Section 13(q) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which directs the Commission to issue rules requiring resource extraction issuers to include in an annual report information relating to any payment made by the issuer, a subsidiary of the issuer, or an entity under the control of the issuer, to a foreign government or the Federal Government for the purpose of the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals. Section 13(q) requires a resource extraction issuer to provide information about the type and total amount of payments made for each project related to the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals, and the type and total amount of payments made to each government. In addition, Section 13(q) requires a resource extraction issuer to provide certain information regarding those payments in an interactive data format, as specified by the Commission.

The Commission originally requested that initial comments on the release be received by January 25, 2016 and that reply comments, which may respond only to issues raised in the initial comment period, be received by February 16, 2016. The Commission has received a request for an extension of time for public comment on the proposal to, among other things, allow for the collection of information and to improve the quality of responses.1 The Commission believes that providing the public additional time to consider thoroughly the matters addressed by the release and to submit comprehensive responses to the release would benefit the Commission in its consideration of final rules. Therefore, the Commission is extending the comment period for Release No. 34-76620 “Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers” until February 16, 2016 for initial comments and until March 8, 2016 for reply comments.

1 Letter from American Petroleum Institute (Jan. 7, 2016). Comments are available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-25-15/s72515.shtml.

By the Commission.

Dated: January 21, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01545 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-147310-12] RIN-1545-BM22 Applicability of Normal Retirement Age Regulations to Governmental Pension Plans AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

This document contains proposed regulations under section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). These regulations would provide rules relating to the determination of whether the normal retirement age under a governmental plan (within the meaning of section 414(d) of the Code) that is a pension plan satisfies the requirements of section 401(a) and whether the payment of definitely determinable benefits that commence at the plan's normal retirement age satisfies these requirements. These regulations would affect sponsors and administrators of governmental pension plans, as well as participants in such plans.

DATES:

Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by April 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-147310-12), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-147310-12), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-147310-12).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Concerning the proposed regulations, Pamela Kinard at (202) 317-4148 or Robert Walsh at (202) 317-4102; concerning the submission of comments or to request a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor, (202) 317-7180 or (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background I. Normal Retirement Age Generally

This document contains proposed regulations under section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 401(a) sets forth the qualification requirements for a trust forming part of a stock bonus, pension, or profit-sharing plan of an employer. Several of these qualification requirements are based on a plan's normal retirement age, including the regulatory interpretation of the requirement that the plan provide for definitely determinable benefits (generally after retirement). Final regulations defining normal retirement age for the definitely determinable requirement were published in the Federal Register as TD 9325 on May 22, 2007 (72 FR 28604) (2007 NRA regulations).

Section 1.401(a)-1(b)(1) of the 2007 NRA regulations generally requires that a pension plan be established and maintained primarily to provide systematically for the payment of definitely determinable benefits over a period of years, usually for life, after retirement. The 2007 NRA regulations include two exceptions to the general rule that payments commence after retirement: (1) Payments can commence after attainment of normal retirement age; and (2) in accordance with section 401(a)(36), payments can commence after an employee reaches age 62.

Section 1.401(a)-1(b)(2)(i) of the 2007 NRA regulations provides that, as a general rule, a normal retirement age under a pension plan must be an age that is not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed (reasonably representative requirement). Section 1.401(a)-1(b)(2)(ii) of the 2007 NRA regulations provides that a normal retirement age of age 62 or later is deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement. Under section 1.401(a)-1(b)(2)(iii) of the 2007 NRA regulations, whether a normal retirement age that is not earlier than age 55 but is below age 62 satisfies the reasonably representative requirement is based on a facts and circumstances analysis. Section 1.401(a)-1(b)(2)(iv) of the 2007 NRA regulations provides that a normal retirement age that is lower than age 55 is presumed not to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement unless the Commissioner determines otherwise on the basis of facts and circumstances. Under § 1.401(a)-1(b)(2)(v) of the 2007 NRA regulations, in the case of a pension plan in which substantially all of the participants are qualified public safety employees (within the meaning of section 72(t)(10)(B)), a normal retirement age of age 50 or later is deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement.

As previously explained, normal retirement age is used by a pension plan in a variety of circumstances relating to plan qualification. Generally, in the case of a pension plan that is not a governmental plan under section 414(d) and is subject to the rules of section 411(a) through (d), normal retirement age is used in applying the rules under section 411(b) that are designed to preclude avoidance of the minimum vesting standards through the backloading of benefits (such as a benefit formula under which the rate of benefit accrual is increased disproportionately for employees with longer service). Normal retirement age is also relevant for such a plan for other purposes, including the application of the rules relating to suspension of benefits under section 411(a)(3)(B), plan offset rules under section 411(b)(1)(H)(iii), and the minimum benefit rules applicable to non-key employee participants in the case of a top-heavy defined benefit plan under section 416. In addition, for such a plan, section 411(a)(8) defines the term normal retirement age as the earlier of (a) the time a participant attains normal retirement age under the plan or (b) the later of the time a plan participant attains age 65 or the 5th anniversary of the time a plan participant commenced participation in the plan.1

1 Section 411(f) provides a special normal retirement age rule that applies only to certain defined benefit plans that are subject to section 411(a) through (d). Section 411(f) was added to the Code on December 16, 2014 by Section 2 of Division P of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235 (128 Stat. 2130 (2014)), which also made a corresponding change to section 204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Public Law 93-406 (88 Stat. 829 (1974)), as amended (ERISA). Under section 101 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (92 Stat. 3790), the Secretary of the Treasury has interpretive jurisdiction over the subject matter addressed in section 411(f) for purposes of ERISA, as well as the Code.

II. Normal Retirement Age Under a Governmental Plan A. Application of Section 411 to Governmental Plans

Section 414(d) of the Code provides that the term governmental plan generally means a plan established and maintained for its employees by the Government of the United States, by the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.2 See sections 3(32) and 4021(b)(2) of ERISA for definitions of the term governmental plan for purposes of title I and title IV of ERISA, respectively.

2 The term governmental plan also includes a plan that is established and maintained by an Indian tribal government (as defined in section 7701(a)(40)), a subdivision of an Indian tribal government (determined in accordance with section 7871(d)), or an agency or instrumentality of either, and all the participants of which are employees of such entity substantially all of whose services as such an employee are in the performance of essential governmental functions but not in the performance of commercial activities (whether or not an essential government function). In addition, the term governmental plan includes any plan to which the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937 (49 Stat. 967, as amended by 50 Stat. 307) applies and which is financed by contributions required under that Act and any plan of an international organization that is exempt from taxation by reason of the International Organizations Immunities Act, Public Law 79-291 (59 Stat. 669).

Section 411(e)(1) of the Code provides that the provisions of section 411, other than section 411(e)(2), do not apply to a governmental plan. Under section 411(e)(2), a governmental plan is treated as meeting the requirements of section 411, for purposes of section 401(a), if the plan meets the vesting requirements resulting from the application of sections 401(a)(4) and 401(a)(7) as in effect on September 1, 1974 (pre-ERISA vesting rules). The only requirements under section 411 that apply to a governmental plan are the pre-ERISA vesting rules under section 411(e)(2). Thus, the definition of normal retirement age under section 411(a)(8) does not apply to a governmental plan. In addition, other rules of section 411, including section 411(a)(3)(B) (related to suspension of benefits), section 411(b)(1) (related to backloading of benefits in a defined benefit plan), and section 411(b)(1)(H)(iii) (related to offsets after normal retirement age) do not apply to a governmental plan. Therefore, except for specific circumstances in which in-service benefit payments are permitted under § 1.401(a)-1(b)(1), the definition of normal retirement age need not be used by a governmental plan for the same purposes that apply to a plan subject to section 411(a) through (d).3

3 Normal retirement age may also be relevant to participant eligibility for certain favorable tax treatment, including section 402(l) (providing an income exclusion of up to $3,000 annually for certain distributions for health insurance and long-term care insurance premiums to eligible retired public safety officers who separate from service by reason of disability or attainment of normal retirement age) and the special catch-up provisions under § 1.457-4(c)(3)(v)(A).

B. Pre-ERISA Vesting Requirements for Governmental Plans

Under section 411(e)(2), a normal retirement age under a governmental plan must satisfy the pre-ERISA vesting rules. The pre-ERISA vesting rules applicable to governmental plans contain two basic components: (a) Rules relating to vesting and (b) rules relating to the right to commence benefits without reduction for early commencement. Rev. Rul. 66-11, 1966-1 C.B. 71, and Rev. Rul. 68-302, 1968-1 C.B. 163, illustrate the interplay between normal retirement age under the pre-ERISA vesting rules and section 401(a). As described in these rulings, to satisfy the requirements of section 401(a), a plan that is subject to the pre-ERISA vesting rules must provide for full vesting of the contributions made to or benefits payable under the plan for any employee who has attained normal retirement age under the plan and satisfied any reasonable and uniformly applicable requirements as to length of service or participation described in the plan. For more information about these rules, see Part 5(c) of Publication 778, Guides for Qualification of Pension, Profit-Sharing, and Stock Bonus Plans (Pub. 778).

Rev. Rul. 71-24, 1971-1 C.B. 114, illustrates the application of the pre-ERISA vesting rules to benefits provided under a pension plan for employees who continue employment after normal retirement age. Rev. Rul. 71-24 includes an example under which benefits are permitted to commence during employment after normal retirement age.

As described in Rev. Rul. 71-147,4 1971-1 C.B. 116, the normal retirement age in a pension or annuity plan under the pre-ERISA vesting rules is generally the lowest age specified in the plan at which the employee has the right to retire without the consent of the employer and receive retirement benefits based on the amount of the employee's service to the date of retirement at the full rate set forth in the plan (that is, without actuarial or similar reduction because of retirement before some later specified age). Rev. Rul. 71-147 does not explicitly require a plan to include a provision defining normal retirement age. Instead, a plan's normal retirement age may be deduced from other plan provisions. As described in Rev. Rul. 71-147, although normal retirement age under a pension or annuity plan is ordinarily age 65, a plan may specify a lower age at which the employee has the right to retire without the consent of the employer and to receive retirement benefits based on the amount of the employee's service at the full rate set forth in the plan if this lower age would be an age at which employees customarily retire in the particular company or industry, and if the provision permitting receipt of unreduced benefits at this age is not a device to accelerate funding. For more information about these rules, see also Part 5(e) of Pub. 778.

4 Even though Rev. Rul. 71-147 was superseded by Rev. Rul. 80-276, 1980-1 C.B. 131, for plans subject to section 411(a)(8), Rev. Rul. 71-147 remains valid guidance for purposes of the pre-ERISA vesting rules.

III. Application of the 2007 NRA Regulations to Governmental Plans

Notice 2007-69, 2007-2 C.B. 468, asked for comments “on whether and how a pension plan with a normal retirement age conditioned on the completion of a stated number of years of service satisfies the requirement in § 1.401(a)-1(b)(1)(i) that a pension plan be maintained primarily to provide for the payment of definitely determinable benefits after retirement or attainment of normal retirement age and how such a plan satisfies the pre-ERISA vesting rules.” Comments were received on a variety of issues, including comments that guidance should be issued to (1) clarify that governmental plans are not required to define normal retirement age, (2) provide safe harbor rules that would permit a governmental plan to define normal retirement age that includes a service component, and (3) provide that the age-50 safe harbor rule in § 1.401(a)-1(b)(2)(v) for qualified public safety employees can apply to these employees even if less than substantially all of a plan's participants are qualified public safety employees.

The 2007 NRA regulations provided that, in the case of governmental plans, the regulations would be effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2009. Notices 2008-98, 2008-44 I.R.B. 1080, and 2009-86, 2009-6 I.R.B. 629, provided that the Department of the Treasury and the IRS intended to amend the 2007 NRA regulations to change the effective date of the 2007 NRA regulations for governmental plans to January 1, 2013.

Notice 2012-29, 2012-18 I.R.B. 872, announced that the Department of the Treasury and the IRS intend to modify provisions of the 2007 NRA regulations as applied to governmental plans in two ways. First, Notice 2012-29 announced the intent to modify the regulations to clarify that a governmental plan that is not subject to section 411(a) through (d) and does not provide for the payment of in-service distributions before age 62 will not fail to satisfy the requirement that the plan provide definitely determinable benefits to employees after retirement or attainment of normal retirement age merely because the pension plan does not have a definition of normal retirement age or does not have a definition of normal retirement age that satisfies the requirements of the 2007 NRA regulations.

Second, Notice 2012-29 announced the intent to modify the 2007 NRA regulations to provide that the rule deeming age 50 or later to be a normal retirement age that satisfies the 2007 NRA regulations will apply to a group of employees substantially all of whom are qualified public safety employees, whether or not the group of qualified public safety employees are covered by a separate plan. Thus, under the intended modification, a governmental plan would be permitted to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement using a normal retirement age as low as 50 for a group substantially all of whom are qualified public safety employees and a later normal retirement age that otherwise satisfies the 2007 NRA requirements for all other participants.

Notice 2012-29 requested comments from governmental stakeholders on the guidance under consideration. Specific comments were requested on whether a new rule should be provided under which retirement after 20 to 30 years of service may be a normal retirement age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which qualified public safety employees are employed because these employees tend to have career spans that commence at a young age and continue over a limited number of years. Many commenters wrote that such a rule would be helpful and appropriate. Several commenters requested a rule that would permit a governmental plan to use the completion of 20 or more years of service as a normal retirement age for public safety employees.

Comments were also requested on whether there are other categories of governmental employees who have career spans similar to qualified public safety employees for whom a rule should be provided that is similar to the safe harbor for qualified public safety employees. Many commenters recommended a rule that would permit governmental plans to use the completion of a number of years of service as a normal retirement age for all employees, not just qualified public safety employees.

Notice 2012-29 also requested information on the overall retirement patterns of employees in government service to assist the Department of the Treasury and the IRS in determining the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement ages for the industry in which these employees are employed. One commenter provided data on the retirement patterns and median normal retirement ages for participants in a state retirement system.

Notice 2012-29 also provided that the Department of the Treasury and the IRS intend to amend the 2007 NRA regulations to modify the effective date of the 2007 NRA regulations for governmental plans to annuity starting dates that occur in plan years beginning on or after the later of (1) January 1, 2015 or (2) the close of the first regular legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins on or after the date that is 3 months after the final regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Explanation of Provisions I. Overview

These proposed regulations would provide guidance with respect to the applicability of the 2007 NRA regulations to governmental plans. These proposed regulations, when finalized, would provide guidance relating to the determination of whether the normal retirement age under a governmental plan satisfies the requirements of section 401(a) by amending the 2007 NRA regulations to provide additional rules for governmental plans. In addition, these proposed regulations would also include a minor change to the 2007 NRA regulations to reflect the addition of section 411(f), which provides a special rule for determining a permissible normal retirement age that applies only to certain defined benefit plans that are not governmental plans.

II. Use of Years of Service as a Component of the Pre-ERISA Vesting Rules

In response to Notice 2012-29, the Department of the Treasury and the IRS received a range of comments regarding the pre-ERISA vesting rules that apply to a governmental plan's normal retirement age. In particular, the Department of the Treasury and the IRS received many comments requesting rules that would permit governmental plans to define normal retirement age by reference to a period of service. Comments also focused on whether a governmental plan is required to include an explicit definition of normal retirement age.

As previously stated, a normal retirement age under a governmental plan must satisfy the pre-ERISA vesting rules. The Department of the Treasury and the IRS generally agree with those commenters who indicated that the pre-ERISA vesting rules applicable to normal retirement age may be read to permit a governmental plan to use a normal retirement age that reflects a period of service. Under pre-ERISA vesting rules, use of a period of service to determine normal retirement age under a governmental plan would be permissible if the period of service used is reasonable and uniformly applicable and the other pre-ERISA rules related to normal retirement age are satisfied. One of the pre-ERISA rules permits a governmental plan to specify a normal retirement age that is lower than age 65 if that age represents the age at which employees customarily retire in the industry.

Under the pre-ERISA rules related to normal retirement age, the terms of a governmental plan are not required to include an explicit definition of the term normal retirement age in order to satisfy section 401(a). However, in the absence of an explicit definition of normal retirement age, the terms of the plan must specify the earliest age at which a participant has the right to retire without the consent of the employer and to receive retirement benefits based upon the amount of the participant's service on the date of retirement at the full rate set forth in the plan (that is, without actuarial or similar reduction because of retirement before some later specified age). That age (the earliest age described in the preceding sentence) will be considered the plan's normal retirement age for purposes of any statutory or regulatory requirements based on a normal retirement age.

Consistent with Notice 2012-29, the proposed regulations would provide that a governmental plan that does not provide for the payment of in-service distributions before age 62 would not fail to satisfy § 1.401(a)-1(b)(1) under these proposed regulations merely because the pension plan has a normal retirement age that is earlier than otherwise permitted under the requirements of § 1.401(a)-1(b)(2) of the 2007 NRA regulations (as proposed to be amended by these proposed regulations). Instead, because section 411(a) through (d) does not apply, the earlier normal retirement age under such a plan is treated as the age as of which an unreduced early retirement benefit is payable for purposes of these regulations.

III. Normal Retirement Age Must Satisfy the Reasonably Representative Requirement A. In General

These proposed regulations would apply the reasonably representative requirement in the 2007 NRA regulations to governmental plans. Thus, the normal retirement age under a governmental plan must be an age that is not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed.

B. General Safe Harbor

These proposed regulations would apply to governmental plans the safe harbor in the 2007 NRA regulations that a normal retirement age of at least age 62 is deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement. Thus, a governmental plan satisfies this safe harbor if the normal retirement age under the plan is age 62 or if the normal retirement age is the later of age 62 or another specified date, such as the fifth anniversary of plan participation.

C. Safe Harbors for Governmental Plans

To address comments regarding the need for additional safe harbors for governmental plans, including safe harbors that reflect permissible periods of service, these proposed regulations would provide several additional alternative safe harbors that a governmental plan could satisfy. The safe harbors included in these proposed regulations were developed based upon feedback provided in comments received in response to Notices 2007-69 and 2012-29.

1. Age 60 and 5 Years of Service

Under these proposed regulations, a normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the later of age 60 or the age at which the participant has been credited with at least 5 years of service would be deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement.

2. Age 55 and 10 Years of Service

Similarly, a normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the later of 55 or the age at which the participant has been credited with at least 10 years of service would be deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement. Thus, for example, a normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the later of age 55 or the age at which the participant has been credited with 12 years of service would satisfy this safe harbor.

3. Combined Age and Years of Service of 80 or More

A normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the participant's age if the sum of the participant's age plus the number of years of service that have been credited to the participant under the plan equals 80 or more would also be deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement. For example, a participant in a governmental plan who is age 55 and who has been credited with 25 years of service under the plan would satisfy this safe harbor.

4. Any Age With 25 years of Service (in Combination With a Safe Harbor That Includes an Age)

A governmental plan would also be permitted to combine any of the other safe harbors (except for the qualified public safety employee safe harbors) provided under the proposed regulations with 25 years of service, so that a participant's normal retirement age would be the participant's age when the number of years of service that have been credited to the participant under the plan equals 25 if that age is earlier than what the participant's normal retirement age would be under the other safe harbor(s). For example, a normal retirement age under a governmental plan would satisfy the reasonably representative requirement if the normal retirement age is the earlier of (1) the participant's age when the participant has been credited with 25 years of service under the plan and (2) the later of age 60 or the age when the participant has been credited with 5 years of service under the plan. Use of 25 years of service by a governmental plan for normal retirement age generally would not satisfy the pre-ERISA vesting requirement relating to normal retirement age, unless it is used in conjunction with an alternative normal retirement age that includes an age component and that otherwise satisfies the pre-ERISA rules. This is because the pre-ERISA vesting requirements allow for a service component only if that component does not unreasonably delay full vesting. For example, applying a 25 years of service requirement (without an alternative normal retirement age) to a newly-hired 63-year-old employee would not be reasonable because it would result in a normal retirement age of 88. See generally, Rev. Rul. 66-11.

D. Qualified Public Safety Employees

The proposed regulations include three safe harbors specifically for qualified public safety employees. The safe harbors were developed based upon feedback provided in comments received in response to Notices 2007-69 and 2012-29. Consistent with Notice 2012-29 and in response to comments, the proposed regulations would make clear that a governmental plan is permitted to use one or more of the safe harbors for qualified public safety employees to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement for those employees even if a different normal retirement age or ages is used under the plan for one or more other categories of participants who are not qualified public safety employees. The safe harbors for qualified public safety employees are not permitted to be used for these other categories of participants; a different normal retirement age (or ages) must be used for participants in a plan who are not qualified public safety employees.

As under the 2007 NRA regulations, the term qualified public safety employee would be defined by reference to section 72(t)(10)(B), under which a qualified public safety employee means any employee of a State or political subdivision of a State who provides police protection, firefighting services, or emergency medical services for any area within the jurisdiction of such State or political subdivision.5 Defining qualified public safety employee by reference to section 72(t)(10)(B) has been retained because it is closely aligned with the categories of employees described in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that an employer may refrain from hiring after a certain age.6 Because qualified public safety employees typically commence plan participation at younger ages, the period of service required for full vesting at normal retirement age under each of the safe harbors for qualified public safety employees should be reasonable.

5 Section 72(t)(10)(B) was amended by section 2(a) of Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act, Public Law 114-26 (129 Stat. 319) (2015)) and section 308 of Protecting Americans From Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113 (129 Stat. 2422), to include federal public safety employees as qualified public safety employees for purposes of the rules under section 72(t)(10). Thus, for distributions made after December 31, 2015, the term qualified public safety employee means any employee of a State or political subdivision of a State who provides police protection, firefighting services, or emergency medical services for any area within the jurisdiction of such State or political subdivision, or any Federal law enforcement officer described in section 8331(20) or 8401(17) of title 5, United States Code, any Federal customs and border protection officer described in section 8331(31) or 8401(36) of such title, any Federal firefighter described in section 8331(21) or 8401(14) of such title, or any air traffic controller described in 8331(30) or 8401(35) of such title, any nuclear materials courier described in section 8331(27) or 8401(33) of such title, any member of the United States Capitol Police, any member of the Supreme Court Police, and any diplomatic security special agent of the Department of State.

6 See section 4(j) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623(j).

1. Age 50

The proposed regulations would modify the safe harbor for qualified public safety employees that was provided in the 2007 NRA regulations under which a normal retirement age of age 50 or later is deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement and would expand on the guidance under consideration described in Notice 2012-29. The proposed regulations would make clear that a governmental plan is permitted to use the safe harbor (alone or together with one or both of the other safe harbors for qualified public safety employees described in this preamble) for one or more qualified public safety employees in a governmental plan without regard to any “substantially all” requirement (that is, without regard to whether substantially all of the participants in the plan or substantially all of the participants within a group of participants are qualified public safety employees).

2. Combined Age and Years of Service of 70 or More

The proposed regulations would add a safe harbor under which a normal retirement age for qualified public safety employees under a governmental plan that is the participant's age when the sum of the participant's age plus the number of years of service that have been credited to the participant under the plan equals 70 or more would be deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement.

3. Any Age With 20 Years of Service

The proposed regulations would also add a safe harbor under which a normal retirement age for qualified public safety employees under a governmental plan that is the participant's age when the number of years of service that have been credited to the participant under the plan equals 20 or more would be deemed to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement. For example, a normal retirement age for qualified public safety employees under a plan that is 25 years of service would satisfy this safe harbor. The Department of the Treasury and the IRS agree with the comments received in response to Notice 2012-29 that indicated that a safe harbor based solely on a period of service would be appropriate for qualified public safety employees because these employees typically have career spans that commence at a young age and continue over a limited period of years.

E. Multiple Normal Retirement Ages in a Governmental Plan

Commenters on Notice 2012-29 stated that it is a common practice for governmental plans to have a normal retirement age that is a combination of age and years of service. In light of these comments, some of the safe harbors proposed in these regulations contemplate a combination of age and years of service, such as, for example, the use of a normal retirement age that is the earlier of (1) the participant's age when the participant has been credited with 30 years of service under the plan or (2) the later of age 60 or the age when the participant has been credited with 5 years of service under the plan. A normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is consistent with the safe harbors in these proposed regulations would not fail to satisfy the pre-ERISA requirements, including the requirement that any period of service required for vesting at normal retirement age be uniformly applicable to all employees in a plan, merely because the plan uses such a normal retirement age.

Commenters to Notice 2012-29 also stated that governmental plans typically provide multiple normal retirement ages, often based on different benefit structures or classifications of employees in a single plan. These comments expressed concern that certain language in Notice 2012-29 7 could be read to indicate that a governmental plan could only have two normal retirement ages if one of the normal retirement ages covered qualified public safety employees and the other normal retirement age covered all of the other participants in the plan.

7 Notice 2012-29 provided that, under an anticipated amendment to the 2007 NRA regulations, a governmental plan would be permitted to satisfy the reasonably representative requirement using a normal retirement age as low as 50 for a group substantially all of whom are qualified public safety employees and a later normal retirement age that otherwise satisfies the 2007 NRA requirements for all other participants.

Use of one normal retirement age for one classification of employees (such as qualified public safety employees) and one or more other normal retirement ages for one or more different classifications of employees would not be inconsistent with these proposed regulations and generally would not be inconsistent with the applicable pre-ERISA requirements, including the requirement that any period of service required for full vesting at normal retirement age be uniformly applicable. Similarly, the use of one normal retirement age under a governmental plan for employees hired before a certain date and another normal retirement age under the plan for employees hired on or after that date generally would not fail to satisfy the applicable pre-ERISA requirements.

F. Other Normal Retirement Ages

The proposed regulations would provide that in the case of a normal retirement age under a governmental plan that fails to satisfy any of the governmental plan safe harbors, whether the normal retirement age satisfies the reasonably representative requirement would be based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances. Similar to the treatment of normal retirement ages between ages 55 and 62 under the 2007 NRA regulations, it is generally expected that a good faith determination of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed that is made by the employer will be given deference, assuming that the determination is reasonable under the facts and circumstances and that the normal retirement age is otherwise consistent with the pre-ERISA vesting requirements.

Proposed Effective Date

These regulations are proposed to be effective for employees hired during plan years beginning on or after the later of (1) January 1, 2017 or (2) the close of the first regular legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins on or after the date that is 3 months after the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. Governmental plan sponsors may rely on these proposed regulations for periods preceding the effective date, pending the issuance of final regulations. If and to the extent the final regulations are more restrictive than the rules in these proposed regulations, those provisions of the final regulations will be applied without retroactive effect.

Statement of Availability for IRS Documents

For copies of recently issued Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, Notices, and other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin or Cumulative Bulletin, please visit the IRS Web site at http://www.irs.gov or the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

Special Analyses

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that 5 U.S.C. 533(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. In addition, because no collection of information is imposed on small entities, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply and a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comments on its impact on small business.

Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. All comments are available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person who timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place of the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The principal authors of these regulations are Sarah R. Bolen and Pamela R. Kinard, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the Department of the Treasury and the IRS participated in the development of these regulations.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.401(a)-1 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(v). 2. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(vi). 3. Revising the heading and the second sentence of paragraph (b)(4).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 1.401(a)-1 Post-ERISA qualified plans and qualified trusts; in general.

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(v) Rules of application for governmental plans—(A) In general. In the case of a governmental plan (within the meaning of section 414(d)) that provides for distributions before retirement, the general rule described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section may be satisfied in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section or this paragraph (b)(2)(v). In the case of a governmental plan that does not provide for distributions before retirement, the plan's normal retirement age is not required to comply with the general rule described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section or this paragraph (b)(2)(v).

(B) Age 60 and 5 years of service safe harbor. A normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the later of age 60 or the age at which the participant has been credited with at least 5 years of service under the plan is deemed to be not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed.

(C) Age 55 and 10 years of service safe harbor. A normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the later of age 55 or the age at which the participant has been credited with at least 10 years of service under the plan is deemed to be not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed.

(D) Sum of 80 safe harbor. A normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the participant's age at which the sum of the participant's age plus the number of years of service that have been credited to the participant under the plan equals 80 or more is deemed to be not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed. For example, a normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is age 55 for a participant who has been credited with 25 years of service would satisfy the rule described in this paragraph.

(E) Service-based combination safe harbor. A normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the earlier of the participant's age at which the participant has been credited with at least 25 years of service under the plan and an age that satisfies any other safe harbor provided under paragraphs (b)(2)(v)(B) through (D) of this section is deemed to be not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed. For example, a normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the earlier of the participant's age at which the participant has been credited with 25 years of service under the plan and the later of age 60 or the age at which the participant has been credited with 5 years of service under the plan would satisfy this safe harbor.

(F) Age 50 safe harbor for qualified public safety employees. A normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is age 50 or later is deemed to be not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed if the participants to which this normal retirement age applies are qualified public safety employees (within the meaning of section 72(t)(10)(B)).

(G) Sum of 70 safe harbor for qualified public safety employees. A normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the participant's age at which the sum of the participant's age plus the number of years of service that have been credited to the participant under the plan equals 70 or more, is deemed to be not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed if the participants to which this normal retirement age applies are qualified public safety employees (within the meaning of section 72(t)(10)(B)).

(H) Service-based safe harbor for qualified public safety employees. A normal retirement age under a governmental plan that is the age at which the participant has been credited with at least 20 years of service under the plan is deemed to be not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed if the participants to which this normal retirement age applies are qualified public safety employees (within the meaning of section 72(t)(10)(B)). For example, a normal retirement age that covers only qualified public safety employees and that is an employee's age when the employee has been credited with 25 years of service under a governmental plan would satisfy this safe harbor.

(I) Reserved.

(J) Other normal retirement ages. In the case of a normal retirement age under a governmental plan that fails to satisfy any safe harbor described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section or this paragraph (b)(2)(v), whether the age is not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed is based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances.

(vi) Special normal retirement age rule for certain plans. See section 411(f), which provides a special rule for determining a permissible normal retirement age under certain defined benefit plans.

(4) Effective/applicability date. * * * In the case of a governmental plan (as defined in section 414(d)), the rules in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section are effective for employees hired during plan years beginning on or after the later of: January 1, 2017; or the close of the first regular legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins on or after the date that is 3 months after the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. However, a governmental plan sponsor may elect to apply the rules of paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section to earlier periods. * * *

John M. Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-01639 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-115452-14] RIN 1545-BM12 Disguised Payments for Services; Hearing AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Notice of a public hearing on notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

This document provides a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations relating to disguised payments for services under section 707(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code.

DATES:

The public hearing is being held on Friday, February 26, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Monday, February 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building.

Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-115452-14), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-115452-14), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-115452-14).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Concerning the proposed regulations, Wendy Kribell at (202) 317-6850; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Oluwafunmilayo Taylor at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-115452-14) that was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43652).

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that submitted written comments by November 16, 2015, must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be denoted to each topic by Monday, February 8, 2016.

A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR) (Room 1621) which is located at the 11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2016-01520 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3020 [Docket No. RM2016-5; Order No. 2039] Procedures Related to the Mail Classification Schedule AGENCY:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Commission is proposing rules which amend the existing Commission rules related to the publication of specific notices related to the Mail Classification Schedule and Product Lists in the Federal Register. The proposed rules seek to modify Commission rules that require the publication of duplicative filings. The Commission invites public comment on the proposed rules.

DATES:

Comments are due: February 26, 2016. Reply comments are due: March 14, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background II. Proposed Changes to the Publishing Requirements of Product Lists Under 39 CFR part 3020 III. Invitation to Comment IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Background

The Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission) establishes a rulemaking docket pursuant to its responsibilities under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006), to consider amendments to the Commission's rules concerning the product lists, 39 CFR part 3020. The proposed amendments make minor changes to rules that obligate the Commission to publish, in the Federal Register, the initial proposals from the Postal Service requesting to modify the product lists published in the Mail Classification Schedule (MCS) and draft modifications to the MCS approved by the Commission. There is no statutory requirement that the Commission publish these notices and orders. Specifically the proposed rules remove the Commission's obligation to publish duplicative filings: (1) The initial notices and orders identifying a Postal Service request to modify the MCS, which are duplicative of the Postal Service notices/requests to modify the MCS; and (2) the orders identifying draft MCS changes approved by the Commission but not yet finalized in a modification to the MCS, which are duplicative of the quarterly MCS update. As required, pursuant to § 3020.14,1 the Commission will continue to publish the modified MCS (as opposed to its draft) in the Federal Register.

1 “Whenever the Postal Regulatory Commission modifies the list of products in the market dominant category or the competitive category, it shall cause notice of such change to be published in the Federal Register .” 39 CFR 3020.14; 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1).

II. Proposed Changes to the Publishing Requirements of Product Lists Under 39 CFR Part 3020

The changes proposed in this Order eliminate the requirements in the Commission's regulations that the Commission publish notices and final orders regarding proposed modifications and draft changes to the competitive and market dominant products of the MCS in the Federal Register.

The Commission must publish all actual modifications to the MCS in the Federal Register.2 The Commission may eliminate publishing such notices and final orders regarding competitive and market dominant product modifications to the MCS in the Federal Register because neither constitutes an actual modification to the MCS.

2 39 CFR 3020.14; 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1).

The MCS is an interpretive rule, as it serves an advisory function of explaining how the Postal Service categorizes mail products and assures the Postal Service will provide a consistent and uniform interpretation of these products. The Commission's notice-and-comment requirements, based on 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to interpretive rules.3 Because the Postal Service is required by statute to publish its proposed changes to the MCS in the Federal Register,4 a re-publication by the Commission is duplicative and not required by statute.5 Similarly, again because the MCS is an interpretive rule, the Commission is not obligated to provide notice-and-comment for modifications proposed by itself or third parties, such as the Public Representative or users of the mail.6

3 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).

4 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1).

5See 39 U.S.C. 3642, which only requires the Commission to publish actual changes, not proposed changes to the MCS in the Federal Register.

6See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) and 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(2). This does not prohibit the Commission from choosing, on its own accord, to publish such proposals to give the public opportunity for notice-and-comment.

All actual changes on the MCS take effect only when the Commission issues the revised MCS (based on the draft). The Commission's final orders regarding proposed changes to the MCS state whether the change has been approved by the Commission and adds the change to a working draft of the MCS that can be found on the Commission's Web site. The working draft does not constitute a revised MCS.7 The Commission is only obligated to publish actual changes on interpretive rules in the Federal Register.8 An actual MCS modification occurs only when the Commission incorporates all the changes from the working draft into a final product and publishes the revised MCS in the Federal Register. Currently, the Commission issues a revised MCS on a quarterly basis.

7 The redline draft of the MCS is available to the public on the Commission's Web site.

8 39 CFR 3020.14; 39 U.S.C. 3642.

Proposed changes to 39 CFR part 3020 related to the Federal Register publication requirement are reproduced below the Secretary's signature on this Order.

III. Invitation To Comment

Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed changes to part 3020. Comments are due within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katrina R. Martinez is designated as the Public Representative in this proceeding to represent the interests of the general public.

IV. Ordering Paragraphs

It is ordered:

1. Docket No. RM2016-5 is established for the purpose of receiving comments on the proposed changes to part 3020, as discussed in this Order.

2. Interested parties may submit comments no later than 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katrina R. Martinez is appointed to serve as Public Representative in this proceeding.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the Federal Register.

By the Commission.

Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3020

Administrative practice and procedure.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 3020—PRODUCT LISTS 1. The authority citation for part 3020 continues to read as follows: Authority:

39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.

1. Amend § 3020.33 by revising the introductory text and paragraph (d), removing paragraph (e), and redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (e). The revisions read as follows:
§ 3020.33 Docket and notice.

The Commission will establish a docket for each request to modify the market dominant list or the competitive product list and post the filing on its Web site. The notice shall include:

(d) The identification of an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket; and

(e) Such other information as the Commission deems appropriate.

2. Amend § 3020.53 by revising the introductory text and paragraph (d), removing paragraph (e), and redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (e). The revisions read as follows:
§ 3020.53 Docket and notice.

The Commission will establish a docket for each request to modify the market dominant list or the competitive product list and post the filing on its Web site. The notice shall include:

(d) The identification of an Office of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket; and

(e) Such other information as the Commission deems appropriate.

3. Amend § 3020.82 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d), and removing paragraph (e). The revisions read as follows:
§ 3020.82 Docket and notice of material changes to product descriptions.

(c) Publish notice of the request on its Web site; and

(d) Designate an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket.

(e) [Removed]

4. Amend § 3020.91 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d), and removing paragraph (e). The revisions read as follows:
§ 3020.91 Docket and notice of minor corrections to product descriptions.

(c) Publish notice of the proposal on its Web site; and

(d) Designate an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket.

(e) [Removed]

[FR Doc. 2016-01407 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
81 17 Wednesday, January 27, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request January 21, 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 February 26, 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 Citrus from Peru.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0289.

Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (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 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) fruits and vegetables regulations allow the importation, under certain conditions, of fresh commercial citrus fruit (grapefruit, limes, mandarin oranges, or tangerines, sweet oranges, and tangelos) from approved areas of Peru into the United States.

Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect information that includes Fruit Fly Management Program inspections by National Plant Protection Organization officials from Peru, grower registration and agreement, fruit fly trapping and monitoring, recordkeeping, and phytosanitary certificates. Without this information, APHIS could not verify that: (1) Fruit was treated; (2) citrus canker, fruit flies, and other pests were destroyed by treatment; or (3) the treatment was adequate to prevent the risk of plant pests from entering into the United States.

Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Federal Government.

Number of Respondents: 31.

Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: 31,339.

Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-01608 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request January 21, 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 February 26, 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), [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.

Food and Nutrition Service

Title: Uniform Grant Application for Non-Entitlement Discretionary Grants.

OMB Control Number: 0584-0512.

Summary of Collection: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has a number of non-entitlement discretionary grant programs to collect the information from grant applicants needed to evaluate and rank applicants and protect the integrity of the grantee selection process. All FNS discretionary grant programs will be eligible, but not required to use the uniform grant application package. The authorities for these grants vary. The term “grant” in this submission refers only to non-entitlement discretionary grants or cooperative agreements. Discretionary grant announcements include a number of information collections, including a “project description” (program narrative), budget information, disclosure of lobbying activities certification, and disclosure of Corporate Felony Convictions and Corporate Federal Tax Delinquencies. The requirements for the program narrative statement are based on the requirements for program narrative statements described in section 1.c (5) of OMB Circular A-102 and OMB A-110 (as implemented at USDA 7 CFR part 3015, 3016 and 3019); and will apply to all types of grantees; State and local governments, non-profit organizations, institutions of higher education, hospitals, and for profit organizations.

Need and Use of the Information: The primary users of the information collected from the applicant are FNS and other Federal staff who will serve on a panel to systematically review, evaluate, and approve the grant/cooperative agreement applications and recommend the applicants most likely to meet program objectives and most responsive to the solicitation. The selection criteria will be contained in the Request for Application package. Without this information, FNS will not have adequate data to select appropriate grantees or evaluate which grants should be continued, or monitor financial reporting requirements.

Description of Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Government; Business or other for-profit; Not for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Other (one-time).

Total Burden Hours: 150,000.

Food and Nutrition Service

Title: Generic Clearance for the Development of Nutrition Education Messages and Products for the General Public.

OMB Control Number: 0584-0523.

Summary of Collection: The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducts consumer research to identify key issues of concern related to understanding and use of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), as well as the tools and resources used to implement the Dietary Guidelines—previously known as the MyPyramid food guidance system. The Dietary Guidelines, a primary source of dietary health information, are issued jointly by the USDA and Health and Human Services and serve as the cornerstone of Federal nutrition policy and form the basis for nutrition education efforts of these agencies. After the release of the 2010 DGA a new communication initiative built around USDA's new MyPlate icon, including the resources at ChooseMyPlate.gov, was launched. MyPlate is a visual cue supported by Dietary Guidelines messages to help consumer make better food choices.

Need and Use of the Information: CNPP will collect information to develop practical and meaningful nutrition and physical activity guidance for Americans to help improve their health. The collected information will also be used to expand the knowledge base concerning how the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommendations and messages supporting MyPlate are understood and how they can be used by consumers to improve balance of their food intake with physical energy expenditure for good health. If this information is not collected, USDA's ability to incorporate messages and materials that are practical, meaningful, and relevant for the intended audience in any proposed update of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans or related resources at Choosemyplate.gov will be impaired.

Description of Respondents: Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents: 57,000.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Other (as desired).

Total Burden Hours: 12,004.

Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-01609 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics Study (CEP) AGENCY:

Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION:

Notice and request for comments.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a new collection for the Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics Study (CEP).

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments may be sent to John Endahl, Senior Program Analyst, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1004, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of John Endahl at 703-305-2576 or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

To request more information on the proposed project, or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans contact John Endahl, Senior Program Analyst, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1004, Alexandria, VA 22302; Fax: 703-305-2576; Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics Study (CEP).

Form Number: N/A.

OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

Expiration Date: Not yet determined.

Type of Request: New collection.

Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a clearance that will allow FNS to conduct the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) Characteristics Study. The objective of the study is to examine operational issues and perceived incentives and barriers for adopting CEP as well as the impacts on NSLP and SBP participation and per meal revenues.

Section 104(a) of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296) amended section 11(a)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1) (the law) to provide an alternative to household applications for free and reduced-price meals in high poverty local education agencies (LEAs) and schools. This alternative is referred to as the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP).

To be eligible, LEAs and/or schools must meet a minimum level (40%) of identified students for free meals in the year prior to implementing the provision; agree to serve free lunches and breakfasts to all students; not collect free and reduced-price applications from households in participating schools, and agree to cover with non-Federal funds any costs of providing free meals to all students above amounts provided in Federal reimbursement.

Reimbursement is based on claiming percentages derived from the identified student percentage (ISP). The Identified Students are students certified for free meals through means other than individual household applications. The claiming percentages established for a school in the first year may be used for a period of up to four school years and may be increased if direct certification percentages rise in that school.

In accordance with the law, CEP was phased in over a period of several years. The provision was available to eligible LEAs and schools in three States (Illinois, Kentucky, and Michigan) selected by Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) for the school year (SY) 2011-12. An additional four States (the District of Columbia, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia) were added for SY 2012-13. FNS selected four more States (Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and Massachusetts) for SY 2013-14. CEP became available nationwide to all eligible LEAs and schools beginning July 1, 2014. As a result, in SY 2014-2015, approximately 14,000 schools in more than 2,000 LEAs serving more than 6.4 million children elected to participate in CEP.

A report was submitted to Congress that presented the results of an evaluation that examined the number of schools and LEAs that were eligible to receive special assistance payments under CEP, and described various attributes of those eligible schools and LEAs that elected or did not elect this provision. The evaluation also examined the impact of electing to receive special assistance payments under CEP on program participation, revenues, availability and type of school breakfast, LEA administrative costs, program integrity, and meal quality. The final report can be found on the FNS Web site (http://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-evaluation). The Addendum describes the characteristics of LEAs and schools that participated in CEP in School Year 2013-14. It also describes how these characteristics differ for those high-poverty LEAs and schools that did not take up CEP.

With the expansion of CEP nationwide, the CEP Characteristics Study will include surveys of nationally representative samples of participating and eligible non-participating LEAs to obtain updated information on the characteristics of participating and non-participating districts and schools. The study will update information obtained in the Implementation Study component of the Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation. It will also examine CEP impacts on student participation and per meal revenue.

Affected Public: Respondent categories of affected public and the corresponding study participants will include: State Agency Child Nutrition Directors, CEP eligible SFAs with schools participating in the CEP and CEP eligible SFAs with no schools that elect to participate in the CEP.

Number of Respondents: 1,040 annually.

Frequency of Responses: Once per year.

Average Burden Hours per Response: 1.52 hours.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,308 hours. See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

Data collection
  • activity
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • (annual)
  • Frequency
  • of responses
  • (annual)
  • Average
  • burden
  • (hours per
  • response)
  • Annual
  • burden
  • hours
  • Number of non-
  • respondents
  • (annual)
  • Frequency
  • of responses
  • (annual)
  • Average
  • burden
  • (hours per
  • non-
  • response)
  • Annual
  • burden
  • hours
  • (non-
  • response)
  • Total
  • annual
  • burden
  • CN Director Survey 52 1 0.75 39 0 1 0.083 0 39 SFA Director Survey (participating SFAs) 386 1 1.5 579 96 1 0.083 8 587 SFA Director Survey (non-participating) 386 1 1.0 386 96 1 0.083 8 394 CEP Impact Study Information—Phase 1 12 1 16 192 0 1 0.083 0 192 CEP Impact Study information—Phase 2 12 1 8 96 0 1 0.083 0 96 848 1 1.52 1,292 192 1 0.083 16 1,308
    Dated: January 19, 2016. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01518 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utility Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request January 21, 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 February 26, 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 Utilities Service

    Title: 7 CFR 1717 Subpart Y, Settlement of Debt Owed by Electric Borrowers.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0116.

    Summary of Collection: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) makes mortgage loans and loan guarantees to electric systems to provide and improve electric service in rural areas pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 et. seq.) (RE Act). This information collection requirement stems from passage of Public Law 104-127, which amended section 331(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.,) to extend to the RUS' loans and loan guarantees the Secretary authority to compromise, adjust, reduce, or charge-off debts or claims owed to the government (collectively, debt settlement) with respect to loans made or guaranteed by RUS. Only those electric borrowers that are unable to fully repay their debts to the government and who apply to RUS for relief will be affected by this collection of information. The information collected will be similar to that which any prudent lender would need to determine whether debt settlement is required and the amount of relief that is needed.

    Need and Use of the Information: RUS will collect information to determine the need for debt settlement; the amount of debt the borrower can repay; the future scheduling of debt repayment; and, the range of opportunities for enhancing the amount of debt that can be recovered.

    Description of Respondents: Non-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 1.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,000.

    Rural Utilities Service

    Title: 7 CFR part 1721, Extensions of Payments of Principal and Interest.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0123.

    Summary of Collection: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) electric program provides loans and loan guarantees to borrowers at interest rates and on terms that are more favorable than those generally available from the private sector. Procedures and conditions which borrowers may request extensions of the payment of principal and interest are authorized, as amended, in section 12 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, and section 236 of the “Disaster Relief Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-606), as amended by the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354). As a result of obtaining federal financing, RUS borrowers receive economic benefits that exceed any direct economic costs associated with complying with (RUS) regulations and requirements.

    Need and Use of the Information: The collection of information occurs only when the borrower requests an extension of principal and interest. Eligible purposes include financial hardship, energy resource conservation loans, renewable energy project, and contributions-in-aid of construction. These procedures are codified at 7 CFR part 1721, subpart B. The collections are made to provide needed benefits to borrowers while also maintaining the integrity of RUS loans and their repayment of taxpayer's monies.

    Description of Respondents: Not for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 29.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 296.

    Rural Utilities Service

    Title: 7 CFR part 1738, Rural Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0130.

    Summary of Collection: Title VI, Rural Broadband Access, of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (RE Act), provides loans and loan guarantees to fund the cost of construction, improvement, or acquisition of facilities and equipment for the provision of broadband service in eligible rural communities in State and territories of the United States. The regulation prescribes the types of loans available, facilities financed and eligible applicants, as well as minimum credit support requirements considered for a loan. In addition, Title VI of the RE Act requires that Rural Utilities Service (RUS) make or guarantee a loan only if there is reasonable assurance that the loan, together with all outstanding loans and obligations of the borrower, will be repaid in full within the time agreed.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information in the program application guide—RUS Bulletin 1738-1 provides applicants with needed information, definitions and details for completing and submitting an application. Information will be used to determine an applicant's eligibility, availability of broadband service for priority consideration, technical and economic feasibility of the proposed project (that the funds requested are adequate to complete the project taking into consideration any additional funding provided by the applicant and that the loan can be repaid within the allowable time frame), and the applicant complies with statutory, regulatory and administrative eligibility requirements for loan assistance.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 5.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,095.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01611 Filed 1-26-16; 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: International Trade Administration.

    Title: Foreign-Trade Zone Applications.

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0139.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Type of Request: Regular Submission.

    Number of Respondents: 248.

    Average Hours per Response: New Zone Application, 131 hours; Subzone Application, 4.5 hours; Reorganization/Expansion Application, 99 hours; Production Notification, 5.5 hours; Production Application, 34 hours; Minor Boundary Modifications, 3.5 hours; Waivers, 9 hours.

    Burden Hours: 3,128.

    Needs and Uses: The Foreign-Trade Zone Application is the vehicle by which individual firms or organizations apply for foreign-trade zone (FTZ) status, for subzone status, production authority, or for expansion/reorganization of an existing zone. The FTZ Act and Regulations require that an application with a description of the proposed project be made to the FTZ Board (19 U.S.C. 81b and 81f; 15 CFR 400.24-26) before a license can be issued or a zone can be expanded. The Act and Regulations require that applications contain detailed information on facilities, financing, operational plans, proposed production operations, need, and economic impact. Production activity in zones or subzones, can involve issues related to domestic industry and trade policy impact. Such applications must include specific information on the customs tariff-related savings that result from zone procedures and the economic consequences of permitting such savings. The FTZ Board needs complete and accurate information on the proposed operation and its economic effects because the Act and Regulations authorize the Board to restrict or prohibit operations that are detrimental to the public interest.

    Affected Public: State, local or tribal governments or not-for-profit institutions that are FTZ grantees, as well as private companies.

    Frequency: As necessary to receive FTZ benefits.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at 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.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01607 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-970] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce is initiating new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China for Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd. (“Keri Wood”) and Zhejiang Simite Wooden Co., Ltd. (“Simite Wooden”). The period of review (“POR”) is December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: January 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-5831.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from the PRC on December 8, 2011.1 On December 31, 2015, the Department received timely new shipper review requests from Keri Wood and Simite Wooden, respectively, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(c).2

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76690 (December 8, 2011) (“Order”), as amended Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 5484 (February 3, 2012).

    2See Letter from Keri Wood to the Secretary of Commerce “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: New Shipper Review,” dated December 31, 2015 (“Keri Wood Initiation Request”); see also Simite Wooden to the Secretary of Commerce “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China; A-570-970; Request for Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,” dated December 31, 2015 (“Simite Wooden Initiation Request”).

    In their submissions, Keri Wood and Simite Wooden stated that they are both the producers and exporters of the subject merchandise upon which their respective review requests were based.3 Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Keri Wood and Simite Wooden certified that they did not export multilayered wood flooring to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”).4 In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Keri Wood and Simite Wooden certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any producer or exporter that exported multilayered wood flooring to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation.5 As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Keri Wood and Simite Wooden also certified that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC.6

    3See Keri Wood Initiation Request at 2 and Exhibit 2; see also Simite Wooden Initiation Request at 1-2.

    4See Keri Wood Initiation Request at 2 and Exhibit 2; see also Simite Wooden Initiation Request at 2 and Exhibit Req-3.

    5See Keri Wood Initiation Request at Exhibit 2; see also Simite Wooden Initiation Request at 2-3 and Exhibit Req-3.

    6See Keri Wood Initiation Request at Exhibit 2; see also Simite Wooden Initiation Request at 3 and Exhibit Req-3.

    In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Keri Wood and Simite Wooden submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which each company first shipped multilayered wood flooring for export to the United States and the date on which the multilayered wood flooring was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.7

    7See Keri Wood Initiation Request at Exhibit 1; see also Simite Wooden Initiation Request at Exhibit Req-1.

    The Department conducted U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) database queries and confirmed that Keri Wood and Simite Wooden's shipments of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of such entries had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The Department also confirmed by examining CBP data that Keri Wood and Simite Wooden entries were made during the POR specified by the Department's regulations.8

    8See January 15, 2016, Memoranda to the File, regarding “U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data” for Keri Wood and Simite Wooden; see also Memorandum to the File entitled, “Initiation of Antidumping New Shipper Review of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd. (“Keri Wood Initiation Checklist”) dated concurrently with this notice; Memorandum to the File entitled, “Initiation of Antidumping New Shipper Review of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Zhejiang Simite Wooden Co., Ltd.” (“Simite Wooden Initiation Checklist”) dated concurrently with this notice. As noted in the Simite Wooden Initiation Checklist, the Department is seeking additional information regarding the entry forming the basis for Simite Wooden's new shipper review.

    Period of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the POR for the new shipper reviews of Keri Wood and Simite Wooden is December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015.

    Initiation of New Shipper Reviews

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and the information on the record, the Department finds that the requests submitted by Keri Wood and Simite Wooden meet the threshold requirements for initiation of new shipper reviews for the shipments of multilayered wood flooring from the PRC produced and exported by these companies.9 However, if the information supplied by Keri Wood and Simite Wooden is later found to be incorrect or insufficient during the course of this proceeding, the Department may rescind the review or apply adverse facts available pursuant to section 776 of the Act, depending upon the facts on record.

    9See Keri Wood Initiation Checklist; see also Simite Wooden Initiation Checklist.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department will publish the notice of initiation of a new shipper review no later than the last day of the month following the anniversary or semiannual anniversary month of the order. The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and the final results no later than 90 days from the issuance of the preliminary results.10

    10See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.

    It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economies, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an AD rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, the Department will issue questionnaires to Keri Wood and Simite Wooden which will include a section requesting information with regard to these companies' export activities for separate rates purposes. The review of each exporter will proceed if the response provides sufficient indication that it is not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to its export of subject merchandise.

    We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from Keri Wood and Simite Wooden, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Keri Wood and Simite Wooden claimed that they produced and exported the subject merchandise, the Department will apply the bonding privilege only for subject merchandise that the respondent both produced and exported. To assist in its analysis of the bona fides of Keri Wood and Simite Wooden sales, upon initiation of this new shipper review, the Department will require Keri Wood and Simite Wooden to submit on an ongoing basis complete transaction information concerning any sales of subject merchandise to the United States that were made subsequent to the POR.

    Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in these new shipper reviews should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 19 CFR 351.306.

    This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: January 21, 2016. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01644 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-905] Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has conducted an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), for the period of review (“POR”), June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2014. On July 22, 2015, the Department published the preliminary results of this review, and received no comments from interested parties. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The Department continues to determine that Zhaoqing Tifo New Fibre Co., Ltd. (“Zhaoqing Tifo”) failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate for the POR, and thus, is a part of the PRC-wide entity, and that Takayasu Industrial (Jiangyin) Co., Ltd. (“Takayasu”) had no reviewable entries during the POR.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: January 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone, 202.482.2243.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain polyester staple fiber. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) numbers 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive.1

    1 For a full description of the scope, see Decision Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Preliminary Results of 2013-2014 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 30, 2015 (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”).

    Background

    On July 22, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.2 On November 17, 2015, we extended the final results to January 18, 2016.3 No party submitted comments on the Preliminary Results.

    2See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 43392 (July 22, 2015) (“Preliminary Results”).

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, through James Doyle, Office Director, from Javier Barrientos, Case Analyst, “Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated November 17, 2015.

    Final Results of Review A. Takayasu

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, Takayasu submitted a no-shipment letter which stated that it only had one entry of subject merchandise during the POR, which was a sample sale.4 For these final results, because the record contains no evidence to the contrary, we continue to find Takayasu's single entry constitutes a sample shipment that lacked consideration, and thus Takayasu did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR.

    4See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 4-5; see also Takayasu's September 29, 2014 submission.

    Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases,5 where a respondent has no entries during the period of review, it is appropriate not to rescind the review in part in this circumstance but, rather, to complete the review with respect to that respondent and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.6 Accordingly, the Department has completed the review with respect to Takayasu and will issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.7 For the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate Takayasu's sample entry without regard to antidumping duties.

    5See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (“NME Reseller Policy”).

    6See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review; 2013, 80 FR 34619 (June 17, 2015).

    7See NME Reseller Policy.

    B. Zhaoqing Tifo

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, Zhaoqing Tifo did not respond to the antidumping duty questionnaire and failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate.8 As such, consistent with the Department's practice regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity,9 we determine that Zhaoqing Tifo remains part of the PRC-wide entity. Under this practice, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate is not subject to change. Therefore, for the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate Zhaoqing Tifo's entries at the rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity, 44.30 percent.

    8See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 4.

    9See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65970 (November 4, 2013).

    Assessment Rates

    Because Takayasu was found to have no reviewable transactions, and because Zhaoqing Tifo did not respond to the antidumping duty questionnaire, and is thus a part of the PRC-wide entity, we have not calculated any assessment (or cash deposit) rates in this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”): (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity, which is 44.30 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter.

    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 15, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01646 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), intends to grant to Handix, LLC of Boulder, Colorado, an exclusive global license to manufacture and distribute its “OPEN PATH OPTICAL CELL”.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to NOAA Technology Partnerships Office, SSMC4 Room 7605, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Derek Parks, NOAA Technology Transfer Program Manager, at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce. It is in the public interest to so license this invention, as Handix, LLC of Boulder, Colorado, has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the NOAA Technology Partnerships Office receives written evidence and argument which establishes the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Dated: January 21, 2016. Jason Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01614 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE132 NOAA Commercial Space Policy AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of the NOAA Commercial Space Policy.

    SUMMARY:

    NOAA has released the final NOAA Commercial Space Policy (Policy). On September 1, 2015, NOAA released a draft Commercial Space Policy for a 30-day public comment period. During this comment period, 15 sets of comments were received (see www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0109). All comments were reviewed, adjudicated and, where appropriate, incorporated or reflected in the final Policy.

    ADDRESSES:

    To obtain copies of the Policy please go to: http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/ames/administrative_orders/chapter_217/217-109.html or www.regulations.gov and search NOAA-NMFS-2015-0109, or contact Mr. Troy Wilds, Executive Director, Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Suite 51032, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-3193, [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information regarding the Policy, please contact Mr. Troy Wilds, Executive Director, Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Suite 51032, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-3193, [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    NOAA's Commercial Space Policy sets a broad framework for use of commercial space-based approaches by the agency to meet its observational requirements. Changes in the commercial space services arena are happening rapidly, yielding new technical and business approaches to building, launching, and operating satellites, and selling private satellite capabilities as services. NOAA is interested in exploring these emerging commercial capabilities to better understand how they might complement the agency's current offerings.

    The draft policy was published on September 1, 2015 (80 FR 52745). The final policy establishes critical components for improved engagement with the commercial sector: Designating the Office of Space Commerce as a single point of entry for commercial providers thereby streamlining the process for easier engagement; establishes an open and transparent marketplace; defines guiding principles, implementation considerations, and strategic planning for potential commercial data buys; and establishes the possibility of demonstration projects, where appropriate, to test and evaluate new potential data sources, and provides an avenue to operational commercial data buys.

    As demand for information about the changing state of our planet grows, NOAA strives to support and grow an observing enterprise that is flexible, responsive to evolving technologies, and economically sustainable. This policy will allow NOAA to seek solutions that meet these needs while also supporting and upholding the international data sharing commitments upon which we depend for global data and data products.

    Dated: January 15, 2016. Manson K. Brown, Deputy Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01653 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2016-OS-0006] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    National Guard Bureau, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to add a new system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Guard Bureau proposes to add a new system of records, INGB 005, entitled “Special Investigation Reports and Files”. Information is collected and maintained for the purpose of conducting investigations on allegations of sexual assault, fraud, or other complex incidents involving National Guard forces when requested by an Adjutant General of a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia or by other appropriate authority and approved IAW Chief of the National Guard Bureau authorities and policy.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before February 26, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jennifer Nikolaisen, NGB/JA-OIP, AHS-Bldg 2, Suite T319B, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1373 or telephone: (703) 601-6884.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Guard Bureau notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/ The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on December 15, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: January 21, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. INGB 005 System name:

    Special Investigation Reports and Files.

    System location:

    National Guard Bureau (NGB), Office of the Chief Counsel (JA), Office of Complex Investigations (OCI), AHS-Bldg 2, Suite T319B, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1373.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Current and former civilian, military, or contract personnel and members of the public who make allegations or reports that are investigated by the NGB OCI, the subjects of such investigation and relevant witnesses to such an investigation.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Investigative files and reports to include assigned investigation number, date of investigation, request from State Adjutant General to conduct an investigation, documented findings and conclusions, an executive summary, witness statements, results from witness interviews, including name, home/work address and contact information, and other Personally Identifiable Information that a witness may provide during an interview, but is not routinely collected or used to retrieve information; audio or video recorded interviews and interview summations; supporting documentation and evidence gathered while conducting the investigation; investigative reports of Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; local command investigations; general correspondence; legal research and memoranda; personnel and medical records; case tracking programs and files; and forms to comply with the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program; information regarding actions taken by commands after receipt of an OCI Report of Investigation (ROI), including disciplinary actions and other actions taken in response to an ROI; information concerning allegations of reprisal or retaliation for making a complaint of sexual assault, or participating in investigations of sexual assault; information pertaining to retaliation or reprisal for making any other type of complaint or cooperating with an OCI investigation.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    10 U.S.C. 10502, Chief of the NGB; 10 U.S.C. 10503, Functions of the NGB; DoD Directive 5105.77, NGB; DoD Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program; DoD Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures; Chief NGB Instruction 0400.01, Chief, NGB Office of Complex Administrative Investigations; Chief NGB Manual 0400.01, Chief, NGB Office of Complex Administrative Investigations; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.

    Purpose(s):

    Information is being collected and maintained for the purpose of conducting investigations on allegations of sexual assault, fraud, or other complex incidents involving National Guard forces when requested by an Adjutant General of a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia or by other appropriate authority and approved in accordance with Chief of the NGB authorities and policy.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)) the records may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Records may be disclosed to state officials in the state or states that requested the investigation be conducted or which have any criminal or administrative jurisdiction over individuals impacted by the investigation.

    To Federal, state, local agency or an individual or organization, if there is reason to believe that such agency, individual or organization possesses information relating to the investigation and the disclosure is reasonably necessary to elicit such information or to obtain the cooperation of a witness or an informant.

    To attorney or other professional or job-specific licensing, accreditation, and/or disciplinary authorities as required to support relevant investigations and proceedings.

    Any release of information contained in this system of records outside of DoD will be compatible with the purposes for which the information is being collected and maintained.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the NGB's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Paper records and electronic storage media.

    Retrievability:

    Retrieved by individual's name and/or investigation number.

    Safeguards

    Paper and electronic records are maintained in security-controlled areas accessible only to authorized persons with a need to know in the performance of official duties.

    Retention and disposal:

    Records are pending a disposition from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Records will be treated as permanent until NARA approves a retention and disposition of these records.

    System manager(s) and address:

    NGB/JA-OCI, AHS-Bldg 2, Suite T319B, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1373.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to NGB/JA-OIP Attn: OCI PA Request, AHS-Bldg 2, Suite T319B, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1373.

    Written requests must include the requester's name and full mailing address they want the response sent to along with as much detail as known regarding the following: The investigation number, approximate date of the investigation, and name of state or State Adjutant General that requested the investigation.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    Record access procedures:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves should address written inquiries to NGB/JA-OIP Attn: OCI PA Request, AHS-Bldg 2, Suite T319B, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1373.

    Written requests must include the requester's name and full mailing address they want the response sent to along with as much detail as known regarding the following: The investigation number, approximate date of the investigation, and name of state or State Adjutant General that requested the investigation.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    Contesting record procedures:

    The NGB rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published at 32 CFR part 329 or may be obtained from the system manager.

    Record source categories:

    Reported perpetrators/subjects; witnesses; victims; various Department of Defense, federal, state, and local investigative agencies; State National Guard offices; any other individual or organization that supplies pertinent information.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2); provided, however, if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such material shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section [September 27, 1975], under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.

    An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3),(c), and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 329. For additional information contact the system manager or the NGB Privacy Office.

    [FR Doc. 2016-01517 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0095] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, DD Form 2345, OMB Control Number 0704-0207.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 8,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 8,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 2,666.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to serve as a basis for certifying enterprises of individuals to have access to DoD export-controlled militarily critical technical data subject to the provisions of 32 CFR 250. Enterprises and individuals that need access to unclassified DoD-controlled military critical technical data must certify on DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, that data will be used only in ways that will inhibit unauthorized access and maintain the protection afforded by U.S. export control laws. The information collected is disclosed only to the extent consistent with prudent business practices, current regulations, and statutory requirements and is so indicated on the DD Form 2345.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit, Not-for-profit institutions, individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: January 21, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01504 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 28, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Eric Mulch at 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585 or by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric F. Mulch, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 287-5746, or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5115; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Contractor Legal Management Requirements; (3) Type of Review: extension; (4) Purpose: the information collection to be extended has been and will be used to form the basis for DOE actions on requests from the contractors for reimbursement of litigation and other legal expenses. The information collected related to annual legal budget, staffing and resource plans, and initiation or settlement of defensive or offensive litigation is and will be similarly used; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 45; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 154; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1150; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: 0.

    Statutory Authority:

    Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2201, the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C 7101, et seq., and the National Nuclear Security Administration Act, 50 U.S.C. 2401, et seq.

    Issued in Washington, DC on Janaury 20, 2016. Steven Croley, General Counsel, United States Department of Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01640 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and in accordance with Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.65(a), and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Environmental Management Advisory Board (Board) will be renewed for a two-year period beginning January 22, 2016.

    The Board provides the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM) with information and strategic advice on a broad range of corporate issues affecting the EM program. These corporate issues include, but are not limited to, project management and oversight activities, cost/benefit analyses, program performance, human capital development, and contracts and acquisition strategies.

    Additionally, the renewal of the Board has been determined to be essential to conduct DOE's business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on DOE by law and agreement. The Board will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and rules and regulations issued in implementation of that Act.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kristen G. Ellis, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 586-5810 or [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 21, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Acting Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01647 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah AGENCY:

    Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the subcommittee meetings of the Deactivation and Decommissioning/Facilities Subcommittee, the Environmental Remediation Subcommittee, and the Community Engagement Subcommittee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah (known locally as the Paducah Citizens Advisory Board [Paducah CAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Thursday, February 18, 2016, 5:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Barkley Centre, 111 Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

    Purpose of the Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D)/Facility Subcommittee: The mission of the D&D/Facilities Subcommittee is to evaluate and make recommendations on DOE's planning and implementation of future D&D cleanup at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP).

    Purpose of the Environmental Remediation Subcommittee: The mission of the Environmental Remediation Subcommittee is to evaluate and make recommendations on DOE's approach to remedial alternatives associated with burial grounds, groundwater treatment, and soils remediation located on the PGDP site. The Subcommittee will facilitate public participation in providing feedback to DOE on these decisions considering human health and the environment. DOE complex-wide concerns and impacts related to DOE's missions will also be considered.

    Purpose of the Community Engagement Subcommittee: The mission of the Community Engagement Subcommittee is to make recommendations regarding the short and long term vision for preserving and archiving the role of the PGDP in the community and the nation that represents the communities' interest.

    Tentative Agendas D&D/Facilities Subcommittee—5:00 p.m.-6:30 p.m. • Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda • Next Steps and Actions • Public Comments (15 minutes) • Adjourn Environmental Remediation Subcommittee—5:00 p.m.-6:30 p.m. • Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda • Next Steps and Actions • Public Comments (15 minutes) • Adjourn Community Engagement Subcommittee—6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m. • Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda • Next Steps and Actions • Public Comments (15 minutes) • Adjourn Breaks Taken As Appropriate

    Public Participation: The Paducah CAB's Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jennifer Woodard as soon as possible in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Jennifer Woodard at the telephone number listed above. Requests must be received as soon as possible prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. The Paducah CAB's Committees will hear public comments pertaining to its scope (clean-up standards and environmental restoration; waste management and disposition; stabilization and disposition of non-stockpile nuclear materials; excess facilities; future land use and long-term stewardship; risk assessment and management; and clean-up science and technology activities). Comments outside of the scope may be submitted via written statement as directed above.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Jennifer Woodard at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.pgdpcab.energy.gov/2016Meetings.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC on January 21, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01650 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho National Laboratory AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho National Laboratory. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, February 17, 2016, 8:00 a.m.-4:15 p.m.

    The opportunity for public comment is at 11:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

    This time is subject to change; please contact the Federal Coordinator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    Hilton Garden Inn, 700 Lindsay Boulevard, Idaho Falls, ID 83401.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert L. Pence, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-1203, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415. Phone (208) 526-6518; Fax (208) 526-8789 or email: [email protected] or visit the Board's Internet home page at: http://inlcab.energy.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the meeting; please contact Robert L. Pence for the most current agenda):

    • Recent Public Involvement • Idaho Cleanup Project Progress to Date • Update on Integrated Waste Treatment Unit (IWTU) • Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contract • Supplemental Environmental Projects • EM Budget • 5-Year Review • Spent Fuel Storage—Wet to Dry

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Idaho National Laboratory, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Robert L. Pence at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Robert L. Pence at the address or telephone number listed above. The request must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Robert L. Pence, Federal Coordinator, at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://inlcab.energy.gov/pages/meetings.php.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on January 21, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01652 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Information Administration Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Agency information collection activities: information collection extension with no changes; notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The EIA invites public comment on the proposed collection of information, EIA-882T, “Generic Clearance for Questionnaire Testing, Evaluation, and Research” that EIA is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are invited on: (1) 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; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before February 26, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Jacob Bournazian, Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585 or by fax at 202-586-0552 or by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Jacob Bournazian, Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585, phone: 202-586-5562, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains:

    (1) OMB No.: 1905-0186;

    (2) Information Collection Request Title: Generic Clearance for Questionnaire Testing, Evaluation, and Research;

    (3) Type of Request: Renewal;

    (4) Purpose: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is planning to request a three-year approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to utilize qualitative and quantitative methodologies to pretest questionnaires and validate the quality of the data collected on EIA forms. This authority would allow EIA to conduct pretest surveys, pilot surveys, respondent debriefings, cognitive interviews, usability interviews, and focus groups. Through the use of these methodologies, EIA will improve the quality of data being collected for measuring market activity and assessing supply conditions in energy markets, reduce or minimize respondent burden, increase agency efficiency, and improve responsiveness to the public. This authority also improves EIA's ability to collect relevant and timely information that meets the data needs of EIA's customers.

    (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,000;

    (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 2,000;

    (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 2,000;

    (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: There are no additional costs associated with these survey methods other than the burden hours. The information is maintained in the normal course of business. The cost of burden hours to the respondents is estimated to be $144,040 (2,000 burden hours times $72.02 per hour), which represents a reduction of 1,006 burden hours from the prior renewal of this collection. Therefore, other than the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates that there are no additional costs for generating, maintaining and providing the information.

    Statutory Authority:

    Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Public Law 93-275, codified at 15 U.S.C. 772(b).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 21, 2016. Nanda Srinivasan, Director, Office of Survey Development and Statistical Integration, U. S. Energy Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01645 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9941-71 OLEM] Access to Confidential Business Information By Eastern Research Group, Incorporated AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of access to data and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will authorize its contractor Eastern Research Group, Incorporated (ERG) to access Confidential Business Information (CBI) which has been submitted to EPA under the authority of all sections of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended. EPA has issued regulations that outline business confidentiality provisions for the Agency and require all EPA Offices that receive information designated by the submitter, as CBI to abide by these provisions.

    DATES:

    Access to confidential data submitted to EPA will occur no sooner than February 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LaShan Haynes, Document Control Officer, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, (5305P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, 703-605-0516.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Access to Confidential Business Information

    Under EPA Contract No. EP-W-10-055, ERG, Incorporated will assist the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR), Resource Conservation and Sustainability Division (RCSD) in developing the Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures Report to analyze the composition and amounts of the United States' Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and other wastes, and how these materials are recycled, combusted, and landfilled. The methodology used in this report is a “top-down” materials flow approach to estimate the size of the waste stream data. This report may typically involve one or more of the following statutes: CAA, CWA, RCRA, TSCA, FIFRA, EPCRA and the SDWA. Some of the data collected voluntarily from industry, may be claimed by industry to contain trade secrets or CBI. In accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, ORCR has established policies and procedures for handling information collected from industry, under the authority of RCRA, including RCRA Confidential Business Information Security Manuals.

    ERG, Incorporated shall protect from unauthorized disclosure all information designated as confidential and shall abide by all RCRA CBI requirements, including procedures outlined in the RCRA CBI Security Manual.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued regulations (40 CFR part 2, subpart B) that outline business confidentiality provisions for the Agency and require all EPA Offices that receive information designated by the submitter as CBI to abide by these provisions. ERG, Incorporated will be authorized to have access to RCRA CBI under the EPA “Contractor Requirements for the Control and Security of RCRA Confidential Business Information Security Manual.”

    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of RCRA that ERG, Incorporated under the contract may have access to RCRA CBI. Access to RCRA CBI under this contract will take place at ERG's Chantilly, Virginia and Prairie View, Kansas offices, and when necessary, EPA Headquarters only. Contractor personnel at each location will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to confidential information.

    Dated: November 17, 2015. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01568 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0736; FRL-9941-60-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; EPA's Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): “EPA's Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards Program” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2450.02 and OMB Control No. 2070-0184. The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized in this document. EPA has addressed the comments received in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the Federal Register on October 2, 2015 (80 FR 59773). With this submission, EPA is providing an additional 30 days for public review.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0736, to both EPA and OMB as follows:

    • To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    • To OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colby Lintner, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in detail the information collection activities and the related burden and cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January 31, 2016. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

    Abstract: EPA developed the Partner of the Year Awards to recognize Safer Choice stakeholders who have furthered the goals of Safer Choice through active and exemplary participation in and promotion of the Safer Choice program. Making the mission of the Safer Choice program known to the widest possible audience, through its safer product label and in other forms of communication, is critical to fully realizing the program's goals of protecting human health and the environment, promoting a sustainable economy, and creating green jobs, especially in the small business sector.

    The Partner of the Year Awards will be an annual event, with recognition for Safer Choice stakeholder organizations from five broad categories: (1) Formulators/product manufacturers (of both consumer and institutional/industrial (I/I) products), (2) purchasers and distributors, (3) retailers, (4) supporters (e.g., non-governmental organizations, including environmental and health advocates, trade associations, academia, sports teams, and others), and (5) innovators (e.g., chemical manufacturers, technology developers, and others). Within these categories and based on the criteria, EPA may elect to give additional awards in the subcategories of “small business” and “sustained excellence.” This information collection activity addresses the reporting burden associated with completing the application to EPA for recognition in the Partner of the Year Awards program.

    Responses to this information collection are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are establishments engaged in the production, use, and/or advancement of safer chemicals, that have furthered the goals of EPA's Safer Chemical program through active and exemplary participation in and promotion of the program, and that wish to receive recognition for their achievements.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 50.

    Frequency of response: Annual.

    Estimated total burden: 750 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Estimated total costs: $45,486 (per year), includes no annualized capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 900 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    This decrease reflects the experience of EPA's Safer Choice program since OMB first approved this information collection. The Safer Choice program conducted its first Partner of the Year Awards in 2015, at which time EPA had received applications from 35 respondents. Based upon revised estimates, EPA has reduced the estimated number of respondents from 110 to 50, with a corresponding decrease in the associated burden. This change is an adjustment.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01523 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0517; FRL-9941-77-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BBBB) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1901.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0424) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-2012-2012-0517, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: These emission guidelines apply to small municipal waste combustors (MWCs) constructed on or before August 30, 1999, that combust greater than 35 tons per day (tpd) but less than 250 tpd of municipal solid waste. The emission guidelines regulate organics (dioxin/furans), metals (cadmium, lead, mercury, and particulate matter), and acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides). The emission guidelines require initial reports, semiannual reports, and annual reports. Owners or operators also are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Owners or operators subject to these regulations are required to maintain records of measurements and reports for at least five years.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Small municipal waste combustion units.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB).

    Estimated number of respondents: 23 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually and annually.

    Total estimated burden: 102,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $11,200,000 (per year), includes $1,040,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the respondent burden from the most recently approved ICR. The increase in respondent labor hour is caused by a change in assumption; in this ICR, we assume all existing sources will take some time each year to re-familiarize themselves with the rule requirements. There is also a small increase in the total O&M cost due to rounding of all calculated values to three significant digits.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01635 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0525; FRL-9941-78-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV)” (EPA ICR No. 2323.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0621) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0525, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: These standards apply to the area source NESHAP for chemical manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV). There are nine area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector: Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production, Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing, Pharmaceutical Production, and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The requirements apply to process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, wastewater systems, transfer operations, and heat exchange systems at affected sources in each area source category and are combined in one subpart. The standards are based on EPA's determination of generally available control technology (GACT) or management practices for each area source category.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Chemical manufacturing area source facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV).

    Estimated number of respondents: 498 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 9,590 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $2,220,000 (per year), includes $1,250,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the respondent burden and number of responses from the most recently approved ICR. The decrease occurred because the rule has been in effect for three years, and the burden associated with initial compliance (e.g. initial performance tests and notification reports) differ from the burden for ongoing compliance (e.g. submittal of semiannual reports). However, there is an adjustment increase in the total capital and O&M cost. This is primarily due to two reasons: (1) The previous ICR presented capital costs as annualized costs over 15 years, rather than one-time costs; and (2) the total number of sources with O&M cost (i.e. maintain systems and monitors) has increased now that the rule is fully implemented.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01636 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0643; FRL-9941-32] Sulfoxaflor; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received a specific exemption request from the Texas Department of Agriculture to use the insecticide sulfoxaflor (CAS No. 946578-00-3) to treat up to 3,000,000 acres of sorghum to control sugarcane aphid. The applicant proposes a use of a pesticide, sulfoxaflor, which is now considered to be unregistered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) owing to the vacature of sulfoxaflor registrations by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In accordance with 40 CFR 166.24, EPA is soliciting public comment before making a decision whether or not to grant the exemption.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0643, 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 www.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 the 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 Texas Department of Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a repeat specific exemption for the use of sulfoxaflor on sorghum to control sugarcane aphid. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.

    As part of this request, the applicant asserts that an emergency situation exists based on unusually high populations of sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari), which can cause direct plant death from aphid feeding as well as indirect damage and harvesting problems from the aphid honeydew residue in Texas sorghum fields. Based on information provided by the states in previous submissions, sugarcane aphid is either a new pest or new biotype of M. sacchari. Currently, there are no registered insecticides or any economically or environmentally feasible alternative control practices available to adequately control this non-routine pest infestation. The state has asserted that without the use of sulfoxaflor, uncontrolled aphid infestations are likely to result in significant economic losses.

    The applicant proposes to make no more than two applications at a rate of 0.75-1.5 ounces of product (0.023-0.047 lb a.i.) per acre or a seasonal maximum application rate of 3.0 ounces of product (0.094 lb a.i.) per acre per year, resulting in the use of 70,314 gallons of product. A maximum of 3,000,000 acres of sorghum fields (grain and forage) may be treated in Texas. Applications would potentially be made through November 30, 2016.

    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 do not expressly require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing a use of a pesticide that has been subject to a judicial vacatur, however, EPA considers public notice appropriate in this instance. Accordingly, this notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.

    The Agency, will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the Texas Department of Agriculture.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 15, 2016. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01571 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0849; FRL-9941-48] Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemptions for Oxytetracycline and Streptomycin; Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received a request from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for specific exemptions to use the pesticides oxytetracycline calcium (CAS No. 7179-50-2), oxytetracycline hydrochloride (CAS No. 2058-46-0), and streptomycin sulfate (CAS No. 3810-74-0) to treat up to 388,534 acres of citrus to control Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus the bacteria which causes Huanglongbing (HLB), also referred to as citrus greening disease. Because the applicant proposes use of pesticides which are also used as human and animal antibiotic drugs, EPA is soliciting public comment before making decisions whether or not to grant the exemptions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before February 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0849, 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 www.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 pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (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 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has requested the EPA Administrator to issue specific exemptions for the uses of oxytetracycline calcium, oxytetracycline hydrochloride, and streptomycin sulfate on citrus to control Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus, the bacteria which causes HLB, also referred to as citrus greening disease. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of the requests.

    As part of the requests, the applicant states that Florida's citrus production will be seriously jeopardized if HLB cannot be adequately controlled. The disease has been known in China for more than 100 years, and is considered to be the most serious disease of citrus worldwide, affecting all citrus species and their hybrids. Since the discovery of HLB in Florida in 2005, it has rapidly spread to all 34 commercial production areas in the state, and the applicant claims that the severity of HLB far exceeds that of any previously known citrus disease. HLB causes decreases in fruit yield and quality, and infected trees decline and eventually die, even when producers incorporate all management options currently available. Thus far, efforts to control the disease have focused on removal of diseased trees, nutritional support, and rigorous efforts to control the Asian citrus psyllid (the vector of the HLB bacteria). However, research over the past several years on use of agricultural antimicrobial agents has shown promise for suppressing the disease and improving tree health. The applicant is now requesting use of three antimicrobials, oxytetracycline calcium, oxytetracycline hydrochloride, and streptomycin sulfate, and indicates that the recent research suggests that multiple bactericide applications will be necessary to improve tree health and suppress the effects of HLB disease year-long on infected citrus trees. The HLB disease has caused significant economic losses as well as losses of jobs related to citrus production. The applicant states that millions of trees have been lost in both commercial and residential citrus, and the long-term viability of Florida's citrus production is threatened if the disease cannot be effectively managed.

    The proposed application method for all three materials is foliar spray using ground application equipment. The applicant proposes to make up to three applications of streptomycin sulfate at a rate of 0.45 lb. per acre on up to 388,534 acres of citrus, for a maximum use of 520,540 lbs. of streptomycin sulfate. The applicant also proposes up to eight applications of oxytetracycline calcium at a rate of 0.255 lb. per acre on up to 388,534 acres of citrus for a maximum of 762,309 lbs. Additionally, the applicant proposes up to three applications of oxytetracycline hydrochloride at a rate of 0.27 lb. per acre on up to 388,534 acres of citrus, for a maximum use of 314,712 lbs. Applications are proposed statewide in citrus production areas.

    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 allow publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption if the Administrator determines that publication of a notice of receipt is appropriate. The application proposes use of three pesticides which are also used as human and animal antibiotic drugs, and therefore this notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.

    The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemptions requested by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 15, 2016. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01659 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0997; FRL-9939-85-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to Diesel Fuel Sold in 2001 and Later Years; Tax-Exempt (Dyed) Highway Diesel Fuel; and Non-Road Locomotive & Marine Diesel Fuel (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to Diesel Fuel Sold in 2001 & Later Years; for Tax-Exempt (Dyed) Highway Diesel Fuel; & Non-Road Locomotive & Marine Diesel Fuel” (EPA ICR No. 1718.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0308) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 29, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 30677) on May 29, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1121, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Geanetta Heard, Fuel Compliance Center, 64106J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9017; fax number: 202-565-2085; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The EPA's diesel fuel regulations under 40 CFR part 80, subpart I, are applicable to highway (“motor vehicle” or “MV”) diesel fuel and non-road, locomotive and marine diesel fuel (NRLM) and heating oil (HO). Most of the information collected under this ICR is used to evaluate compliance with the requirements of the regulations. Since virtually all MV diesel fuel was required to meet a 15 part per million (ppm) standard as of June 1, 2010, very little reporting related to MV diesel fuel remains. However, reporting related to NRLM and HO will continue throughout the course of this proposed ICR renewal. The activities associated with this ICR include: Registration (all parties have registered; updates to existing registrations are still possible); compliance reports (mostly covering NRLM and HO; updates to prior compliance reports for MV diesel are still possible); research and development (R&D) exemptions; generation and retention of quality assurance (QA) records; foreign refiner recordkeeping and reporting; placement of PTD codes (a typically automated process, to indicate the presence of dye in tax-exempt fuel and/or sulfur content). This ICR renewal contains provisions related to qualification of laboratories on performance-based test methods. Virtually all applications have already been received from laboratories and acted upon by EPA.

    Form Numbers: EPA Forms 5900-351, 5900-333, 5900-352, 5900-323, 5900-324, 5900-325, 5900-326, 5900-327, 5900-328, 5900-329, 5900-350, and 420-B-14-066a.

    Respondents/affected entities: Refiners, importers, testing labs.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 80).

    Estimated number of respondents: 5753 (total).

    Frequency of response: Yearly and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 11,078 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $1,118,878 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 7,872 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This is due to the decreased number of reports required.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01634 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Petition No. P1-16] Petition of COSCO Container Lines Company Limited for an Exemption From Commission Regulations; Notice of Filing and Request for Comments

    This is to provide notice of filing and to invite comments on or before February 12, 2016, with regard to the Petition described below.

    COSCO Container Lines Company Limited (“COSCON”) (Petitioner), has petitioned the Commission pursuant to 46 CFR 502.76 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, for an exemption from the Commission's rules requiring individual service contract amendments, 46 CFR 530.10. Specifically, Petitioner explains that “[o]n or about March 1, 2016, COSCON will acquire by time charter the containerships and certain other assets of China Shipping Container Lines Co. (“China Shipping”)” and, as such, requests that the Commission permit the submission of a “universal notice to the Commission and to the service contract parties” instead of filing an amendment for each of the seven hundred (700) service contracts that will be assigned to COSCON. In addition COSCON proposes to send electronic notice to each shipper counter party. Because China Shipping tariffs will be taken over by COSCON and renumbered and republished, COSCON also seeks a waiver to avoid amending each contract with the new tariff number, by publishing a notice of the change in the existing China Shipping and COSCON tariffs.

    The Petition in its entirety is posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fmc.gov/p1-16. Comments filed in response to this Petition will be posted on the Commission's Web site at this location.

    In order for the Commission to make a thorough evaluation of the Petition, interested persons are requested to submit views or arguments in reply to the Petition no later than February 12, 2016. Commenters must send an original and 5 copies to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, and be served on Petitioner's counsel, Robert B. Yoshitomi, or Eric C. Jeffrey, Nixon Peabody LLP, 799 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001. A PDF copy of the reply must also be sent as an attachment to [email protected] Include in the email subject line “Petition No P1-16.”

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01579 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    The comment period for this notice has been extended. Comments regarding the notice must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 16, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:

    1. New York Community Bancorp, Inc. Westbury, New York; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Astoria Financial Corporation, Lake Success, New York, and indirectly acquire Astoria Bank, Long Island City, New York, and thereby engage in extending credit and services loans, and in operating a saving association, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(1) and (b)(4)(ii).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 21, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01546 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, President's Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities Meeting AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    DATES:

    Monday, February 22, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and Tuesday, February 23, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    These meetings will be open to the general public.

    ADDRESSES:

    These meetings will be held in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Hubert H. Humphrey Building located at 200 Independence Avenue SW., Conference Room 800, Washington, DC 20201.

    Individuals who would like to participate via conference call may do so by dialing toll-free #: 888-469-0957, when prompted enter pass code: 8955387. Individuals whose full participation in the meeting will require special accommodations (e.g., sign language interpreting services, assistive listening devices, materials in alternative format such as large print or Braille) should notify Dr. MJ Karimi, PCPID Team Lead, via email at [email protected], or via telephone at 202-795-7374, no later than Tuesday, February 16, 2016. The PCPID will attempt to accommodate requests made after this date, but cannot guarantee the ability to grant requests received after the deadline. All meeting sites are barrier free, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information, please contact Dr. MJ Karimi, Team Lead, President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, 330 C Street SW., 1108 A, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-795-7374. Fax: 202-205-0402. Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The PCPID acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a broad range of topics relating to programs, services and support for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The PCPID executive order stipulates that the Committee shall: (1) Provide such advice concerning intellectual disabilities as the President or the Secretary of Health and Human Services may request; and (2) provide advice to the President concerning the following for people with intellectual disabilities: (A) Expansion of educational opportunities; (B) promotion of homeownership; (C) assurance of workplace integration; (D) improvement of transportation options; (E) expansion of full access to community living; and (F) increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies.

    Agenda: The Committee Members will discuss preparation of the PCPID 2016 Report to the President, including its contents and format, and related data collection and analysis required to complete the writing of the Report in the following focus areas:

    Family engagement early on in the process to support high expectations for students with disabilities.

    Federal policies and enforcement strategies to end segregation in schools and other aspects of community living beyond graduation.

    Transition as a critical area for pathways to higher education and career development.

    Self-determination/Supported decision-making from early childhood throughout the individual's lifespan.

    Dated: January 14, 2016. Aaron Bishop, Commissioner, Administration on Disabilities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01586 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0559] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Public Health Service Guideline on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0456. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    PHS Guideline on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation OMB Control Number 0910-0456—Extension

    The statutory authority to collect this information is provided under sections 351 and 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262 and 264) and the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that apply to drugs (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). The PHS guideline recommends procedures to diminish the risk of transmission of infectious agents to the xenotransplantation product recipient and to the general public. The PHS guideline is intended to address public health issues raised by xenotransplantation, through identification of general principles of prevention and control of infectious diseases associated with xenotransplantation that may pose a hazard to the public health. The collection of information described in this guideline is intended to provide general guidance on the following topics: (1) The development of xenotransplantation clinical protocols; (2) the preparation of submissions to FDA; and (3) the conduct of xenotransplantation clinical trials. Also, the collection of information will help ensure that the sponsor maintains important information in a cross-referenced system that links the relevant records of the xenotransplantation product recipient, xenotransplantation product, source animal(s), animal procurement center, and significant nosocomial exposures. The PHS guideline describes an occupational health service program for the protection of health care workers involved in xenotransplantation procedures, caring for xenotransplantation product recipients, and performing associated laboratory testing. The PHS guideline is intended to protect the public health and to help ensure the safety of using xenotransplantation products in humans by preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of infectious diseases associated with xenotransplantation.

    The PHS guideline also recommends that certain specimens and records be maintained for 50 years beyond the date of the xenotransplantation. These include: (1) Records linking each xenotransplantation product recipient with relevant health records of the source animal, herd or colony, and the specific organ, tissue, or cell type included in or used in the manufacture of the product (section 3.2.7.1); (2) aliquots of serum samples from randomly selected animal and specific disease investigations (section 3.4.3.1); (3) source animal biological specimens designated for PHS use (section 3.7.1); animal health records (section 3.7.2), including necropsy results (section 3.6.4); and (4) recipients' biological specimens (section 4.1.2). The retention period is intended to assist health care practitioners and officials in surveillance and in tracking the source of an infection, disease, or illness that might emerge in the recipient, the source animal, or the animal herd or colony after a xenotransplantation.

    The recommendation for maintaining records for 50 years is based on clinical experience with several human viruses that have presented problems in human to human transplantation and are therefore thought to share certain characteristics with viruses that may pose potential risks in xenotransplantation. These characteristics include long latency periods and the ability to establish persistent infections. Several also share the possibility of transmission among individuals through intimate contact with human body fluids. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and human T-lymphotropic virus are human retroviruses. Retroviruses contain ribonucleic acid that is reverse-transcribed into deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) using an enzyme provided by the virus and the human cell machinery. That viral DNA can then be integrated into the human cellular DNA. Both viruses establish persistent infections and have long latency periods before the onset of disease; 10 years and 40 to 60 years, respectively. The human hepatitis viruses are not retroviruses, but several share with HIV the characteristic that they can be transmitted through body fluids, can establish persistent infections, and have long latency periods, e.g., approximately 30 years for hepatitis C.

    In addition, the PHS guideline recommends that a record system be developed that allows easy, accurate, and rapid linkage of information among the specimen archive, the recipient's medical records, and the records of the source animal for 50 years. The development of such a record system is a one-time burden. Such a system is intended to cross-reference and locate relevant records of recipients, products, source animals, animal procurement centers, and nosocomial exposures.

    Respondents to this collection of information are the sponsors of clinical studies of investigational xenotransplantation products under investigational new drug applications (INDs) and xenotransplantation product procurement centers, referred to as source animal facilities. There are an estimated three respondents who are sponsors of INDs that include protocols for xenotransplantation in humans and five clinical centers doing xenotransplantation procedures. Other respondents for this collection of information are an estimated four source animal facilities which provide source xenotransplantation product material to sponsors for use in human xenotransplantation procedures. These four source animal facilities keep medical records of the herds/colonies as well as the medical records of the individual source animal(s). The burden estimates are based on FDA's records of xenotransplantation-related INDs and estimates of time required to complete the various reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure tasks described in the PHS guideline.

    FDA is requesting an extension of OMB approval for the following reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure recommendations in the PHS guideline:

    Table 1—Reporting Recommendations PHS guideline section Description 3.2.7.2 Notify sponsor or FDA of new archive site when the source animal facility or sponsor ceases operations. Table 2—Recordkeeping Recommendations PHS guideline section Description 3.2.7 Establish records linking each xenotransplantation product recipient with relevant records. 4.3 Sponsor to maintain cross-referenced system that links all relevant records (recipient, product, source animal, animal procurement center, and nosocomial exposures). 3.4.2 Document results of monitoring program used to detect introduction of infectious agents which may not be apparent clinically. 3.4.3.2 Document full necropsy investigations including evaluation for infectious etiologies. 3.5.1 Justify shortening a source animal's quarantine period of 3 weeks prior to xenotransplantation product procurement. 3.5.2 Document absence of infectious agent in xenotransplantation product if its presence elsewhere in source animal does not preclude using it. 3.5.4 Add summary of individual source animal record to permanent medical record of the xenotransplantation product recipient. 3.6.4 Document complete necropsy results on source animals (50-year record retention). 3.7 Link xenotransplantation product recipients to individual source animal records and archived biologic specimens. 4.2.3.2 Record baseline sera of xenotransplantation health care workers and specific nosocomial exposure. 4.2.3.3 and 4.3.2 Keep a log of health care workers' significant nosocomial exposure(s). 4.3.1 Document each xenotransplant procedure. 5.2 Document location and nature of archived PHS specimens in health care records of xenotransplantation product recipient and source animal. Table 3—Disclosure Recommendations PHS guideline section Description 3.2.7.2 Notify sponsor or FDA of new archive site when the source animal facility or sponsor ceases operations. 3.4 Standard operating procedures (SOPs) of source animal facility should be available to review bodies. 3.5.1 Include increased infectious risk in informed consent if source animal quarantine period of 3 weeks is shortened. 3.5.4 Sponsor to make linked records described in section 3.2.7 available for review. 3.5.5 Source animal facility to notify clinical center when infectious agent is identified in source animal or herd after xenotransplantation product procurement.

    In the Federal Register of October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60153), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received one comment from the public. The comment was supportive of the extended recordkeeping requirements in case it would be necessary to track the source of any long-term developing infections as result of xenotransplantation.

    FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:

    Table 4—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 PHS guideline section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    3.2.7.2 2 1 1 1 0.5 (30 minutes) 0.5 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 FDA is using 1 animal facility or sponsor for estimation purposes.
    Table 5—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 PHS guideline section Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Number of
  • records per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total annual
  • records
  • Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    3.2.7 2 1 1 1 16 16 4.3 3 3 1 3 0.75 (45 minutes) 2.25 3.4.2 4 3 10.67 32 0.25 (15 minutes) 8 3.4.3.2 5 3 2.67 8 0.25 (15 minutes) 2 3.5.1 6 3 0.33 1 0.50 (30 minutes) 0.5 3.5.2 6 3 0.33 1 0.25 (15 minutes) 0.25 3.5.4 3 1 3 0.17 (10 minutes) 0.51 3.6.4 7 3 2.67 8 0.25 (15 minutes) 2 3.7 7 4 2 8 0.08 (5 minutes) 0.64 4.2.3.2 8 5 25 125 0.17 (10 minutes) 21.25 4.2.3.2 6 5 0.20 1 0.17 (10 minutes) 0.17 4.2.3.3 and 4.3.2 6 5 0.20 1 0.17 (10 minutes) 0.17 4.3.1 3 1 3 0.25 (15 minutes) 0.75 5.2 9 3 4 12 0.08 (5 minutes) 0.96 Total 55.45 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 A one-time burden for new respondents to set up a recordkeeping system linking all relevant records. FDA is using one new sponsor for estimation purposes. 3 FDA estimates there is minimal recordkeeping burden associated with maintaining the record system. 4 Monitoring for sentinel animals (subset representative of herd) plus all source animals. There are approximately 6 sentinel animals per herd × 1 herd per facility × 4 facilities = 24 sentinel animals. There are approximately 8 source animals per year (see footnote 7 of this table); 24 + 8 = 32 monitoring records to document. 5 Necropsy for animal deaths of unknown cause estimated to be approximately 2 per herd per year × 1 herd per facility × 4 facilities = 8. 6 Has not occurred in the past 3 years and is expected to continue to be a rare occurrence. 7 On average 2 source animals are used for preparing xenotransplantation product material for one recipient. The average number of source animals is 2 source animals per recipient × 4 recipients annually = 8 source animals per year. (See footnote 5 of table 6.) 8 FDA estimates there are 5 clinical centers doing xenotransplantation procedures × approximately 25 health care workers involved per center = 125 health care workers. 9 Eight source animal records + 4 recipient records = 12 total records.
    Table 6—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden PHS guideline section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • disclosures
  • Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours
    3.2.7.2 2 1 1 1 0.5 (30 minutes) 0.5 3.4 3 4 0.25 1 0.08 (5 minutes) 0.08 3.5.1 4 4 0.25 1 0.25 (15 minutes) 0.25 3.5.4 5 4 1 4 0.5 (30 minutes) 2 3.5.5 4 4 0.25 1 0.25 (15 minutes) 0.25 Total 3.08 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 FDA is using one animal facility or sponsor for estimation purposes. 3 FDA's records indicate that an average of 1 IND is expected to be submitted per year. 4 To our knowledge, has not occurred in the past 3 years and is expected to continue to be a rare occurrence. 5 Based on an estimate of 12 patients treated over a 3-year period, the average number of xenotransplantation product recipients per year is estimated to be 4.

    Because of the potential risk for cross-species transmission of pathogenic persistent virus, the guideline recommends that health records be retained for 50 years. Since these records are medical records, the retention of such records for up to 50 years is not information subject to the PRA (5 CFR 1320.3(h)(5)). Also, because of the limited number of clinical studies with small patient populations, the number of records is expected to be insignificant at this time.

    Information collections in this guideline not included in tables 1 through 6 can be found under existing regulations and approved under the OMB control numbers as follows: (1) “Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals,” 21 CFR 211.1 through 211.208, approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; (2) “Investigational New Drug Application,” 21 CFR 312.1 through 312.160, approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and (3) information included in a biologics license application, 21 CFR 601.2, approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. (Although it is possible that a xenotransplantation product may not be regulated as a biological product (e.g., it may be regulated as a medical device), FDA believes, based on its knowledge and experience with xenotransplantation, that any xenotransplantation product subject to FDA regulation within the next 3 years will most likely be regulated as a biological product.) However, FDA recognized that some of the information collections go beyond approved collections; assessments for these burdens are included in tables 1 through 6.

    In table 7, FDA identifies those collections of information activities that are already encompassed by existing regulations or are consistent with voluntary standards which reflect industry's usual and customary business practice.

    Table 7—Collection of Information Required by Current Regulations and Standards PHS guideline section Description of collection of information activity 21 CFR section
  • (unless otherwise stated)
  • 2.2.1 Document offsite collaborations 312.52. 2.5 Sponsor ensures counseling patient + family + contacts 312.62(c). 3.1.1 and 3.1.6 Document well-characterized health history and lineage of source animals 312.23(a)(7)(a) and 211.84. 3.1.8 Registration with and import permit from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 42 CFR 71.53. 3.2.2 Document collaboration with accredited microbiology labs 312.52. 3.2.3 Procedures to ensure the humane care of animals 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 and PHS Policy.1 3.2.4 Procedures consistent for accreditation by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC International) and consistent with the National Research Council's (NRC) Guide AAALAC International Rules of Accreditation 2 and NRC Guide.3 3.2.5, 3.4, and 3.4.1 Herd health maintenance and surveillance to be documented, available, and in accordance with documented procedures; record standard veterinary care 211.100 and 211.122. 3.2.6 Animal facility SOPs PHS Policy.1 3.3.3 Validate assay methods 211.160(a). 3.6.1 Procurement and processing of xenografts using documented aseptic conditions 211.100 and 211.122. 3.6.2 Develop, implement, and enforce SOPs for procurement and screening processes 211.84(d) and 211.122(c). 3.6.4 Communicate to FDA animal necropsy findings pertinent to health of recipient 312.32(c). 3.7.1 PHS specimens to be linked to health records; provide to FDA justification for types of tissues, cells, and plasma, and quantities of plasma and leukocytes collected 312.23(a)(6). 4.1.1 Surveillance of xenotransplant recipient; sponsor ensures documentation of surveillance program life-long (justify >2 yrs.); investigator case histories (2 yrs. after investigation is discontinued) 312.23(a)(6)(iii)(f) and (g), and 312.62(b) and (c). 4.1.2 Sponsor to justify amount and type of reserve samples 211.122. 4.1.2.2 System for prompt retrieval of PHS specimens and linkage to medical records (recipient and source animal) 312.57(a). 4.1.2.3 Notify FDA of a clinical episode potentially representing a xenogeneic infection 312.32. 4.2.2.1 Document collaborations (transfer of obligation) 312.52. 4.2.3.1 Develop educational materials (sponsor provides investigators with information needed to conduct investigation properly) 312.50. 4.3 Sponsor to keep records of receipt, shipment, and disposition of investigative drug; investigator to keep records of case histories 312.57 and 312.62(b). 1 The “Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” (http://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm). 2 AAALAC International Rules of Accreditation (http://www.aaalac.org/accreditation/rules.cfm). 3 The NRC's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.”
    Dated: January 22, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01638 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-4803] Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals'); Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is extending the comment period for the draft guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff entitled “Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals').” A notice of the availability of the draft guidance and our request for comments appeared in the Federal Register of December 31, 2015. We initially established February 29, 2016, as the deadline for the submission of requested comments that can help improve the Agency's policy for notifying the public about medical device “emerging signals.” The Agency is taking this action due to the unanticipated high-level of interest from external stakeholders and the medical device community and will allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

    DATES:

    FDA is extending the comment period on the “Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals')”; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability, which was announced in the Notice published December 31, 2015 (80 FR 81829). Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 29, 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-2015-D-4803 for “Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals').” 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 draft 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 draft guidance document entitled “Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals')” 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:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 31, 2015, FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals'),” with a 60-day comment period to request comments on the Agency's policy for notifying the public about medical device “emerging signals.”

    FDA is extending the comment period for the publication notification of “emerging signals” for 30 days, until March 29, 2016. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft 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 “Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals')” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1500027 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    Dated: January 21, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01610 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue Debts

    Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities” unless the Secretary waives interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury may revise this rate quarterly. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes this rate in the Federal Register.

    The current rate of 93/4%, as fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, is certified for the quarter ended December 31, 2015. This rate is based on the Interest Rates for Specific Legislation, “National Health Services Corps Scholarship Program (42 U.S.C. 254o(b)(1)(A))” and “National Research Service Award Program (42 U.S.C. 288(c)(4)(B)).” This interest rate will be applied to overdue debt until the Department of Health and Human Services publishes a revision.

    Dated: January 13, 2016. David C. Horn. Director, Office of Financial Policy and Reporting.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01649 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES [CMS-9935-N2] HHS-Operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Meeting; March 31, 2016 AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the rescheduling of the March 25, 2016 meeting on the HHS-operated risk adjustment program, which is open to the public. The purpose of this stakeholder meeting is to solicit feedback on the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology and to discuss potential improvements to the HHS risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year and beyond. This meeting, the “HHS-operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Conference,” will allow issuers, States, and other interested parties to discuss the contents of a White Paper to be published in advance of this meeting. This meeting will also provide an opportunity for participants to ask clarifying questions. The comments and information HHS obtains through this meeting may be used in future policy making for the HHS risk adjustment program.

    DATES:

    Date of Meeting: March 31, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern daylight time (e.d.t.).

    Deadline for Onsite Participation: March 23, 2016, 5:00 p.m., e.d.t.

    Deadline for Webinar Meeting Participation: March 28, 2016, 5:00 p.m. e.d.t.

    Deadline for Requesting Special Accommodations: March 23, 2016, 5:00 p.m. e.d.t.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the CMS Single Site campus, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244.

    Registration: Registration will be on a first-come, first-serve basis, limited to two (2) participants per organization for the onsite location participation, and three (3) participants per organization for the webinar participation. Each individual can only register for either the onsite location participation or webinar participation. To change a registration option from onsite to webinar participation, the registrant must cancel the existing registration (onsite or webinar) before attempting to register for the other option.

    Registration Instructions: To register to attend the meeting either onsite or through webinar participation, visit the Registration for Technical Assistance Portal (REGTAP) at www.REGTAP.info. If not already a REGTAP user, register as a new user, log in and go to “My Dashboard” and select “Training Events” to register for the onsite or webinar event for the HHS-operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Meeting. Registrants can only register to attend the meeting onsite at CMS or remotely by webinar.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information, please send inquiries about the logistics of the meeting to [email protected] Users should submit inquiries and comments pertaining to content covered during the meeting to www.REGTAP.info. To submit an inquiry in REGTAP, select “Submit an Inquiry” from “My Dashboard” then select “HHS-operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Meeting” from the Event Title dropdown menu and enter the question or comment. Users can submit their comments and upload attachments as needed. REGTAP will send the user an acknowledgement upon receipt of the comment.

    The CCIIO's Press Office at (202) 690-6145 will handle all press inquiries.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    This notice announces a meeting on the HHS-operated risk adjustment program to discuss potential improvements to the HHS risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year and beyond. This meeting will focus on the permanent risk adjustment program under section 1343 of the Affordable Care Act when HHS is operating a risk adjustment program on behalf of a State (referred to as the HHS-operated risk adjustment program).

    We are committed to stakeholder engagement in developing the detailed processes of the HHS-operated risk adjustment program. The purpose of this meeting is to share information with issuers, States, and interested parties about the risk adjustment methodology, offer an opportunity for these stakeholders to comment on key elements of the risk adjustment methodology, and discuss potential improvements to the HHS risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year and beyond.

    II. Provisions of This Notice

    In the January 11, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 1193), we published a notice announcing a March 25, 2016 meeting on the HHS-operated risk adjustment program. In this notice, we are notifying interested parties we are rescheduling the meeting to March 31, 2016. The agenda for the March 31, 2016 meeting will include the following:

    • The HHS-operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Conference will share information with stakeholders including issuers, States, and interested parties about the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology and gather feedback on a White Paper on the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology that will be issued in advance of this meeting.

    • The HHS-operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Conference will focus on an overview of the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology and other international risk adjustment models, what we have learned from the 2014 benefit year of the risk adjustment program and specific areas of potential refinements to the methodology.

    The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. There are capabilities for remote access. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by the date listed in the DATES section, and register using the information in the “REGISTRATION” section.

    III. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines

    The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by using the instructions in the “REGISTRATION” section of this notice by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

    This meeting will be held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:

    • Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.

    • Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.

    • Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means of all persons brought entering the building. We note that all items brought into CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.

    Note:

    Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting.

    All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first floor levels in the Central Building.

    Dated: January 19, 2016. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01584 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel; CIDR Contract Review.

    Date: February 16, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Human Genome Research Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, 3rd Floor Conference Room, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Rudy O. Pozzatti, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, MSC 9306, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 402-0838, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 20, 2016. Sylvia Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01528 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Point of Care Diagnosis for Sickle Cell Disease.

    Date: February 19, 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, Room 7200, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michael P. Reilly, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9659, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Effect of Age on Heart, Lung, Blood, and Sleep Disorders.

    Date: February 19, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7192, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Giuseppe Pintucci, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7192, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0287, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 21, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01526 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Omnibus SBIR Topic 97 Review.

    Date:February 23, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: YingYing Li-Smerin, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7184, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0275, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NHLBI SBIR Topic 96: Bioabsorbable Stents for Neonatal Aortic Coarctation, Phase I.

    Date: February 23, 2016.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Tony L. Creazzo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NHLBI SBIR Topic 96: Bioabsorbable Stents for Neonatal Aortic Coarctation, Phase II.

    Date: February 23, 2016.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Tony L. Creazzo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 21, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01525 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Nursing Research Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel; Training and Career Development.

    Date: February 29, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, Suite 703, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Yujing Liu, Ph.D., MD, Chief, Office of Review, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 710, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-5152, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel; Centers Meeting.

    Date: March 3-4, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Mario Rinaudo, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Review, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 710, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-5973, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 20, 2016. Sylvia Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01527 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Project: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) Cross-Site Evaluation—New

    SAMHSA is conducting a cross-site external evaluation of the impact of programs of screening, brief intervention (BI), brief treatment (BT), and referral to treatment (RT) on patients presenting at various health care delivery units with a continuum of severity of substance use. SAMHSA's SBIRT program is a cooperative agreement grant program designed to help states and Tribal Councils expand the continuum of care available for substance misuse and use disorders. The program includes screening, BI, BT, and RT for persons at risk for dependence on alcohol or drugs. This evaluation will provide a comprehensive assessment of SBIRT implementation; the effects of SBIRT on patient outcomes, performance site practices, and treatment systems; and the sustainability of the program. This information will allow SAMHSA to determine the extent to which SBIRT has met its objectives of implementing a comprehensive system of identification and care to meet the needs of individuals at all points along the substance use continuum.

    To evaluate the success of SBIRT implementation at the site level, a web-based survey will be administered to staff in sites where SBIRT services are being delivered—referred to as performance sites. The Performance Site Survey will be distributed to individuals who directly provide SBIRT services and staff who interact regularly with SBIRT providers and patients receiving SBIRT services. The types of staff surveyed will include intake staff, medical providers, behavioral health providers, social workers, and managerial and administrative staff who oversee these staff. Since cross-site evaluation team members will be traveling to selected SBIRT providers and coordinating with state and site administrators on a yearly basis, there is an opportunity to complete a near-census of all SBIRT-related staff at performance sites with a minimal level of burden.

    The 78 question web survey includes the collection of basic demographic information, questions about the organization's readiness to implement SBIRT, and questions about the use of health information technology (HIT) to deliver SBIRT services. The demographic questions were tailored from a previous cross-site evaluation survey to fit the current set of cross-site grantees. The organizational readiness questions were developed through a review of the extant implementation science research literature (e.g., Chaudoir, Dugan, & Barr, 2013; Damschroder et al., 2009; Garner, 2009; Greenhalgh, MacFarlane, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Weiner, 2009; Weiner, Belden, Bergmire, & Johnston, 2011). Based on this review, the Organizational Readiness for Implementation Change (ORIC) (Shea, Jacobs, Esserman, Bruce, & Weiner, 2014) and the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS) (Jacobs, Weiner, & Bunger, 2014) were identified as the two most appropriate instruments. In addition to questions from these two instruments, the survey includes questions to assess satisfaction, capacity, and infrastructure to implement SBIRT screening, BI, and BT.

    To identify relevant HIT measures, the cross-site evaluation team modified measures from socio-technical frameworks (Kling, 1980), including the DeLone and McClean framework (DeLone & McLean, 2004), the Public Health Informatics Institute Framework (PHII, 2005), and the Human Organization and Technology (Hot)-FIT Framework (Yusof, 2008). Across these three frameworks, the survey captures measures of system availability, information availability, organizational structure and environment, utilization, and user satisfaction.

    Total Burden Hours for the Performance Site Survey Respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • (a)
  • Number of
  • responses/respondent
  • Total number of responses Hours per
  • response
  • (b)
  • Annual burden hours
    Intake/front desk staff 215 1 215 0.22 47.30 Performance site administrators 191 1 191 0.22 42.02 Clinical supervisors 101 1 101 0.22 22.22 Medical providers 571 1 571 0.22 125.62 Behavioral health providers 211 1 211 0.22 46.42 Social workers 118 1 118 0.22 25.96 TOTAL 1,407 1,407 309.54 (a) The maximum number of annual respondents has been based on estimates from cross-site evaluation site visits. (b) The average burden per response was estimated based on independent review of the instrument by contractor staff.

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by February 26, 2016 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U. S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, D C 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01671 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5914-N-01] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: “Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally-Owned Residential Properties and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance” AGENCY:

    Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal of the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: March 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for renewal of the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: “Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally-Owned Residential Properties and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance”.

    OMB Approval Number: 2539-0009.

    Type of Request: Renewal with some changes due to program changes.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: provision of a pamphlet on lead poisoning prevention to tenants and purchasers, provision of a notice to occupants on the results of hazard evaluation and hazard reduction activities, special reporting requirements for a child with an environmental intervention blood lead level residing in the unit, and record keeping and periodic summary reporting requirements.

    Respondents: residential property owners, housing agencies, Federal grantees, tribally designated housing entities or participating jurisdictions.

    The revised hour burden estimates are presented in the table below. In that table, the $15.36 hourly cost per response reflects the weighted average of cases, first, in which the respondent is simply giving someone a pamphlet, putting something in a file, or retrieving something from a file, and sending summary information from it to the Department, valued at $10.61 per hour; and second, processing notices as above as well as providing information in cases of lead-poisoned children, valued at $16.97 per hour. (These labor rates have been escalated by 3% from 2013 based on the Census Bureau's constant quality housing construction price index, since the work is in the housing trades.)

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden hour
  • per response
  • Annual burden hours Hourly cost
  • per response
  • Annual cost
    Total 62,295 as needed Various 2.2 136,692 $15.36 $2,099,593
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: January 21, 2016. Michelle M. Miller, Deputy Director, OLHCHH.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01628 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5913-N-03] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Requisition for Disbursements of Sections 202 & 811 Capital Advance/Loan Funds AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: March 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adia Hayes, Program Analyst, Multifamily Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email: [email protected] or telephone 202-402-2463. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Requisition for Disbursement of Sections 202 & 811 Capital Advance/Loan Funds.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0187.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: HUD-92403-CA & HUD-92403-EH.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Owner entities submit requisitions to HUD during construction to obtain Section 202/811 capital advance/loan funds. This collection helps to identify the owner, project, type of disbursement, items covered, name of the depository, and account number.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Affected public.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 112.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 224.

    Frequency of Response: 4.

    Average Hours per Response: 1.

    Total Estimated Burden: 112.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Date: January 19, 2016. Janet M. Golrick, Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing—Associate Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01512 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-NAL-2016-N002; FXGO1660091NALO156FF09D02000] Native American Policy for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of final policy.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or FWS), announce that we have established a new Native American policy, which will replace the 1994 policy at 510 FW 1 in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The purpose of the policy is to carry out the United States' trust responsibility to Indian tribes by establishing a framework on which to base our continued interactions with federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. The policy recognizes the sovereignty of federally recognized tribes; states that the Service will work on a government-to-government basis with tribal governments; and includes guidance on co-management, access to and use of cultural resources, capacity development, law enforcement, and education.

    DATES:

    The policy is effective as of January 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Native American policy is available in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual at http://www.fws.gov/policy/510fw1.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Aikin, Native American Programs Coordinator, by mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232; or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This Native American policy is available at http://www.fws.gov/policy/510fw1.html, which is within part 510 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, the part titled “Working with Native American Tribes.” The purpose of the policy is to articulate principles and serve as a framework for government-to-government relationships and interactions between the Service and federally recognized tribes to conserve fish and wildlife and protect cultural resources. The policy includes guidance on:

    • The relationship between the Service and federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANC) corporations,

    • Service employee responsibilities,

    • Government-to-government consultation and relations,

    • Communication,

    • Co-management and collaborative management,

    • Tribal access to Service lands and Service-managed resources for cultural and religious practices,

    • Tribal cultural use of plants and animals,

    • Law enforcement,

    • Training and education,

    • Capacity building and funding, and

    • Guidance for implementing and monitoring the policy.

    This policy is not meant to stand on its own. To effectively implement this policy, the Service will update its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tribal Consultation Handbook, establish an Alaska Regional Native American policy, and develop training so that Service employees will be better able to perform duties related to this policy.

    Overview of the Policy

    We recognize that when the Service and tribes work together on resource matters, our longstanding relationship is strengthened and resources are better served. This policy provides guidance on recognition of tribal sovereign status, Service responsibilities, and opportunities for the Service and tribes to work together toward natural and cultural resource conservation and access. The purpose of this policy is to provide Service employees with guidance when working with tribes and ANCs.

    Section 1 of this policy recognizes the unique relationship that Federal governmental agencies have with federally recognized tribes and the U.S. Government's trust responsibility toward those tribes. It explains that while this is a nationwide policy, the Service maintains flexibility for Service Regions and programs to work more specifically with the tribes and ANCs in their Regions.

    Section 2 recognizes tribes' sovereign authority over their members and territory, the tribes' rights to self-govern, and that government-to-government communication may occur at various levels within the Service and the tribes.

    Section 3 describes communication, consultation, and information sharing among the Service, tribes, and ANCs.

    Section 4 sets out a range of collaborative management and co-management opportunities where tribes, Alaska Native Organizations (ANO), the Service, and others have shared responsibility.

    Section 5 recognizes that, for meaningful cultural and religious practices, tribal members may need to access Service lands and to use plants and animals for which the Service has management responsibility.

    Section 6 recognizes tribal law enforcement responsibilities for managing Indian lands and tribal resources and encourages cooperative law enforcement between the Service and tribes.

    Section 7 invites tribal governments to work with the Service to develop and present training for Service employees. It also makes available Service technical experts to help tribes develop technical expertise, supports tribal self-determination, encourages cross-training of Service and tribal personnel, and supports Native American professional development.

    Section 8 establishes monitoring and implementation guidance for the policy.

    Section 9 describes the policy's scope and limitations.

    Exhibit 1 includes the definitions of terms we use in the policy.

    Exhibit 2 describes the responsibilities of employees at all levels of the Service to carry out this policy.

    Exhibit 3 lists the authorities under which the Service is able to take the actions we describe in the policy.

    Background and Development of This Policy

    On June 28, 1994, the Service first enacted its Native American Policy to guide our government-to-government relations with federally recognized tribal governments in conserving fish and wildlife resources and to “help accomplish its mission and concurrently to participate in fulfilling the Federal Government's and Department of the Interior's trust responsibilities to assist Native Americans in protecting, conserving, and utilizing their reserved, treaty guaranteed, or statutorily identified trust assets.”

    In July 2013, the Service convened a Native American Policy Team (team) to review and update the policy. The team is comprised of Service representatives from the Regions and programs. We also invited all federally recognized tribal governments across the United States to nominate representatives to serve on the team. A total of 16 self-nominated tribal representatives from all of the major Regions across the country joined the team to provide input and tribal perspective.

    Although Service and tribal team members took part in writing the draft, full agreement was not possible on every issue and some differences remain. Understanding those issues, tribal representatives continued to participate in an effort to improve the policy.

    In November 2014, the Service invited federally recognized tribal governments in each of its Regions and ANCs to consult on a government-to-government basis. The Service provided an early working draft of the updated policy for their review and input. A total of 23 of the tribal representatives submitted written comments to further develop and refine the draft updated policy.

    From December 2014 to April 2015, the Service held 24 consultation meetings and webinars within the Regions and nationally. Representatives from approximately 100 tribes attended these meetings. In March 2015, the Service revised the working draft of the updated policy and distributed it for internal Service review throughout all levels, Regions, and programs within the agency. We incorporated feedback from the internal Service review and additional comments received from tribal governments into a draft that we published in the Federal Register.

    Summary of Comments and Changes to the Final Policy

    On August 3, 2015, we announced the availability of a draft of this policy in a Federal Register notice (80 FR 46043) and requested public comments by September 2, 2015. The Service reopened the comment period for an additional 30 days in a Federal Register document published on September 21, 2015 (80 FR 57014). The second comment period closed on October 21, 2015.

    We received approximately 34 comment letters on the draft policy. The comments were from Federal and State government agencies, tribes, ANCs, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals. Most of the comments addressed specific elements, while some comments were more general. We considered all of the information and recommendations for improvement included in the comments and made appropriate changes to the draft policy. We also made some additions and clarifications to the policy that were not addressed in the public comments, but were discovered through internal briefings and reviews during the policy revision period. The following summarizes our responses to public comments received.

    Many of these topics are related to one another, and it is sometimes difficult to categorize each into one discrete area of the policy that it addresses. We have grouped similar comments together to help readers understand our rationale.

    Many commenters were pleased with many aspects of the new policy. Several commenters noted that the policy was “clearly the product of a careful and deliberative effort to involve tribes' input and integrate their concerns.” Several commenters noted that the Native American Policy Team that worked for 21/2 years on this policy was formed at the earliest stages of policy consideration and consisted of tribal members and Service employees who worked very closely together on all aspects of the policy. One specific commenter stated that tribes and ANCs “applaud[ed] FWS for its extensive efforts working with representatives from tribes across the country to put together this new policy.”

    Tribes and ANCs commented that FWS's recognition of the importance of sharing the traditional knowledge, experience, and perspectives of Native Americans will ultimately lead to better management of shared fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. Tribes and ANCs supported the Service's recognition of the need for flexibility to allow for regional diversity. Tribes stated that they appreciate that the Service did not group them together with other stakeholders, but instead treats them as sovereign governments. Tribes appreciate that the Service took tribal comments from a pre-public comment period and incorporated them into the published draft. Several commenters commended the Service for incorporating the table of responsibilities, which describes specific responsibilities for Service employees.

    Commenters support the promotion of cultural competency awareness within the Service. Likewise, they support that the draft policy makes a clear and honest reference to Service limitations with respect to protecting sensitive tribal information from public release (e.g., via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests).

    ANCs stated that they support and appreciate the Service's inclusion and acknowledgement of ANCs as significant stakeholders that require policies guiding and encouraging the Service's interaction with them.

    The following categorizes comments by policy section, followed by comments on the content of the three exhibits, and finally those comments received specific to Alaska.

    General Comments

    1. As a “consultation policy” this has shortcomings. Response: This is not a “consultation policy.” Consultation is a part of this policy, which covers more than consultation.

    2. The draft policy repeatedly uses multiple qualifiers in the text such as, “to the extent practicable,” “not inconsistent with essential Service functions,” “as necessary or appropriate,” and “as resources and priorities allow.” The repeated use of these qualifiers appears to vest discretion in the individual Service official or staffer as to whether or not, at any given point, consultation will occur. Response: This is not meant to undermine the Service's responsibility to consult with tribes and ANCs. The Service understands the importance of and our responsibility for working with tribes. However, we cannot promise more than we can deliver. The Service must act within the authorities Congress has given us, and we can only perform as much work as the resources supplied by Congress will allow.

    Section 1. Introduction

    1. Some commenters objected to the qualifier that this policy applies to those whose official duties may affect tribal interests, and not to all employees. Response: While most employees have responsibilities that may affect tribes, some employees may have completely unrelated jobs, such as employee payroll or janitorial services for Service properties. Even so, the Service will try to deliver some degree of tribal training to all employees through regular internal Service training. The Service will ensure that all employees will be aware of their responsibilities under this policy.

    2. The Service should show how tribal input was considered and incorporated into final decisions. Response: Implementation will include Regional teams that are better able to communicate with the tribes in their area. There is no one-size-fits-all for all Service programs. Many times, tribes are present throughout the process and will have ongoing dialogue concerning how their comments have been included in decisionmaking.

    Section 2. Sovereignty and Government-to-Government Relations

    1. This section of the policy should be first. In the existing 1994 policy, sovereignty is the very first principle. In this revised draft, it is relegated to subheading 5. The placement of this guiding principle diminishes what was once highlighted. Response: We have moved this section up from section 5 to section 2 and have moved what were preceding sections into exhibits.

    2. The policy needs to make clear that the Service cannot make decisions or take actions that impact or diminish treaty-reserved rights of tribes and incorporate the principles that serve as the foundation for Secretary's Order 3206. Response: In section 3, the policy states that communication with tribes will begin early in the planning process. We will continue to develop relationships and communicate with tribes at the appropriate levels.

    3. The Service should implement a consensus-based process with the tribes to identify treaty and trust obligations and to develop programs and actions to meet those obligations. Response: The Service looks for opportunities to consult and collaborate with tribes as is stated throughout the policy. We understand that the tribal consultation process goes beyond the requirements of public involvement. We discuss this in section 4.

    4. The policy should support development and implementation of agreements with tribes or regional tribal groups to reflect needs tailored to capabilities. Response: The Service will form Regional tribal-Service implementation teams to collaboratively address issues that arise on a more local level.

    5. We received several comments relating to the fact that some Indian tribes have delegated a portion of their authority to inter-tribal agencies. Commenters stated that the Service should acknowledge that delegation and, if allowed by that delegation, provide those agencies with relevant technical and policy-related information. They also stated that the Service should develop cooperative relationships with those agencies to carry out the programmatic goals of the Service and to better serve Indian tribes. Other commenters raised concerns that the Service should be aware that each tribe in an inter-tribal agency may not have delegated full authority on an issue. Another commenter explained that tribal consortia provide a powerful opportunity for the Service to “get the word out” to affected tribes. Response: Tribes have delegated varying ranges of authority to inter-tribal organizations acting for them. The policy cannot address each specific delegation, and so we address this issue in section 2 as follows: “We will consult with inter-tribal organizations to the degree that tribes have authorized such an organization to consult on the tribe's behalf.” During implementation, we plan to reach out to these groups and the tribes whom they represent when forming regional implementation teams. The Service will continue to engage consortia to contact tribes, get the word out, and become involved in other programs.

    6. Several commenters asked that we revise language to limit this section to where there are “federally recognized tribal rights.” Response: We have not adopted this comment. The Service exercises due care where our actions affect the exercise of tribal rights.

    Section 3. Communications and Relationships

    1. Substitute “strive to the greatest extent possible to incorporate” instead of “consider” traditional knowledge. Response: The language in the policy clearly states that the Service will “consider” traditional knowledge, which means that we will take it seriously and truly consider the traditional knowledge shared.

    2. Several commenters raised concern that tribal members may not be free to share information on specific cultural locations, practices, or actions that could be useful to the Service, and asked the Service to accommodate that privacy. Response: We understand there may be limitations on tribal members' abilities to share information with us. They may not be able to share any information, or they may be able to share information only if we keep that information confidential. The Service respects that tribes, ANCs, or tribal members may not be able to share information that could be disclosed to the public if required by FOIA. As the policy states, we will work collaboratively to protect confidential information and protect disclosure when possible. If the Service relies on any such information as a basis for agency action to protect resources, however, that information will become an agency record subject to FOIA and must be released unless it falls under an exemption. This potential disclosure must be balanced with the fact that if we are unaware of this information, we cannot use it as a basis to protect those cultural resources or practices.

    3. One commenter shared that certain tribes require consultation to occur on those tribes' reservations, and that the Service should state that they will consult with each tribe according to those requirements. In addition, many tribes require a two-tiered process where technical staff discuss management issues and elevate policy discussions to formal government-to-government consultation when necessary. Response: The Service understands that each tribe may have its own requirements and standards for interacting with Federal agencies at both the government-to-government level and on technical issues. In developing relationships with tribes in their areas, Service employees will better understand and appropriately meet with tribal governments. The table of responsibilities in Exhibit 2 anticipates coordination at all levels.

    4. One commenter stated that to ensure that the Service is engaging with ANCs and tribes in a meaningful way that fulfills its consultation obligations, we should establish firm guidelines for what actions the agency will take when preparing for a consultation, including information on how much notice we must give tribes and ANCs before a consultation occurs, what information is provided to these groups in advance of consultation, and how the Service will incorporate comments gathered at consultations into the official record and decisionmaking process. Response: While this policy discusses a wide range of consultation and engagement possibilities, how to carry out proper consultation is beyond its scope. The “how to” is covered in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tribal Consultation Handbook and will be a topic of ongoing training.

    5. If the Service is to request full cooperation and assistance regarding shared information, the final draft must include strong language to protect tribal information, Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), site-specific information, and any information deemed sensitive by the tribes, as being totally protected and not subject to FOIA requests. Response: The Service will coordinate with tribes individually on this issue. We strive to balance our responsibility to the American public to release all information on which we base our decisions with respect for tribal concerns about keeping information confidential. While we will work with tribes to help protect sensitive cultural information, as a Federal agency, the Service is subject to the FOIA and has no discretion to protect from disclosure tribal information that does not qualify under any of FOIA's statutory exemptions.

    6. We received many comments voicing concerns about treaty rights. One commenter believed that the language in the policy gives excessive discretion to Service staff to limit the exercise of treaty rights. Response: Throughout the policy, we recognize tribal treaty rights. Where treaty rights exist, employees do not have the discretion to allow or disallow their exercise. Where there are disagreements as to interpretation of how far those treaty rights reach, the Service will communicate with the affected tribe or tribes, but we must continue to carry out our activities as required by law.

    7. Other commenters, while recognizing that not all tribes have treaty rights, were concerned that the policy does not specifically support the rights of tribal members to use fish and wildlife resources on Service lands. Response: There are numerous statements about recognition of tribal treaty rights in the policy. Where treaty rights exist that extend to Service lands, such as fishing rights, those are recognized in the policy.

    Section 4. Resource Management

    1. The Service should assist and facilitate tribal participation in co-management venues where there are areas of jurisdictional overlap amongst multiple government interests. Response: Where the Service is involved in resource management, we will engage all of the governmental parties involved. There are areas where the Service might not have such authority, particularly where States manage wildlife, so we may not have resources involved in such a jurisdiction.

    2. Several commenters asked us to add language stating that tribes are the primary natural resource managers on Indian lands, and that tribes are co-managers for shared resources off-reservation for treaty-reserved resources. Response: The first part of this statement goes beyond the scope of this policy. The second part of this statement is too broad a concept and does not apply in all situations, so we did not include it as part of the policy.

    3. Several commenters stated that the 1994 policy had stronger language in certain areas, in particular about our participation in fulfilling the Federal Government's and the Department of the Interior's trust responsibilities to assist Native Americans in protecting, conserving, and using tribal reserved, treaty-guaranteed, or statutorily identified trust assets. Response: We revised the language of the first and fifth paragraphs in section 1 to address these concerns.

    4. Several commenters discussed reserved rights on non-reservation lands. Some stated that the policy should reflect that various Indian tribes enjoy reserved rights on non-reservation lands, which allows those tribes to harvest natural resources pursuant to tribal law. One stated that the draft policy should reflect the obligation that the Service has, when considering actions affecting those lands and their natural resources, to meaningfully involve affected Indian tribes and their delegated inter-tribal agencies, where applicable. Other commenters asked for language clarifying that tribal members who are exercising tribal reserved rights have access to Service-managed or controlled lands for fishing and harvesting resources pursuant to tribal law or a memorandum of agreement between the tribe and Service. Response: Section 2 states that we will exercise due care where our actions affect the exercise of tribal rights. We work on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning management of tribal trust resources and Indian tribal treaty and other rights. In addition, where a tribe has developed an agreement with the Service, the tribe can carry out these activities in accordance with the agreement. Not all Service lands are open to all such uses.

    5. One commenter stated that the policy needs to include stronger language regarding the use of tribal partners in assuming direct management over Service lands near reservations or where they have a significant interest on the landscape. Response: Congress has not given us the authority to give tribes management authority over Service lands. Management of Service lands is an inherently Federal function.

    6. Several commenters voiced concern that tribes should not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of species, and to consider whether conservation measures on non-tribal lands and regulating non-Indian activities can achieve those goals. In addition, they stated that the policy needs to reinforce the principle message of Secretary's Order 3206 and clearly place the burden of proof on the Service to demonstrate a designation of critical habitat is required within a reservation. Response: The Service acts as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Secretary's Order 3206. We added language from our ESA section 4(b)(2) policy to this policy as follows: “We will always consider exclusions of tribal lands under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA before finalizing a designation of critical habitat. We will also give great weight to tribal concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.”

    7. One commenter requested a stronger statement in the policy requiring that system directors, managers, and staff accommodate requests by tribes to access system lands in a manner consistent with other members of the public or State governments. For example, if a particular refuge permits State big game hunts, then tribes should be able to access those same lands for hunting purposes. Response: This is too broad of a request to address in the policy. In short, not all tribes have treaty-reserved hunting and gathering rights. In certain geographic areas, tribes retain those treaty rights, but the rights might not extend to carrying out those activities on a refuge. We will work with tribes in the geographic area where hunting is authorized on a refuge.

    8. One commenter was concerned that the administration of various wildlife laws cuts against the tribes, like the administration of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) for furbearing mammals, where the Service requires a tribe to meet an unrealistic standard before it can continue its traditional practices of making cultural use of harvested animals. The resource management section needs to make it clear to Service employees that it expects its employees to treat tribes with respect and equity when they are making decisions about gathering of subsistence foods and natural resources. Response: The policy stresses respect and coordination with tribes. Issues surrounding native rights to hunt and gather on non-Indian lands vary. These issues will be addressed in training. In addition, we will have an Alaska policy to address subsistence issues in Alaska.

    9. We received comments stating that while the policy talks about management and conservation of resources, it does not clearly reflect tribal “use” of resources. Response: We had addressed this in many places in the draft policy, including in the opening paragraph, in statements about Alaska subsistence uses, in the section on using cultural resources, and in the definition of “Fish and wildlife and cultural resource management.” To address this comment, we have added “use” of resources in two additional places—in the definitions of co-management and collaborative management.

    10. Several commenters stated that the policy must consider other governmental jurisdiction and interests, especially where litigation or laws recognize States as the primary managers of the resources, especially on ceded territories. Response: With respect to developing agreements to manage and conserve resources, we added a reference to “States and other co-managers.” The policy also recognizes State jurisdiction under both the Indian lands and non-Indian lands subsections of section 4.

    11. Some commenters believed that the Service's role in managing non-Indian lands is limited to federally owned lands, and then only where such uses have been established by Federal law or adjudication. Response: The Service's jurisdiction goes beyond federally owned non-Indian lands, particularly when the Service manages ESA-listed species, eagles, and other migratory birds. Further, tribal rights need not have been formally adjudicated to be valid; therefore, we have not altered this language in the policy.

    12. Several commenters asked that we clarify “where there is a legal basis for such use” when talking about tribal members using fish and wildlife resources on non-Indian lands. Response: Clarifying this term would require a very lengthy section that would, at a minimum, include reviewing treaties, statutes, and case law from around the country, which goes beyond the scope of this policy.

    13. Commenters noted that the language in the Non-Indian Lands section might allow Service employees to participate in matters that are strictly between States and tribes. Response: We have added the phrase, “and where Service jurisdiction is involved” to this paragraph. In addition, the definition of fish and wildlife resources encompasses only those that the Service is responsible for managing and conserving.

    14. Commenters asked that we clarify the role the Service would play if there are disagreements between tribal governments and State or local resource management agencies. Response: Section 4 states, “certain tribal governments and State governments may have shared responsibilities to co-manage fish and wildlife resources. In such cases, we will consult and collaborate with tribal governments and affected State or local resource management agencies to help meet the objectives of all parties while honoring the Federal trust responsibility.”

    Section 5. Culture/Religion

    1. Some commenters found it offensive that the Service would prioritize scientific investigation over a tribe's religious, ceremonial, or cultural needs. Response: In 1975, Interior Secretary Morton recognized Indians' “legitimate interest in expressing their cultural and religious way of life, and at the same time, share the responsibility to conserve wildlife resources including federally protected birds.” The Attorney General's 2012 policy tiers from the Morton policy and recognizes that the tribes and the United States share an interest in and responsibility for protecting wildlife resources: “It is a federal priority to prosecute those who violate federal laws by engaging in commercial activities involving federally protected birds, bird feathers, and remains. . . . The Department of Justice is committed to robust enforcement of federal laws protecting birds while respecting tribal interests in the use of eagle feathers and other federally protected birds, bird feathers, and other bird parts for cultural and religious purposes” (Attorney General Holder policy, October 12, 2012).

    2. Several commenters asked that the policy include use of natural resources within the section on cultural resources. Response: While tribal members may not distinguish between natural and cultural resources, the Service follows a separate set of laws in each area. We address use of natural resources in section 4.

    3. One commenter stated that tribes need to be provided timely notification when any actions are proposed on their ancestral homelands, so that they can make early, informed decisions on when and how to become involved. Response: The policy states, “The Service will meaningfully involve tribal governments in our actions when we or the tribal government determine the actions may affect their cultural or religious interest . . .”

    4. Several commenters pointed out that while many instances of the words “may” and “should” were strengthened from an earlier draft of the policy, a few remaining “shoulds” could still be strengthened to make them absolute requirements. Response: Where the Service is able to state that it will act, it so stated. We do not, however, want to make representations that we are unable to perform.

    5. One commenter asked that we delete “expression” and replace it with “practices” when talking about religion. Response: Based on respectful discussion within the tribal-Service policy team, we have kept the term “expression.”

    Section 6. Law Enforcement

    1. Several commenters wrote asking for support for formal agreements, such as cross-deputation. Response: We have explained that the Service will work with tribes to the limits of the law. At this time, however, Federal law does not allow the Service to cross-deputize tribal officers.

    2. Some commenters stated that they were concerned that Service officers should not assume that State or Federal law applies to Indian tribal members without first consulting the Indian tribes that may have jurisdiction in a particular area. In cases where Service officers determine that there have been possible violations committed by Indian tribal members, those officers should immediately contact tribal law enforcement to determine whether the members' tribe has jurisdiction. Response: In cases where Service officers determine that there have been possible violations of Federal law committed by tribal members, officers have a responsibility to investigate such violations. Service law enforcement officers are trained on the topics of Federal, State, and tribal jurisdictions. In situations where a question of tribal rights arises in the course of an investigation, the Service has a review process in place to determine whether or not to pursue a case. Service law enforcement officers are committed to working cooperatively with tribal game-enforcement authorities whenever they can in pursuing specific investigations. We also have added language in section 6 that the Service will provide its law enforcement staff additional cross-cultural training.

    Section 7. Tribal Capacity Building, Assistance, and Funding

    1. Several commenters asked that the Service commit to helping tribes receive a consistent level of funding to sustain ongoing tribal wildlife management projects. Several also asked that we make educating tribal staff an affirmative priority. Response: The Service funds tribal wildlife projects through several funding mechanisms. We do not, however, have the resources to commit to set levels of funding. The Service is able to act only within the constraints of its available resources.

    2. Several commenters focused on training for tribal members by asking the Service to facilitate training opportunities, promote its training facilities (e.g., at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC)), and provide scholarships and funding to assist in the development of staff in areas of need. In addition, several commenters were concerned with language that stated that the Service would carry out certain functions, such as providing technical assistance, “as resources and priorities allow.” These commenters believe that these activities are a priority and were concerned that they not be left to the discretion of individual offices. Response: The Service offers many kinds of training in many locations. We include tribal members in many of our training courses, including those at NCTC. We cannot make representations that we can fund all desired activities that we may not have the resources to support.

    3. Commenters encouraged the Service to provide joint training to increase awareness and understanding for implementation of the policy for tribal and Service staff to ensure they both receive consistent information and to foster collaborative learning and strong working relationships. Response: We agree. We have added language to section 8 that we will form both national and Regional tribal-Service teams to assess the priorities for training and other priorities in each area. Also, we have added language to section 8 as follows: “The Service will encourage and support joint training with tribes to promote common understanding about implementing the policy within the context of Region-specific circumstances.” Section 7 states: “The Service will provide tribal governments and their staff access to our fish and wildlife resource training programs in the same manner that we provide access to other government agencies. In addition, we plan to work with tribes to develop, conduct, and attend joint training programs to increase awareness and sensitivity and to cross-train our employees and tribal staff on each other's responsibilities for resource stewardship.”

    4. One commenter asked that the Service re-evaluate the Tribal Wildlife Grant (TWG) funding program and explore other options for providing stable, long-term funding to tribes like the Service currently provides to States. Response: Re-evaluating such programs goes beyond the scope of this policy.

    5. Several commenters asked for stronger language regarding recruitment of Native Americans. Response: Both sections 6 and 7 address this issue. The policy encourages qualified Native Americans to apply for Service jobs. It additionally states that, “[w]e will collaborate with tribal governments to recruit Native Americans for Service law enforcement positions . . .”

    6. We received many comments about the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA; 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) and how it applies to the Service.

    One commenter stated that the Service should first come out with a national policy regarding annual funding agreements (AFA) at national wildlife refuges before entering into any ISDEAA contracts at refuges. Response: That is beyond the scope of this policy.

    Other commenters stated that multi-year funding agreements for refuge management are not statutorily authorized, and that 15 U.S.C. 458cc does not authorize multi-year funding agreements. Response: The Service will consider the full range of contracts and grants that are available to tribes within applicable law. Multi-year agreements do not authorize multi-year funding. Funding is allocated through AFAs. Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 100.146 allows an agency to negotiate a self-governance funding agreement with a performance period that exceeds 1 year.

    Another commenter stated that they believed that all information about AFAs should be made available under FOIA requests. Should there be an AFA, the Service must maintain records that it will be able to produce upon public request. Response: All documents in the Service's custody and control are subject to FOIA. Tribes are not subject to FOIA.

    One commenter stated that refuge management should not be available to tribes under an AFA where the Service has not finalized a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), and that the Service cannot contract inherently Federal functions. Response: Refuge management has been identified as an inherently Federal function and is not available to tribes under an AFA.

    7. Under the subsection on Professional Development, include a commitment to implement and expand tribal internship opportunities and programs for Native American students at colleges, universities, tribal colleges, and other institutions to provide expanded opportunities for Native American students to gain experience in wildlife resource management. Response: At this time, making this additional commitment in response to this request goes beyond the scope of the Service's resources.

    8. Add language committing the Service to strategize with tribes about possible funding opportunities that would be available through statutory amendments to existing programs. Response: The Service in not authorized to pursue statutory amendments on behalf of tribes.

    9. Several commenters asked that the policy clarify that when offering assistance to tribes, the Service should limit its offer of expertise to the fish and wildlife resources defined by the policy. These commenters stated that the Service may not be qualified to review and assess tribal conservation measures for species under State jurisdiction without State involvement. Also, where there are instances of court-established processes for developing species management plans, Service involvement might be inappropriate. Response: We added the following language: “Service involvement may be limited where litigation or other court actions have established a specific process for the development of species management plans and tribal codes.”

    Section 8. Implementation and Monitoring

    1. Several commenters hoped to see operational plans within the policy. They stated that the policy should contain more detail and directly address how it will be implemented. They stated that the policy seems to be a framework that needs to be transformed into operational plans for local level implementation. Response: The policy becomes operational through the table of employee responsibilities. In addition, the Service has a tribal consultation handbook that we will be updating. We added additional language to section 8 calling for national and Regional teams comprised of both Service and tribal representatives to implement the policy in a way that is meaningful at a more localized level. The policy also calls for training at all levels of the Service.

    2. Commenters recommended that the Service establish a tribal committee that would monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the policy and make recommendations to improve its implementation. Commenters asked that we require Regional and field offices to carry out training for staff and leadership on the culture and legal rights of Indian tribes in their areas, with invitations extended to those Indian tribes and tribal agencies to assist in the planning and execution of those trainings. Response: We have added language to section 8 that describes how we will form both national and Regional tribal-Service teams to assess the priorities for training and other priorities in each area. We have also added the following language to section 8: “The Service will encourage and support joint training with tribes to promote common understanding about implementing the policy within the context of Region-specific circumstances.” Implementation will continue through tribal-Service teams that will address training and other needs in each area. These teams will nurture strong collaborative working relationships that will address communication, training, implementation, and monitoring.

    3. One commenter stated that there should be a clear process for recourse if tribal consultation is denied or mishandled by Service officials and staff. Response: Section 8 addresses the manner by which the Service will address disagreements regarding the implementation of this policy.

    Section 9. Scope and Limitations

    Several commenters were concerned that some of the language from the 1994 policy that clarified State wildlife agencies' roles and authorities was missing from the draft. Response: We have recognized State authority throughout the policy and have added the following, “Nothing in this policy may be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations.”

    Exhibit 1. Definitions

    1. Several commenters stated that the definition for “Indian lands” should include land held in fee by an Indian or a tribe, or land owned by an ANC. Response: The tribal-U.S. relationship is a political one. We cannot extend the legal protections of trust land to non-trust land through this policy. For ANCs, we plan to develop an Alaska regional policy that addresses the issue further.

    2. Several commenters asked that we include a definition of “trust responsibility.” Response: We have taken language describing the contours of the trust responsibility from Secretary's Order 3335 and inserted it into the first section of the policy.

    3. Several commenters pointed out that in Alaska, co-management can take place between the Service and non-governmental entities, and that our proposed co-management definition did not include these situations. Other commenters asked that we make the definition more restrictive by including entities that have authority “legally established by federal law or adjudication.” Response: We have changed the definition of “co-management” as follows: “two or more entities, each having legally established management responsibilities, working collaboratively to achieve mutually agreed upon, compatible objectives to protect, conserve, use, enhance, or restore natural and cultural resources.” We have also added a definition for “collaborative management” as follows: “two or more entities working together to actively protect, conserve, use, enhance, or restore natural and cultural resources.” We believe these clarifications will cover management scenarios both in Alaska and throughout the country.

    4. Several commenters asked for clarity in the definition of fish and wildlife resources, stating that many fish and wildlife species found on refuges are managed under State rather than Federal authority. These commenters recommended that we state that the Service's responsibility is limited to the purpose for which the refuge was designated and to federally managed species. Response: The Service has responsibility for all resources within refuge boundaries. We enter into agreements with States and other entities for co-management and cooperative management, where appropriate.

    5. Many commenters objected to the definition of “sacred site” and offered alternative definitions. One commenter asked that we use the term “sacred place” and offered a definition. Another commenter stated that it would be more appropriate to use a definition they offered for “cultural landscapes,” which the National Park Service had used. Response: We understand that this definition may not fit tribal concepts of sacred sites. We will address these concerns during training. We continue to use this definition, which we took directly from Executive Order 13007 and the Departmental Manual at 512 DM 3. Concern about accessing cultural sites is further discussed in section 8 under the Access for Cultural, Archeological, and Historic Resources, and Indian Sacred Sites subsection.

    6. One commenter stated that it was unclear whether the “sacred site” definition would require a prior identification of sacred sites. Response: We have clarified the language, changing the tense to clarify that that a tribe does not need to identify a sacred site prior to the inception of the project under discussion. The tribe does need to identify the site to us in order for us to consider its sensitivity in our planning or review of the project. While a sacred site may exist to a tribe, we cannot consider a sacred site that we do not know about. In addition to the definition, the subsection on access addresses the need to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of sacred sites and to accommodate Indians' access to and use of sacred sites.

    Exhibit 2. Responsibilities

    1. Some commenters recommended moving this section farther back in the document, perhaps including it as an appendix to highlight the importance of the policy rather than the roles of various Federal positions. Response: We agree and have moved the table into an exhibit. The use of exhibits is consistent with other Service Manual policies.

    2. Several commenters asked that the policy identify the Service officials who have responsibility to liaison with non-tribal governments, agencies, or other entities. Response: This policy is focused on working with Native Americans, so this request is beyond its scope.

    Exhibit 3. Authorities

    1. Many commenters asked that we list each treaty in which the United States and tribes have recognized reserved rights to natural resources. Some commenters noted that we mention treaties quite a bit, without recognizing that many tribes do not have treaties. Some commenters asked that we include particular statutes through which Congress has stated the United States' legal relationship with tribes. Response: We are unable to add references to all the treaties and statutes that refer to individual tribes. They are too numerous to list in this document. Many tribes have several treaties or statutes, or both, with some overturning or modifying earlier citations. Individual treaties and statutes are more appropriately addressed through training at the local level.

    2. Several commenters recommended we include the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) to the authorities section. Response: We have added the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

    3. The authorities section should include the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Energy, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding Interagency Coordination and Collaboration for the Protection of Indian Sacred Sites, December 6, 2012. Response: We have added this MOU to the exhibit.

    Alaska-Specific Concerns

    1. We received several comments that focused on concerns specific to Alaska. Many commenters stated that while ANCs are not tribal governments and are not treated as sovereigns, the United States has a responsibility to consult with ANCs on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order 13175. They recommended that we include the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199) in the authorities section. In addition, several commenters noted that, while the Service has stated that it will adopt an Alaska regional policy, the national policy must also address the Service's relationship with ANCs. Commenters pointed out that many national level proposals and plans have a substantial and direct impact on ANCs and other Alaska Native entities, so ANCs should be considered on the national level. Response: We have adopted these comments. We have added authorities about consultation with ANCs to the authorities exhibit. We have included the requirement to consult with ANCs in sections 1 and 3 of the policy. In addition, the Alaska Region (Region 7) is in the process of drafting an Alaska-specific policy. Also in response to these comments, we have added a definition of Alaska Native Corporation to the definitions exhibit.

    2. Commenters from Alaska voiced concern that because the term “inter-tribal organization” is undefined, this provision might be interpreted as a limit on the agency's ability to consult with any group that is not a tribe or authorized by a tribe to consult on its behalf. Response: We have broadened the scope of “Alaska Native Organization (ANO)” to include a broad array of organizations that represent Alaska Natives, including, but not limited to, ANOs under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

    3. Commenters asked that the training and professional development opportunities anticipated by the Service for tribal governments should be extended to ANCs. Some stated that ANCs are valuable sources of traditional knowledge, have significant interests in receiving technical information, and asked that these policy provisions be expanded to include them. Response: We will consult with ANCs on the same basis as we consult with tribes, and we will also work with ANCs in all areas permissible by law.

    4. Some commenters believe that under ISDEAA, ANCs have the same status as tribes for the provision of many contract services. Response: ANCs are entitled to contract under title I of the ISDEAA. With respect to title IV self-governance funding agreements, 25 U.S.C. 458bb establishes that tribes are eligible to participate in the Department's Tribal Self-Governance Program. The regulations for the Program also allow consortia, defined as “an organization of Indian tribes that is authorized by those tribes to participate in self-governance.”

    Dated: January 20, 2016. Daniel M. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01615 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20039; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate a Cultural Item: Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Binghamton University, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural item listed in this notice meets the definition of a sacred object. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to Binghamton University. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe that believes it has a cultural affiliation with the cultural item should contact Binghamton University at the address below by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nina M. Versaggi, Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, telephone (607) 777-4786.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item in the possession of Binghamton University that meets the definition of sacred object under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural item. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Item(s)

    During the middle to late 1960s, the Anthropology Department at Binghamton University acquired a False Face mask made by an artist from the Six Nations, in Ontario, Canada. A typed index card accompanying the mask reads: “Broken Nose, Seneca Nation, Snapping Turtle Clan, Six Nations Reservation—Ontario.” The mask is carved wood with a black face with a red mouth, with a hole on one side (right side, facing out), and a pointed chin. The mask face has holes in the nose and metal eye inlays surrounding center eyeholes. The face is framed with yellow hair, and there are carved lines on the face.

    On March 11, 2003, Binghamton University hosted a consultation meeting for federally recognized tribes to review NAGPRA summaries as part of the process of determining cultural affiliation. A group of traditional representatives from the Cayuga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York); Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); and the Tuscarora Nation, met privately after the open consultation. In January of 2013, letters were sent to Seneca representatives asking for comments or claims on the mask. On September 22, 2015, Scott Abrams, Acting Director of the Seneca Nation of Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer contacted Binghamton University and formally requested repatriation of the Seneca mask. Binghamton University asked other Seneca representatives if they agreed. No comments were received.

    Determinations Made by Binghamton University

    Officials of Binghamton University have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the one cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object and the Seneca Nation.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the sacred object should contact Nina M. Versaggi, Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, telephone (607) 777-4786, before February 26, 2016. Repatriation of the sacred object to the Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York) Tribal Historic Preservation Office may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

    Binghamton University is responsible for notifying the Cayuga Nation; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Oneida Nation of New York; Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin; Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York); Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); and Tuscarora Nation that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 28, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01591 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20020; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and the California Department of Transportation have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the California Department of Transportation. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the California Department of Transportation at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Tina Biorn, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone (916) 653-0013, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the physical custody of the Fowler Museum at UCLA and under the control of the California Department of Transportation. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, CA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Barbareno Chumash Council; Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians; Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation; Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; Northern Chumash Tribe; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Ti'at Society; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.

    History and Description of the Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects

    In 1966 and 1967, human remains representing at minimum, 108 individuals were removed from Xucu (CA-SBA-1) in Santa Barbara County, CA. Excavations were undertaken by a UCLA field course directed by Patrick Finnerty for the State Division of Highways prior to construction of Highway 101. This work continued in 1967, in addition to excavations led by Gary Stickel within an adjacent cemetery. Both sets of collections were curated upon completion of analysis as provided in the permits. Not all of the 1966 burials were curated at UCLA, and their current location is unknown. Radiocarbon dates have occupation from 5500 B.C. through Spanish contact periods. In 1966, formal burials and fragmentary human remains were discovered and removed for curation. The total minimum number of individuals represented are 28, identified as 16 adults (1 male, 1 female, and 14 unidentified), 2 sub-adults, 2 juvenile, and 3 infants. Another 5 individuals were too fragmentary to identify age or sex. In 1967, 43 burials were formally identified, however several where left in-situ after recording them. In addition, fragmentary human remains were recovered. In total, a minimum number of 80 individuals can be identified as 60 adults, 3 sub-adults, 12 juveniles, 3 infants, and 2 perinatal. In addition 21 were identifiable as male and 11 as female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified for the burials found in 1966. The 726 associated funerary objects excavated in 1967 included 19 pieces and 1 bag of asphaltum fragments; 20 pieces of worked bone; 189 pieces and 3 bags of unmodified animal bone; 1 piece of charcoal; 12 pieces of hematite; 14 pieces of limonite; 1 fragment of a paper candlewick; 2 bags of soil samples; 1 wood fragment; 123 pieces and 2 bags of unmodified shell; 2 asphaltum plugged abalone shells; 22 shell beads; 7 bowl/mortar fragments; 167 groundstone tools and fragments; 139 chipped stone tools and flakes; and 1 steatite pipe.

    In 1969-1970, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Kasil (CA-SBA-87) in Santa Barbara County, CA. Excavations by G. James West occurred at the request of the Division of Highways as a salvage project undertaken prior to highway construction on Highway 101. Collections were accessioned at UCLA as they returned from the field. The village dates from A.D. 300 to 1500. Human remains consist of a single burial representing an adult male. The burial was disturbed when a bulldozer cut a trench on the upper terrace. Further investigation of the trench failed to show the exact burial location. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    From 1961 to 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from Rincon Point (CA-SBA-119) in Santa Barbara County, CA. Excavations in 1961 and 1962 were led by Patrick Finnerty while still in high school. Most of the human remains and artifacts have not been located, however at least some of three burials and objects have been found and curated at the Fowler Museum at UCLA. In 1963, excavations were directed by Keith Johnson with the UCLA Archaeological Survey preliminary as a salvage excavation due to the re-location of U.S. Highway 101 which would pass through the site. The collection was curated at UCLA upon completion of the field work. The site dates from 1735 to 1320 B.C. The human remains consist of a single burial with a minimum of two individuals: A sub-adult male and an adult, sex unknown. The three relocated burials represent a minimum of three individuals, one adult male, one juvenile, and one adult with undetermined sex. No known individuals were identified. The 16 associated funerary objects include 8 sandstone mortar fragments from a 1962 burial and 2 shell fragments, 1 bone hairpin, 3 biface, 1 unmodified animal bone, and 1 serpentine pendant from a 1963 burial.

    In 1968 and 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, 16 individuals were removed from Pitas Point (CA-VEN-27) in Ventura County, CA. Excavations were conducted by a University of California Archaeological Survey crew under the direction of Chester King. The excavation was part of a salvage project for the realignment of Highway 101, and took place on land owned by Caltrans. This collection was curated at UCLA after analysis was complete. Analysis of the artifacts places the site occupation to A.D. 1000-1550. Three formal burials and fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts include 13 adults (2 male, 1 female, and 10 unidentified), 1 juvenile, and 1 infant. One fragmentary remain could not be aged or sex determined. No known individuals were identified. The 50 associated funerary objects include 2 bags and 6 pieces of unmodified animal bone, 2 worked bone fragments, 1 bag of charcoal, 6 bags of asphaltum, 1 bag and 2 individual tarring pebbles, 5 bags of unmodified shell, 1 shell fishhook fragment, 1 shell bead fragment, 21 chipped stone flakes and tools, 1 fire cracked rock, and 1 pestle.

    The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

    The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. At the southern and southeastern boundaries of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva languages and beliefs systems. At the northern boundary of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash and Salinan groups. The sites in this notice are located in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. However, they do state that Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva territories were and are occupied by socially distinct, yet interrelated, groups which have been characterized by anthropologists. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

    The associated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Determinations Made by the California Department of Transportation

    Officials of the California Department of Transportation have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 130 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 792 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Tina Biorn, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone (916) 653-0013, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

    The California Department of Transportation is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 21, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01594 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20021; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and California Department of Transportation, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, have determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the California Department of Transportation. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the California Department of Transportation at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Tina Biorn, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone (916) 653-0013, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the California Department of Transportation that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    In February 1997, 4,280 burial objects were removed from CA-LAN-2233 in Los Angeles County, CA. The California Department of Transportation initiated an emergency recovery effort of burials in the path of construction to improve State Route 126. An archeologist had previously found a burial on an adjacent private property and notified the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as construction began. During staff efforts to locate the burial, evidence of additional burials were found. Staff terminated the exploratory effort and came back with a crew consisting of trained osteologists from the Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Sacramento, and Caltrans staff, under the direction of Dr. Georgie Waugh, to recover the burials. In August 1997, six more burials were found during highway construction and additional recovery excavations were conducted by Dr. Phillip Walker and students of University of California (UC) Santa Barbara. Over the course of the project, a total of 45 burials were located and transported to UC Santa Barbara for analysis. All human remains and non-artifactual and artifactual grave associated items identified were reburied as directed by the Most Likely Descendant designated by the California Native American Heritage Commission. Recent consultations resulted in the identification of additional funerary objects because of their proximity to the burials. The unassociated funerary objects are 1 stone core, 1,415 pieces of stone debitage, 3 pieces of modified bone, 2,828 pieces of unmodified faunal bone, 1 soil sample, 6 bags of charcoal samples, and 24 fragments and 2 bags of seed/nut pieces. Two components were identified: An earlier Millingstone adaptation that occurred at least prior to 2000 years ago, and perhaps as early as 3000-4000 years ago, and a later component securely dated to at least 2000 to 1630 years ago. The burials are associated with this later component.

    In 1966 and 1967, 502 burial items were removed from Xucu (CA-SBA-1) in Santa Barbara County, CA. Excavations were undertaken by a UCLA field course directed by Patrick Finnerty for the State Division of Highways prior to construction of Highway 101. This work continued in 1967, in addition to excavations led by Gary Stickel within an adjacent cemetery. Both sets of collections were curated upon completion of analysis as provided in the permits. Not all of the 1966 burials were curated at UCLA, and their current location is unknown. Radiocarbon dates have occupation from 5500 B.C. through Spanish contact periods. In 1966, formal burials and fragmentary human remains were discovered and removed for curation. While the catalog lists some associated funerary objects for “Burial 1, 2, 3, and 5,” none of the formal burials have been located, and therefore all burial objects are recorded as unassociated funerary objects. The total number of objects from these features is 328, which includes 280 fragments and 3 bags of unmodified animal bones, 1 worked bone, 1 atlatl, 1 core, 10 flakes, 26 fragments and 1 bag of unmodified shell, 1 stone fragment, 1 hammerstone, 1 mortar fragment, 1 net weight, and 1 spire-lopped shell bead. The 1967 excavations derive from a cemetery context. In addition to the burials there were also many features found directly above or close to the burials, but not in direct association. The total number of objects from these features is 174, which include 67 unmodified animal bone, 12 unmodified shell fragments, 1 discoidal, 14 chipped stone tools and flakes, 72 groundstone tools and fragments, and 8 mortar fragments.

    From 1961-1963, two burial objects were removed from Rincon Point (CA-SBA-119) in Santa Barbara County, CA. Excavations in 1961 and 1962 were led by Patrick Finnerty, while still in high school. Most of the human remains and artifacts have not been located, however, at least some of three burials and objects have been found and curated at the Fowler Museum at UCLA. The site dates from 1735-1320 B.C. A few of the burial objects associated with the 1961 field season have been curated at UCLA. Since the associated human remains have not been located, these objects are included here as unassociated funerary objects. They are one abrading stone and one megathura shell ornament.

    The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

    The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. At the southern and southeastern boundaries of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva languages and beliefs systems. At the northern boundary of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash and Salinan groups. The sites in this notice are located in the northwestern Los Angeles County and Santa Barbara County and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. However, they do state that Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva territories were and are occupied by socially distinct, yet interrelated, groups which have been characterized by anthropologists. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

    The unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Determinations Made by the California Department of Transportation

    Officials of the California Department of Transportation have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 4,784 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Tina Biorn, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone 916-653-0013, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

    The California Department of Transportation is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 21, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01605 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20042] Notice of Inventory Completion: San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The San Diego Museum of Man has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit written request to the San Diego Museum of Man. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organization stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the San Diego Museum of Man at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ben Garcia, Deputy Director, San Diego Museum of Man, 1350 El Prado, San Diego, CA 92101, telephone (619) 239-2001 ext. 17, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from various locations in the La Jolla area of San Diego, San Diego County, CA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the San Diego Museum of Man professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo Indian Reservation, California; Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California: (Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation, California; Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Viejas Reservation, California); Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, California; Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, California (previously listed as the Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Santa Ysabel Reservation); Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation, California; Jamul Indian Village of California; La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian Reservation, California; Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation, California; Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Indian Reservation, California; San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California; and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, hereafter referred to as “The Tribes.”

    History and Description of the Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects

    Between 1925 and 1929, human remains representing, at minimum, 15 individuals were recovered by Malcom J. Rogers from CA-SDI-39 and CA-SDI-18307 (W-1 and W-2). At an unknown date prior to 1941, Rogers transferred this collection to the San Diego Museum of Man. No known individuals were identified. The 3 associated funerary objects are 1 lot of 11 faunal remains and 2 olivella shell beads.

    In 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were recovered in a salvage operation from CA-SDI-18307 (W-2). This individual was collected by Rose Tyson on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Between 1929 to 1945, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were recovered from CA-SDI-4670 (W-5) by Malcolm J. Rogers on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man as a part of salvage archeology operations. The 4 associated funerary objects are 1 metate, 1 mano, 1 scraper/plane, and 1 lot of olivella shell beads.

    On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from an unknown location. These human remains lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, name of the collector, or collection documentation beyond their association with CA-SDI-4670 (W-5). No known individuals were identified. The 2 associated funerary objects are 1 stone fragment and 1 shell.

    In 1943, human remains representing, at minimum, 32 individuals were recovered from CA-SDI-525 (W-9) by Malcolm J. Rogers on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man as a part of salvage archeology operations conducted during World War II Army construction. No known individuals were identified. The 12 associated funerary objects include 3 utilized flakes, 4 olivella shell beads, 2 olivella shells, 1 lot of olivella shell beads, 1 core tool, and 1 protothaca shell.

    Between 1958 and 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were collected from CA-SDI-525 (W-9) by Carl L. Hubbs, G. Shumway, J. Moriarity, and C. Warren during the home construction of two Scripps Estate Association Lots. In 1972, these remains were donated to the San Diego Museum of Man by Carl Hubbs. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Between 1929 and 1952, human remains representing, at minimum, 8 individuals were recovered from CA-SDI-4669 (W-12) by Malcolm J. Rogers during numerous recoveries due to construction on the William H. Black Estate. These collections were either recovered on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man or transferred by Rogers to the Museum of Man prior to 1953. No known individuals were identified. The 5 associated funerary objects are 4 metates and 1 mano.

    In 1948, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were collected from CA-SDI-4669 (W-12) during San Diego Museum of Man field work. No known individuals were identified. The 55 associated funerary objects are 4 battered stones, 4 utilized flakes, 6 stones, 1 core tools, 2 bone awls, 1 ring stone, 24 flakes, and 13 shells.

    In 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected from CA-SDI-4669 (W-12) by Carr Tuthill on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man due to construction on the William H. Black Estate. No known individuals were identified. The 1 associated funerary object is 1 lot of stone beads.

    These five sites were originally identified by Malcolm J. Rogers and designated as: W-1 (CA-SDI-39) and W-2 (CA-SDI-18307), known as the Spindrift/La Jolla Shores sites; W-5 (CA-SDI-4670) known as the Middle Midden; W-9 (CA-SDI-525), later named the Cemetery; and W-12 (CA-SDI-4669) known as Skeleton Hill. Excavations from these sites were conducted by Rogers, as well as other individuals, including San Diego Museum of Man staff. Many of these excavations occurred while Rogers was employed by the San Diego Museum of Man. These five sites are all located within well-known and documented aboriginal territories of the Kumeyaay Nation. Based on archeological evidence, geographic location, ethnographic information, and oral history evidence, these remains have been identified as Native American.

    Determinations Made by the San Diego Museum of Man

    Officials of the San Diego Museum of Man have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 66 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 82 associated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Kumeyaay Nation, as represented by The Tribes.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants and representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ben Garcia, Deputy Director, San Diego Museum of Man, 1350 El Prado, San Diego, CA 92101, telephone (619) 239-2001 ext. 17, email [email protected], February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed.

    The San Diego Museum of Man is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 29, 2015. Amberleigh Malone, Acting Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01588 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20018; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and California Department of Parks and Recreation, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, have determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the California Department of Parks and Recreation at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Leslie Hartzell, Ph.D., NAGPRA Coordinator, Cultural Resources Division Chief, California State Parks, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001, telephone (916) 653-9946, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the California Department of Parks and Recreation that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    In 1954, two burial objects were removed from Arroyo Sequit (CA-LAN-52) in Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Clement Meighan as a UCLA Department of Anthropology and Sociology field school to salvage information from portions of the site that were to be lost due to highway widening. This collection was curated at UCLA after analysis was complete. The excavations were located on lands belonging to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Arroyo Sequit is also recorded as the village of Lisiqshi with a radiocarbon date of A.D. 610 ±100, placing occupation in the Late Period through Spanish contact. The excavation notes indicate that an adult female burial was excavated (Burial 1). The human remains from this burial were not curated at UCLA and notes indicate the human remains were donated to Freddie Curtis in 1958. The current location of these human remains is unknown to UCLA. The two objects, a projectile point and a flake scraper associated with Burial 1, are present in the collection. Because the human remains are not at UCLA, these objects are considered unassociated funerary objects under NAGPRA.

    In 1970 and 1971, 8,475 cultural items were removed from Humaliwu (CA-LAN-264) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. Nelson N. Leonard obtained permission to have a UCLA Anthropology field course conduct research, which included excavation of the historic cemetery on California Department of Parks and Recreation property. Collections were accessioned at UCLA as they returned from the field. The village dates from A.D. 550-1805. Excavations included the village's historic cemetery, and while all items identified as being associated with a particular burial were included in a separate Notice of Inventory Completion, excavators further identified objects recovered from the cemetery in general. In consultation with descendent communities, all items from the cemetery were requested for repatriation and are included as unassociated funerary objects. The unassociated funerary objects are 191 lumps, plugs, and fragments, 30 bags of asphaltum fragments many with basketry, wood, and fabric impressions, 698 pieces and 19 bags of unmodified animal bone, 14 pieces of worked bone, 1 ceramic fragment, 7 bags of charcoal, 1 bag of clay fragments with basketry impression, 1 adobe fragment, 3 glass bottle fragments, 1 worked glass piece, 1 cordage fragment, 24 whole and fragmented unmodified shells, 214 worked shell objects, 3 asphaltum plugged shell dishes, 2 steatite pendants, 1 elbow pipe, 1 soil sample bag, 6,524 individual stone, shell, and glass beads, 72 pieces of ochre, 10 bags and 9 wood fragments, 26 metal objects, 4 bullet shells, 1 bag of iron fragments, 1 column sample bag, 6 soapstone comals, 94 stone bowl fragments, 3 tarring pebbles, 414 chipped stone flakes and tools, 36 ground stone tools, and 63 stone fragments.

    The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

    The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. At the southern and southeastern boundaries of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva languages and beliefs systems. At the northern boundary of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash and Salinan groups. The sites in this notice are located in northwestern Los Angeles County and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. However, they do state that Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva territories were and are occupied by socially distinct, yet interrelated, groups which have been characterized by anthropologists. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

    The unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Determinations Made by the California Department of Parks and Recreation

    Officials of the California Department of Parks and Recreation have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 8,477 cultural items described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Leslie Hartzell, Ph.D., NAGPRA Coordinator, Cultural Resources Division Chief, California State Parks, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001, telephone (916) 653-9946, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

    The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 21, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01597 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20022; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and the California Department of Transportation have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and have determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the California Department of Transportation. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the California Department of Transportation at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Tina Biorn, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone (916) 653-0013, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the physical custody of the Fowler Museum at UCLA and under the control of the California Department of Transportation. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Los Angeles County, CA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation); and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Ti'at Society; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.

    History and Description of the Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects

    In 1945, 1963, 1967, and 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from Big Tujunga Wash (CA-LAN-167) in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated in 1963 by Jay Ruby of the UCLA Archaeological Survey. The excavation was carried out as a salvage project after a dragline digging operation for a sewer line exposed and damaged one burial within the highway right-of-way. The human remains from this burial were recovered at that time. Subsequent review of the collection also identified fragmentary remains from midden contexts. A second burial, excavated from the site sometime between 1945-1951, by Edwin Walker of the Southwest Museum, was included along with the 1963 collection under Accession Number 501 and is included here. In all, a minimum of four adults, an infant, and a juvenile are represented. Sex was unable to be determined for any of the human remains. Nelson N. Leonard led a second project during the summers of 1967 and 1968 as mitigation for the building of the Foothill Freeway over the site. From the 1967-68 project, a juvenile human molar was identified. Ruby dated the site to A.D. 435 to 1800. No known individuals were identified. The 14 associated funerary objects are animal bones recovered in proximity to the burial recovered in 1945.

    In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Hammack Street site in Los Angeles County, CA (CA-LAN-194). The site was excavated by Chester King of the University of California Davis Anthropology Department for the California Department of Transportation. The project was designed for mitigation of impacts to the site from freeway construction for the Marina Freeway. The collection was curated at UCLA after analysis. Site CA-LAN-194 dates to the historic period based on the artifact analyses. The human remains consists of three human bone removed from midden contexts representing at least three individuals. No age or sex could be determined due to their fragmentary nature. No known individuals were identified. Collection documentation does not indicate any burials or associated funerary objects.

    The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people.

    Linguistic and ethnohistoric evidence shows that these Takic-speaking peoples moved into the San Fernando Valley and greater Los Angeles area by at least 3000 B.C. These groups have a common heritage, but began to diverge after arrival. Analysis of historical records from missions in the Greater Los Angeles area shows that at the time of mission recruitment, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the occupants of the area were descended from the populations living in the area since 3000 B.C.

    The associated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 5,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. However, the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people currently lack federal recognition within a single unified tribe.

    At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed was not the tribal land of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. In 2014 and 2015, the Fowler Museum at UCLA consulted with Indian tribes who are recognized as aboriginal to the area from which these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed. None of these Indian tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains and associated funerary objects. In October 2015, the Fowler Museum at UCLA and California Department of Transportation agreed to transfer control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation).

    Determinations Made by the California Department of Transportation

    Officials of the California Department of Transportation have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry based on metric and non-metric analysis.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 14 items described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation).

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Tina Biorn, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone (916) 653-0013; email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation), may proceed.

    The California Department of Transportation is responsible for notifying the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation), that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 21, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01603 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-19979; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, Charleston, SC; Correction AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register on March 16, 2015. This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Charleston District at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mr. Alan Shirey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, ATTN: CESAC-PM-PL, 69A Hagood Avenue, Charleston, SC 29403-5107, telephone (843) 329-8166, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Charleston District of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Berkeley County, SC.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (80 FR 13614, March 16, 2015). Additional boxes of material that contained associated funerary objects were identified by the repository after the original inventory. These items were inventoried in March 2015, after the publication of the initial Notice. Transfer of control of the items in this correction notice has not occurred.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register (80 FR 13615, March 16, 2015), column 1, sentence 6, under the heading “History and Description of the Remains,” is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

    The 113,227 associated funerary objects are 3 beads, 323 ceramic sherds, 350 concretions, 106,771 faunal fragments, 60 fossils (shell and coral), 2,281 lithic flakes (orthoquartzite, chert, and quartz), 23 lithic tool fragments, 29 lots of faunal fragments, 95 lots of screened material, 99 soil samples, 228 lots of processed flotation. 4 lots of phytolith samples, 25 organics (wood, seeds, and snail shell), 1 piece of groundstone, 2,569 pieces of miscellaneous stone/pebbles, 97 pieces of charcoal, 1 glass fragment, 10 shell fragments, and 258 pieces of ochre (red and yellow).

    In the Federal Register (80 FR 13615, March 16, 2015), column 2, bullet 3, is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

    Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A) the 113,227 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Mr. Alan Shirey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, ATTN: CESAC-PM-PL, 69A Hagood Avenue, Charleston, SC 29403-5107, telephone (843) 329-8166, email [email protected] by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Catawba Indian Nation may proceed.

    The Charleston District of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers is responsible for notifying the Catawba Indian Nation that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 10, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01590 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20015; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Fowler Museum at UCLA. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Fowler Museum at UCLA at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Fowler Museum at UCLA that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    Sometime before 1972 and in 1991, 2,948 cultural items were removed from Encinal Canyon (CA-LAN-114) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. Accession 752 contains 49 cultural items identified as being associated with the burial found in Encinal Canyon. The site has been dated through diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon dating to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Historic contact. The human remains were not curated at the Fowler Museum, and therefore the burial items are identified as unassociated funerary objects. The unassociated funerary objects are 15 shell beads, 28 unmodified shell fragments, 5 groundstone fragments, and 1 marine animal bone. Accession 871 contains 2,899 cultural items removed by Brian Dillon during mitigation work in 1991 on a single parcel that was given to UCLA in 2001. All human remains were reinterred on site along with many of the funerary objects. There were many more funerary objects that were not interred and under NAGPRA are unassociated funerary objects. The unassociated funerary objects are 2,779 pieces of shell, 1 bag of shell fragments, 1 bag of charcoal, 2 pieces of worked bone, 1 piece of ochre, 10 shell beads, 22 grinding stones, 5 metate fragments, 45 pieces of flaked-stone tools and debitage, 1 metal button, 26 glass fragments, 1 cement fragment, and 5 pieces of historic tools.

    Between 1950 and 1969, 70 cultural items were removed from the Zuma Creek Site (CA-LAN-174) in Los Angeles County, CA. Salvage excavations were conducted at the site during 1968 and 1969 by Sally MacFadyen and Jinny McKenzie, as well as Thomas King and the University of California (UC) Archaeological Survey crew. Human remains from five burials were accessioned by UCLA in 1969 and 1986 and are contained in a separate Notice of Inventory Completion. The site produced a radiocarbon date of circa 3000 B.C. The field notes discuss human remains from the same excavations not curated at UCLA; funerary objects from these burials are, however, present in the collection and under NAGPRA are unassociated funerary objects. The unassociated funerary objects are 1 bag of shell fragments, 1 soil sample bag, 6 pieces of unmodified animal bone, 6 shell beads, 1 piece of burned clay, 24 ground stone tools, 7 stone fragments, 14 chipped-stone tools, 5 flaking cores, and 5 cobble fragments.

    In 1967, seven cultural items were removed from Russell Valley (CA-LAN-186) in Thousand Oaks, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Chester King during a salvage operation of this Late Period site (A.D. 700-1500) initiated to recover as much information as possible before it was destroyed by development. Field notes indicate seven artifacts unearthed by contractors were pulled from a cairn in association with Burial 1 as well as other isolated human remains. The human remains were left at the site, but the curated burial items—6 mortar fragments and 1 metate fragment—are unassociated funerary objects under NAGPRA.

    Between March and June 1968, one cultural item was removed from Trancas Canyon Cemetery (CA-LAN-197) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA, by the UC Archaeology Survey under the direction of John Beaton and aided by the Malibu Archaeological Society. The excavations took place on land owned by the Reco Land Company as a salvage project due to erosion and the construction of a shopping center. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1978. Radiocarbon dating from the cemetery estimates the site age to 370 B.C. The unassociated funerary object is one siltstone slab that was associated with Burial 5 (the human remains are not present in the collection).

    In March of 1960, 309 cultural items were removed from the Village of Sumo (CA-LAN-207) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. This site, located along an eroding cliff face, was excavated by a UCLA archeological field course led by M.B. McKusick. The land where the excavation took place was owned by a private mobile home park at the time of excavation. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1960. The cemetery is dated to circa 3050 B.C. Field notes indicate that a “scattered reburial” of human remains was found near Pit 4 with a concentration of shell beads and discs. The human remains were never brought to UCLA, although the 309 shell beads and discs were. Under NAGPRA, these items are unassociated funerary objects.

    In 1962 and 1963, 40 cultural items were removed from Paradise Cove (CA-LAN-222) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The first excavations were undertaken by a Pasadena City College field school, supervised by Richard H. Brooks, in the spring of 1962. During this time excavations were also undertaken jointly by a Santa Monica City College and UCLA field course supervised by Jack Smith. These collections were accessioned by UCLA after receiving them from Richard Brooks of the Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in 1987. In 1963, excavations continued with the joint Santa Monica City College and UCLA Anthropology field course directed by Chester King and Jack Smith. The resulting collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1964. Radiocarbon dating estimates age of the site is 2350 B.C. Accession 291 includes 30 cultural items labeled as being found in association with human remains not in the possession of the Fowler Museum. The unassociated funerary objects are 1 awl fragment, 14 manos, 4 stone balls, 1 projectile point, 6 stone flakes, 2 hammerstones, and 2 stone fragments. Accession 338 includes 10 cultural items. The unassociated funerary objects are 1 sandstone metate that was collected from an unexcavated burial and 3 pestles and 6 mortar fragments from the general burial area that were disturbed by bulldozer activities.

    In 1963, 26 cultural items were removed when Alex Apostolides directed a salvage project at the Mulholland Site (CA-LAN-246) in Los Angeles County, CA, before the construction of housing and to offset the pervasive vandalism that was occurring at the time. Dating of the site is to the Late Period (A.D. 1200-1500). The collection was accessioned by UCLA in November 1978. A number of burials and fragmentary human remains were found at the Mulholland Site. In addition, a number of items were identified as associated with burials although the human remains were either not curated at the Fowler Museum or not further excavated. The unassociated funerary objects are 20 shell ornaments, 4 unmodified animal bones, and 2 bags of charcoal.

    In 1955, 1958, and 1959, 328 cultural items were removed from Simo'mo (CA-VEN-24 aka VEN-26) in Ventura County, CA. UCLA field school excavations on private land were undertaken by Clement Meighan in 1955, David M. Pendergast in 1958, and by M.B. McKusick in 1959. The excavations were all accessioned by UCLA by 1959. The estimated age of the site is A.D. 300-1100. There are 328 cultural items that are associated with identified burials, but the human remains are not curated at UCLA. The unassociated funerary objects are 34 pieces of unmodified animal bone, 5 shell fragments, 39 shell inlaid bone tubes, 6 shell pendant fragments, 1 projectile point, 212 shell beads, 27 river cobbles, and 4 bowl fragments.

    In the summer of 1982, one cultural item was removed from CA-VEN-312 in Ventura County, CA. The collection derived from excavations directed by Brian Dillon in front of construction for Wildwood Homes. The collection was received at the Fowler Museum at UCLA in two parts. A small portion arrived in March of 1985, and a second portion in August of 1997. Other than a catalog, no other documentation was received for the collection. The catalog indicates that there were human remains excavated from Feature 1, however, no remains were curated by Dr. Dillon for this collection. A projectile point fragment was identified as being “in-situ associated” with the missing remains and is therefore classified as an unassociated funerary object.

    The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

    The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. The sites in this notice are located in northwestern Los Angeles County and Ventura County and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

    The unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Determinations Made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA

    Officials of the Fowler Museum at UCLA have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 3,730 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

    The Fowler Museum at UCLA is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 21, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01593 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20019; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and California Department of Parks and Recreation have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the California Department of Parks and Recreation at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Leslie Hartzell, Ph.D., NAGPRA Coordinator, Cultural Resources Division Chief, California State Parks, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001, telephone (916) 653-9946, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the physical custody of the Fowler Museum at UCLA and under the control of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Ventura and Los Angeles counties, CA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Barbareno Chumash Council; Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians; Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation; Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; Northern Chumash Tribe; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Ti'at Society; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.

    History and Description of the Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects

    In 1954 and 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, 40 individuals were removed from Arroyo Sequit (CA-LAN-52) in Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Clement Meighan as a UCLA Department of Anthropology and Sociology field school to salvage information from portions of the site that were to be lost due to highway widening. This collection was curated at UCLA after analysis was complete. Thomas King also conducted excavations at the site in 1970 with volunteers, and these artifacts were curated at UCLA after analysis as well. The excavations occurred on lands belonging to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Arroyo Sequit is also recorded as the village of Lisiqshi with a radiocarbon date of A.D. 610 +/−100, placing occupation in the Late Period through Spanish contact. No formal burials were curated at UCLA, but fragmentary human remains were identified from midden contexts totaling 31 individuals from the 1954 excavations, of which 21 were distinguished as adult, 7 as infants, and 2 as juvenile. One individual could not be aged and none of the human remains could be identified to sex. Human remains from the 1970 excavations represent a minimum of 9 individuals (4 adults, 2 juveniles, and 3 unidentified). Since most the human remains are single elements, none could be attributed to sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1970 and 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, 220 individuals were removed from Humaliwu (CA-LAN-264) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. Nelson N. Leonard obtained permission to have a UCLA Anthropology field course, which included excavation of the historic cemetery on California Department of Parks and Recreation property. Collections were accessioned at UCLA as they returned from the field. The village dates from A.D. 550-1805. The excavations identified 159 formal burials as well as additional fragmentary human remains from midden contexts. In total, a minimum of 220 individuals were identified (130 adults, 39 juveniles, 35 infants, 3 neonates, 5 perinates, and 8 unidentified), of which 20 adults were distinguishable as males and 16 females. No known individuals were identified. The 54,655 associated funerary objects include 1,192 fragments, lumps, and plugs of asphaltum; 15 bags of asphaltum many with basketry, wood, and fabric impressions; 366 pieces and 14 bags of unmodified animal bone; 17 pieces of worked bone; 2 pieces of ceramic; 27 fragments and 1 bag of charcoal; 1 glass pendant; 2 cordage fragments; 56 whole and fragmented shells; 264 worked shell objects; 29 bags of soil samples; 1 shell and 11 copper buttons; 51,849 individual stone, shell, and glass beads; 1 copper cup; 1 apothecary jar; 2 leather fragments; 2 possible plaster fragments; 77 pieces and 1 bag of ochre; 1 bag and 136 wood fragments; 31 metal objects; 1 bag of iron fragments; 8 comal fragments; 1 steatite bowl; 30 bowl fragments; 361 chipped stone flakes and tools; 97 ground stone tools; and 58 stone fragments.

    In 1983, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from CA-LAN-454 near Point Dume, Los Angeles, CA. Doug Armstrong and a UCLA Archaeological Survey crew conducted excavations on land owned by the California State Parks and Recreation. At some unknown time, a burial was loaned to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County for display. The museum returned the burial in 2000. The site dates from A.D. 0 to 800. The burial represents an adult female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were distinguished.

    In 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from CA-LAN-1111, near Corral Canyon, Los Angeles County, CA. Fred Ghiradelli led excavations for the State Department of Beaches and Parks at this prehistoric village site. After analysis, the collection was accessioned at UCLA. A single human phalanx was removed from the surface represented an individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In the summer of 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Big Sycamore Canyon (CA-VEN-89) in Ventura County, CA. The site was excavated by Chester King and a University of California (UC) Archaeological Survey crew on land owned by the California State Parks in preparation for the construction of recreational facilities that would impact the site. The collection was accessioned at UCLA after analysis. The site is estimated to date to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1869) through Spanish contact, as the site was recorded as the village of Shuwalashu. Fragmentary human remains represent two adult individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from CA-VEN-101 in Ventura County, CA. Nelson N. Leonard and a UC Archaeological Survey crew excavated the site as part of a larger survey project in the La Jolla Valley at Point Mugu State Park. The collection was curated at UCLA upon completion of analysis. The site dates from A.D. 200-400. Two human bone elements from a shell midden represent a single adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

    The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. At the southern and southeastern boundaries of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva languages and beliefs systems. At the northern boundary of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash and Salinan groups. The sites in this notice are located in northwestern Los Angeles County and Ventura County and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. However, they do state that Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva territories were and are occupied by socially distinct, yet interrelated, groups which have been characterized by anthropologists. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

    The associated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Determinations Made by the California Department of Parks and Recreation

    Officials of the California Department of Parks and Recreation have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 265 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 54,655 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Leslie Hartzell, Ph.D., NAGPRA Coordinator, Cultural Resources Division Chief, California State Parks, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001, telephone (916) 653-9946, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

    The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 21, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01595 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20017; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Fowler Museum at UCLA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Fowler Museum at UCLA at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Fowler Museum at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from sites within Los Angeles County, CA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation); and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Ti'at Society; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.

    History and Description of the Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects

    In the spring of 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from Sa'angna, the Admiralty Site in Los Angeles County, CA (CA-LAN-47). The site was excavated by Keith Johnson and F. Brauer in a volunteer salvage effort to preserve archeological human remains after sewer trenching initiated by the owner disturbed and exposed Burial 1. More burials were uncovered by workmen during construction of the Warehouse Restaurant in Marina Del Rey. The human remains were sent to UCLA's Archaeological Survey for analysis. The Admiralty Site is estimated to date to between A.D. 470 and 645, based on radiocarbon dating. Upon completion of analysis, the collection was accessioned at the Fowler Museum at UCLA in 1969. The human remains from all excavations at the site consist of a minimum of 10 individuals from six formally identified burials. Further analysis identified four adult females; one adult male; one adult, sex unknown; one juvenile (8-9 years old); and three sets of human remains that were too fragmentary to provide age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 140 associated funerary objects are 1 modified object, 112 unmodified animal bones, 2 chert flakes, 2 projectile points, 11 bone harpoons, 1 tarring pebble, 1 modified pebble, 1 worked serpentine fragment, 2 modified crystals, 1 unmodified shell fragment, and 6 worked shell fragments.

    In 1983 and 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Playa del Rey Site #1 (CA-LAN-59), also known as the Hughes Site, in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated using a combination of heavy machinery and wet screening by Brian D. Dillon, David M. Van Horn, and James R. Murray. In 1994, fragmentary human remains were identified among the faunal remains during analysis at the UCLA Institute of Zooarchaeology Laboratory by Susan Colby. Upon notification of the situation in 1996, Van Horn indicated that he did not want the material returned. The entire collection was then accessioned into the Fowler Museum at UCLA for inclusion in UCLA's NAGPRA inventory as per the suggestion of Larry Myers, Executive Secretary of the California Native American Heritage Commission. Radiocarbon dating from Playa del Rey Site #1 is estimated to date to A.D. 430-870, with diagnostic artifacts from the Early Period (5000-600 B.C.) present in the collection. There are three extremely fragmentary individuals of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from Playa del Rey Site #2 (CA-LAN-61), also known as the Loyola Marymount Site, in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by the Archaeological Associates of Sun City. Fragmentary human remains were identified among faunal remains from the collection during analysis at the UCLA Institute of Zooarchaeology Laboratory by Susan Colby. Upon notification of the situation in 1996, Van Horn indicated that he did not want the material returned. The entire collection was accessioned into the Fowler Museum at UCLA for inclusion in UCLA's NAGPRA inventory as per the suggestion of Larry Myers, Executive Secretary of the California Native American Heritage Commission. Radiocarbon dating at Playa del Rey Site #2 estimates occupation to between 1390 B.C. and A.D. 440. One juvenile individual of unknown sex is represented by a single tooth. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals were removed from Playa del Rey Site #4 (CA-LAN-63), also known as The Del Rey Site, in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by the Archaeological Associates of Sun City. Fragmentary human remains were identified among faunal remains from the collection during analysis at the UCLA Institute of Zooarchaeology Laboratory by Susan Colby. Upon notification of the situation in 1996, Van Horn indicated that he did not want the material returned. The entire collection was accessioned into the Fowler Museum at UCLA for inclusion in UCLA's NAGPRA inventory as per the suggestion of Larry Myers, Executive Secretary of the California Native American Heritage Commission. The Playa del Rey Site #4 is estimated to have had mostly continuous occupation from 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000. Fragmentary human remains represent one adult, one juvenile, and ten individuals that could not be identified to age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Playa del Rey Site #5 (CA-LAN-64), also known as The Bluff Site, in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by the Archaeological Associates of Sun City. Fragmentary human remains were identified among faunal remains from the collection during analysis at the UCLA Institute of Zooarchaeology Laboratory by Susan Colby. Upon notification of the situation in 1996, Van Horn indicated that he did not want the material returned. The entire collection was accessioned into the Fowler Museum at UCLA for inclusion in UCLA's NAGPRA inventory as per the suggestion of Larry Myers, Executive Secretary of the California Native American Heritage Commission. The Playa del Rey Site #5 is estimated to have had mostly continuous occupation from 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000. Extremely fragmentary human remains represent a minimum of three juveniles and one individual that could not be identified to age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    At some time before 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from 5802 Parapet Street, Lakeside Village (CA-LAN-131) in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by Hal Eberhart after discovery of human remains on private property. The human remains were brought to UCLA from the Norwalk Police Station after they were determined to be Native American and received at UCLA in 1950. Very little information accompanied the human remains to the Fowler Museum, but later excavations identified the location as from a Prehistoric site. Human remains from Burial A-3 represent a male individual of approximately 20 years of age. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Sometime before 1946, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from 827 N. Glendale Avenue (CA-LAN-132) in Glendale, Los Angeles County, CA. Upon discovery of the human remains at the property, the police were notified, who in turn contacted the Southwest Museum when it was determined that the human remains were burials of Native Americans. Excavations were carried out by Donald Costans and Mr. Talk, during which time three more burials were uncovered, making a total of five. All burials were originally donated to the Southwest Museum in 1946, and it is thought that Hal Eberhart arranged for two of the burials to be transferred to UCLA. Burials 3 and 5 were received at UCLA around 1949. Very little information accompanied the human remains to the Fowler Museum and none of the artifacts. Osteology analysis confirmed the human remains are Native American and the excavations of the time confirmed a Prehistoric age. Burial 3 represents an adult individual of unknown sex, while Burial 5 represents an adult female and a second individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from Centinela Creek (CA-LAN-193) northeast of Ballona Point, in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. This site was excavated in the spring of 1939 by Ralph Beals, the first UCLA Anthropology Professor, and accessioned into UCLA's Anthropology collections sometime before 1945. The site age is estimated to be from the Late Period. Fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts represent six individuals of unknown age and sex, and one adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1969, human remains of, at minimum, two individuals were removed from between 109 and 111 Street along the west side of Alameda Street (CA-LAN-385) in Los Angeles County, CA. According to Melinda Horne of Applied Earthworks, the site was recorded and excavated by Thomas King during the construction of buildings associated with the Jorgensen Steel Company in 1969. The collection was received at UCLA after analysis. Occupation of the site dates to at least Historic contact based on diagnostic artifacts and the site is identified as the ethnohistorically recorded village site of Ha'utnga. Human remains from Burial 1 represent one adult female individual and one individual of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. The 6 associated funerary objects include 1 glass fragment, 2 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified faunal bone, 1 bag of unmodified shell fragments, and 1 bag of fire-cracked rock.

    In 1975 and 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from Sims Pond Site (CA-LAN-702) in Los Alamitos, Los Angeles County, CA. This collection is the result of salvage excavations completed by Marie Cottrell in 1975, and Lawrence P. Allen in 1979, before construction began at the site. In 1975, Archaeological Research Incorporated conducted a Test Level investigation under the direction of Cottrell. In 1983, Cottrell contracted with UCLA for the collection to be curated in perpetuity at the Fowler Museum. The site is estimated to date from 1300 B.C. through A.D. 1399. Fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts represent five individuals of unknown age and sex, two adult individuals of unknown sex, and one juvenile individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Burrell Site (CA-LAN-999) in Torrance, Los Angeles, CA. The site, on Palos Verdes Peninsula, is on former U.S. Army Missile site property. It is important to note that a portion of LAN-999 was destroyed during the missile site construction. A.V. Eggers discovered the site in May 1978, while an archeological reconnaissance of the property was being conducted. At the request of Burrell Ltd., Martin D. Rosen, Survey Archaeologist at UCLA, excavated the site in 1979. The estimated site age is Late Period (A.D. 700-1769). Human remains from Burial 1 represent an adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. The 121 associated funerary objects include 72 shell artifacts, 46 stone flakes, and 3 unworked animal bones.

    In 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a Prehistoric site in Palos Verdes (CA-LAN-1351), Los Angeles County, CA. Robert Rechtman led a surface survey in front of development on private land. This collection was received for curation at UCLA in April of 1988. Fragmentary human remains collected during survey represent one individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Mulholland Drive, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, CA. The collection was a set of human remains identified as Native American by Frank R. Webb, M.D., of the Los Angeles Coroner's Office in July 1942. The only documentation, a hand written note, indicates that the Southwest Museum received the collection in 1942 and later transferred it to UCLA around 1950. The exact location of the excavation or any other information concerning the circumstances of the excavation is unknown. The Coroner cataloged the human remains as Prehistoric without further information. Osteological analysis confirmed the human remains as being of a Native American adult male. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through consultation to be within the traditional territories of the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people.

    Linguistic and ethnohistoric evidence shows that these Takic-speaking peoples moved into the San Fernando Valley and greater Los Angeles area by at least 3000 B.C. These groups have a common heritage, but began to diverge after arrival. Analysis of historical records from missions in the Greater Los Angeles area shows that at the time of mission recruitment, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the occupants of the area were descended from the populations living in the area since 3000 B.C.

    The associated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 5,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. However, the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people currently lack federal recognition within a single unified tribe.

    At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed was not the tribal land of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. In 2014 and 2015, the Fowler Museum at UCLA consulted with Indian tribes who are recognized as aboriginal to the area from which these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed. None of these Indian tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains and associated funerary objects. In October 2015, the Fowler Museum at UCLA agreed to transfer control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation).

    Determinations Made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA

    Officials of the Fowler Museum at UCLA have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 54 individuals of Native American ancestry based on metric and non-metric analysis.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 267 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation).

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation), may proceed.

    The Fowler Museum is responsible for notifying the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation), that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 21, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01600 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-19978; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Boulder City, NV AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to Lake Mead National Recreation Area. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Lake Mead National Recreation Area at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Lizette Richardson, Superintendent, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 601 Nevada Highway, Boulder City, NV 89005, telephone (702) 293-8920, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Boulder City, NV. The human remains were removed from site X:8:7, Yuma County, AZ.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Lake Mead National Recreation Area professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

    History and Description of the Remains

    In March 1951, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site X:8:7 on private land in Yuma County, AZ. National Park Service archeologist Albert H. Schroeder collected the fragmentary cremation with the permission of the landowner during an archeological survey of the Lower Colorado River. Three artifacts—two three-quarter groove, double-bitted polished axes and one small triangular obsidian point—may also have been removed, but their location is unknown. The cremation has been in the possession of Lake Mead National Recreation Area since its removal. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Mr. Schroeder's 1952 report identified the cremation as a prehistoric Native American individual of unspecified gender, likely Hohokam. All available lines of evidence support the archeological identification of the remains as Hohokam. The Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona are known to be descendants of the Hohokam people. During consultation, representatives from each of these tribes stated that their oral traditions show cultural affiliation with the Hohokam. The ethnographic, archeological, and historical evidence supports that affiliation.

    Determinations Made by Lake Mead National Recreation Area

    Officials of Lake Mead National Recreation Area have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Tribes.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Lizette Richardson, Superintendent, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 601 Nevada Highway, Boulder City, NV 89005, telephone (702) 293-8920, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed.

    Lake Mead National Recreation Area is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 10, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01589 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-20016; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fowler Museum at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Fowler Museum at UCLA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Fowler Museum at UCLA at the address in this notice by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Fowler Museum at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties, CA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Barbareno Chumash Council; Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians; Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation; Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; Northern Chumash Tribe; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Ti'at Society; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.

    History and Description of the Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects

    In 1957, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Lower Tank Site (CA-LAN-2) near Topanga, Los Angeles County, CA, where Keith Johnson led a UCLA field school course on privately owned land. The Lower Tank Site is estimated to date between 1000 and 0 B.C., based on radiocarbon dating. After analysis, the collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1961. Three formal burials were identified and consist of two adults and a juvenile. One adult could be further identified as male. No known individuals were identified. The seven associated funerary objects include five unmodified faunal bones, one metate, and one mano.

    In 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from the Puerco Site (CA-LAN-19) near Malibu, Los Angeles, CA, where James West lead a UCLA field course on privately-owned land as part of the University of California (UC) Archaeological Survey in preparation for proposed freeway work. The Puerco Site is estimated to date between 600 B.C. and A.D. 1769, based on the presence of artifact types in the collection. After analysis, the collection was accessioned in 1977. Fragmentary human remains represent four adult individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from CA-LAN-45 near Topanga, Los Angeles County, CA, where Keith Johnson lead a UCLA field course on privately-owned land. The site, CA-LAN-45, dates to between A.D. 1250 and 1769, based on the artifact types in the collection. After analysis, the collection was accessioned in the fall of 1963. Fragmentary human remains represent a minimum of two adult individuals. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    At an unknown date between 1900 and 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Sequit Creek Indian Mound (CA-LAN-52) in Los Angeles County, CA. The human remains were received at an unknown date by the UCLA Biology Department as part of the Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection and were subsequently transferred to the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology and Zooarchaeology Lab in August 1995, and then to Fowler Museum in September 1995 to be inventoried for NAGPRA compliance. Being that there is little to no original documentation for the human remains, they have been attributed to CA-LAN-52 because they are labeled with location information, and the site is known to have been heavily looted since at least the late 1800s. The human remains are estimated to date to A.D. 610 +/−100, based on radiocarbon dating. The fragmentary human remains represent two adult individuals, sex unknown, and one infant individual. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    Sometime before 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from CA-LAN-95 in San Fernando, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were undertaken by USC students after the human remains of a Native American individual were found to be eroding from private property. At an unknown date, the collection was received by the Hancock Foundation, who subsequently donated the collection to UCLA sometime around 1950. Very little information accompanied the collection to the Fowler Museum, but the human remains were determined to be Native American based on osteological analysis. Fragmentary human remains represent a juvenile between four and six years of age. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is an unmodified faunal bone fragment.

    Sometime before 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Encinal Canyon (CA-LAN-114) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The human remains are thought to have been excavated by John Beaton and were accessioned in 1972. Although the site has been excavated several times, no specific age for the site has been determined other than prehistoric. Fragmentary human remains represent one individual of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    Sometime before 1952, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Pacific Coast Highway (CA-LAN-133, formerly CA-LAN-190), in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The collection was received by UCLA in 1952 from Mr. Gonzales, who had excavated the burial on private property. The human remains of an adult male were determined to be Native American based on osteological analysis. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1978 and 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals were removed from Stunt Ranch (CA-LAN-153) in Los Angeles County, CA. Clement Meighan led two field courses with the cooperation of the Jennings Engineering Company, who was developing the property before the land was acquired by UCLA. Clement Meighan dated the site to between A.D. 1250 and 1769, based on the presence of diagnostic artifact types. During excavations, six formal burials were identified in addition to fragmentary human remains. The human remains could be further identified as representing five adult and one infant of unknown sex. At least three individuals were cremated, and two others were too fragmentary to identify either age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 80 associated funerary objects are 6 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified animal bone, 60 unmodified shell fragments, 12 stone fragments, and 1 obsidian biface.

    In 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Santa Maria Site (CA-LAN-162) in Topanga Canyon, Los Angeles County, CA. At the request of the Montevideo Country Club, excavations were conducted throughout 1987 by Dr. Brian Dillon and assistant Justin Hyland for compliance with proposed development of the site. The collection was accessioned in April 1997. The site age is estimated to span from between 600 B.C. and A.D. 1769. Fragmentary human remains from Burials 1 and 2 represent two adult individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    Between 1950 and 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, 27 individuals were removed from the Zuma Creek Site (CA-LAN-174) in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was first excavated in 1950 by Stuart Peck. It was excavated again in 1952 and 1957 by Clement Meighan as part of a UCLA field school. From these excavations, human remains from seventeen burials were accessioned in 1957. Later salvage excavations were conducted at the site during 1968 and 1969 by Sally MacFadyen and Jinny McKenzie, as well as by Thomas King and the UC Archaeological Survey crew. Human remains from five burials deriving from these excavations were accessioned by UCLA in 1969, after analysis was completed. The site produced a radiocarbon date of 3000 B.C. ± 200 years. The first set of excavations included human remains of 13 adults (6 female, 4 male, and 3 indeterminate), 4 juveniles, and 2 infants. The second set of excavations included six adults (2 female, 1 male, and 3 indeterminate), a juvenile, and an infant. No known individuals were identified. From both sets of excavations, the 178 associated funerary objects are 14 stone fragments, 5 cobbles, 32 groundstone artifacts, 65 flaked stone artifacts, 16 pieces and 3 bags of unmodified shell, 23 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified animal bone, 2 worked bone artifacts, 2 glass fragments, 3 ochre fragments, 5 worked shell artifacts, 1 bag of soil, 5 asphaltum fragments, and 1 bag of asphaltum with basketry impressions.

    In 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Russell Valley (CA-LAN-186), in Thousand Oaks, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Chester King during a salvage operation of this Late Period site (A.D. 700-1500). Fragmentary human remains were identified from midden contexts representing at least one individual of unknown age or sex. The collection was accessioned in 1967. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1951, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Pacific Coast Highway (CA-LAN-195) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The human remains had been exposed during construction and were disinterred by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, Malibu Sub-station. UCLA received the human remains in 1951. Based on osteological analysis the human remains were identified as an adult female and an adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. A single unmodified sea mammal bone was recovered and is assumed to be an associated funerary object.

    Between March and June 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, 129 individuals were removed from Trancas Canyon Cemetery (CA-LAN-197) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA, by the UC Archaeology Survey under the direction of John Beaton and aided by the Malibu Archaeological Society. The excavations took place on land owned by the Reco Land Company as a salvage project due to erosion and the construction of a shopping center. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1978. Radiocarbon dating produced from the cemetery estimate the site age to 370 B.C. ± 58 years but continues through Spanish contact. Human remains from these excavations were further identified to age and sex, when possible, including 78 adults (32 male, 21 female, and 25 indeterminate), 4 sub-adults, 28 juveniles, and 14 infants were identified. Another five individuals were too fragmentary to determine age or sex. No known individuals. The 718 associated funerary objects include: 28 pieces and 1 bag of asphaltum fragments, 87 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified animal bone, 27 worked bone fragments, 1 charcoal fragment, 50 pieces and 1 bag of flaked stone artifacts, 4 copper fragments, 15 pieces and 1 bag of ochre fragments, 11 groundstone pieces, 84 shell beads, 182 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified shell, 206 pieces and 4 bags of cobbles/pebbles, and 14 stone fragments.

    In 1953, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from Zuma Creek, also known as Zuma Creek “G” (CA-LAN-201, LAN-19) near Point Dume in Los Angeles County, CA. The collection was excavated by Clement W. Meighan as a UCLA research project. The estimated age of the site was not determined. The human remains were from a known prehistoric site and determined to be Native American based on osteological analysis. Fragmentary human remains from Burial A-13 represents one adult female individual, one adult possible female individual, one juvenile individual of unknown sex, and two adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1962 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, 45 individuals were removed from Paradise Cove (CA-LAN-222) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The first set of excavations was undertaken by a Pasadena City College field school, supervised by Richard H. Brooks, in the spring of 1962. During this time excavations were also undertaken jointly with a Santa Monica City College and UCLA field course supervised by Jack Smith. These collections were accessioned by UCLA after receiving them from Richard H. Brooks of the Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas in 1987. In 1963, excavations continued with the joint Santa Monica City College and UCLA Anthropology field school course directed by Chester King and Jack Smith. The resulting collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1964. The estimated age of the site based on radiocarbon dating is 2350 B.C. ± 80 years. Fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts in 1962 represent a minimum of 10 individuals: 6 adults, a juvenile, and 3 individuals of unknown age or sex. From the 1963 excavations, human remains were recovered from 8 burials and from midden contexts. These human remains represent a minimum of 35 individuals: 17 adults (2 male, 2 female, and 13 indeterminate), 1 sub-adult, 8 juveniles, 3 infants, and 6 individuals whose age and sex could not be determined. No known individuals were identified. The 39 associated funerary objects were recovered from the second set of excavations and include: 6 unmodified animal bones, 3 worked bones, 2 limestone cobble unifaces, 3 chert scrapers, 1 limestone hammerstone, 1 sandstone metate fragment, 12 asphaltum basketry impression fragments, 3 manos, 1 quartz crystal fragment, 1 quartzite chopper, 1 sandstone mortar fragment, 4 shell fragments, and 1 wood handle fragment.

    From 1961 through 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals were removed from Century Ranch (CA-LAN-225) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by UCLA student volunteers under the direction of Jayne Harbinger. The site was also excavated in 1963 by a Santa Monica City College class under the direction of Chester King and Thomas Blackburn. The excavations took place on land that was then owned by the Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation and is now part of Malibu Creek State Park. Human remains were recovered from burial and midden contexts. Burial contexts included 9 adults (2 of which are possibly male), an infant, and one individual of unknown age and sex. Fragmentary human remains from midden contexts represent two individuals of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. The 60 associated funerary objects are 14 stone fragments, 10 flaked-stone tools, 20 ground stone artifacts, 12 cobble artifacts, and 4 unmodified faunal bone pieces.

    In 1960 and 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, 53 individuals were removed from Century Ranch (CA-LAN-227), in Malibu Canyon, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Thomas Blackburn and Ernest Chandonet with UCLA archeology students. The excavations were conducted on land owned by Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, now part of Malibu Creek State Park. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1961. The site is estimated to date to the Late Period, with a radiocarbon date of circa A.D. 1530. The burials include a minimum of 53 individuals that were further identified as 23 adults (10 males, 2 females, and 11 indeterminate), 1 sub-adult, 13 juveniles, 15 infants, and 1 individual too fragmented to determine age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 821 associated funerary objects include 678 shell beads, 19 shell pendants, 7 worked bone artifacts, 7 flaked-stone artifacts, 3 groundstone artifacts, 91 asphaltum fragments with basketry impressions, 7 shell dishes, one ochre fragment, and 8 unmodified shell fragments.

    In 1966, 1967, and 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, 906 individuals were removed from Medea Creek village and cemetery (CA-LAN-243) in Thousand Oaks, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted in 1966-1967, in the cemetery area by UC Archaeological Survey volunteers and a UCLA field course directed by Linda B. King and Linda Hasten. In 1969, the Medea Creek village area was excavated by a crew of volunteers under the direction of Clay A. Singer. Both efforts were part of a volunteer salvage project prior to the site's destruction. The collections were accessioned by UCLA in 1969. The estimated age of the site is Late Period/Historic (A.D. 1500-1785). Human remains from the 1969 excavations represent two adult individuals of unknown sex. Human remains from 1966-1967 excavations of the cemetery represent a minimum number of 904 individuals from 467 burials. All human remains from these burials were assessed for age, sex, pathology, and completeness. To summarize, a total of 524 adults (88 male, 86 female, and 350 indeterminate), 217 juveniles, 97 infants, and 9 prenatal were identified, and the human remains of 59 individuals were too fragmentary to identify by age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 23,922 associated funerary objects include: 213 pieces and 8 bags of unmodified faunal remains and artifacts, 925 pieces and 2 bags of shell unmodified fragments and artifacts, 414 pieces and 7 bags of asphaltum fragments, 21,243 shell, glass, and stone beads, 78 flaked-stone artifacts, 62 ground stone artifacts, 179 pieces and 4 bags of organic materials, 2 metal artifacts, 435 pieces and 3 bags of stone fragments, 321 cobble and pebble artifacts, 7 fragments and 1 bag of charcoal, 17 bags of soil, and 1 glass pendant.

    In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, 102 individuals were removed when Alex Apostolides directed a salvage project at the Mullholland Site (CA-LAN-246) before the construction of housing and to offset the pervasive vandalism that was occurring at the time. Dating of the site is to the Late Period (A.D. 1200-1500). The collection was accessioned by UCLA in November 1978. Eighteen formal burials were included in the collection, but fragmentary human remains were also identified from midden contexts that result in a minimum number of 102 individuals being represented. The human remains were further identified as 56 adults (11 males, 6 females, and 39 indeterminate), 27 juveniles, 14 infants, and 5 individuals too fragmentary to identify further. No known individuals were identified. The 2,640 associated funerary objects include: 27 flaked-stone artifacts, 8 groundstone artifacts, 1 carved clay fragment, 13 pieces of worked bone, 1 ceramic sherd, 30 charcoal fragments, 4 ochre fragments, 1 pecked pebble, 2,321 shell beads and ornaments, 16 unmodified shell fragments, 10 soapstone ornaments, 203 pieces and 3 bags of unmodified animal bone, and 2 bags of soil samples.

    In 1964, 1971-1972, and 1973-1975, human remains representing, at minimum, 247 individuals were removed from Humaliwu (CA-LAN-264) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. UCLA conducted several field seasons under the direction of Clement Meighan on private property. Excavations also took place on land controlled by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, but that is filed under a separate inventory. Collections were accessioned by UCLA as they returned from the field under Accession numbers 505 (1964 excavations) and 573 (1971-75 excavations). The village dates from A.D. 550-1805. Three formal burials were identified during the 1964 excavations, and additional fragmentary human remains were recovered from midden contexts. There are a minimum of 27 individuals identified as 19 adults (one male, two female, and 16 indeterminate), one sub-adult, four juveniles, one infant, and two perinatal. Excavations in the 1970s uncovered 83 formal burials, and with the addition of fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts, a minimum number of 220 individuals were identified. Of this total, identification was possible for 110 adults (34 male, 34 female, and 42 indeterminate), 13 sub-adults, 36 juvenile, 36 infants, 13 neonatal individuals, and 10 perinatal individuals. Two individuals were too fragmentary to determine age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 15,917 associated funerary objects include: 7 bone awl fragments, 21 worked bone fragments, 1 bone barb, 2 bone pin fragments, 7 bone tube beads, 1 bone wedge, 1 bone whistle, 2 red stone ear spools, 1 pipe, 1,869 pieces and 39 bags of unmodified animal bones, 13 bags of soil samples, 3 pieces and 1 bag of metal items, 4 pieces of ochre, 5 charcoal fragments, 7 quartz crystals, 1 fluorite crystal, 158 Megathura (limpet) rings, 3 fishhook fragments, 1 glass fragment, 4 perforated shells, 3 inlayed abalone shells, 13,040 shell beads, 54 pieces and 10 bags of unmodified shell fragments, 42 effigies, 4 stone tube beads, 30 stone beads, 1 bead blank, 3 stone pendants, 24 cobbles, 20 stone cores, 480 flaked-stone tools and debitage, 18 ground stone tools, 1 tarring pebble, 8 asphaltum fragments, 1 wood fragment, and 24 pieces and 3 bags of stone fragments.

    Between 1961 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from Sweetwater Mesa (CA-LAN-267) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations on private property took place under the direction of Chester King, Tom Blackburn, and Earnest Chadonet as part of the UC Archaeological Survey, along with UCLA students and members of the Archaeological Research Association. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1963. The site is estimated to date to 4920-4360 B.C. Fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts represent a minimum of four adults and a juvenile individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Tobillo (CA-LAN-311) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated as part of the Malibu Wastewater Project under the direction of Brian Dillon on private property. The collection was given to UCLA on April 24, 1997. The site is estimated to date to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) and Historic (after A.D. 1769) time periods. Fragmentary human remains represent an individual of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Topanga Canyon Area (CA-LAN-330) in Los Angeles County, CA. This site was excavated by Clement Meighan with UCLA field school students inside a Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) rock shelter on privately owned land. The collection was accessioned by UCLA between 1966 and 1969. Fragmentary human remains represent a juvenile individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from San Nicholas Canyon Site (CA-LAN-352, formerly CA-LAN-27) in Triunfo Pass, Los Angeles County, CA. The collection resulted from excavations by James West and a crew of volunteers, testing a portion of the site on private land that was in the right-of-way for the proposed Coast Freeway, US 101A. The collection was received at UCLA in 1967. The site is estimated to date to 5550-2050 B.C., through radiocarbon dating. Although burials were uncovered at the site, the site had been heavily disturbed, and thus human remains were also found in midden contexts. Human remains from a minimum of 5 adults were identified (1 female and 4 indeterminate), two juveniles, and three other individuals too fragmentary to identify further. No known individuals were identified. The 28 associated funerary objects include: 2 cobble tools, 2 flaked-stone tools, 6 unmodified animal bones, 9 ground stone artifacts, a worked sandstone disk, 4 shell artifacts, a wood fragment, and 3 bags of soil.

    In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Highland Cave (CA-LAN-388) in Los Angeles County, CA. This site was excavated as a salvage project conducted by Grif Coleman and the UCLA Archaeological Survey for research purposes on private property in front of development activities. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1977. The site is estimated to date to A.D. 1500-1800 based on artifact types. Human remains from one formal burial represent an adult female. No known individuals were identified. One bag of unmodified animal bones was identified as an associated funerary object.

    In 1977 and 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Horse Flats (LAN-474B), also referred to as Porter Ranch, Los Angeles County, CA. John Romani as part of Northridge Archaeology Research Center (contract #VS-175) was hired to conduct testing in preparation for development in the spring and fall of 1977. Salvage excavation was completed in 1978 by Clay A. Singer, and the resulting collection was submitted to UCLA for curation in May 1979. The site is estimated to date to 3000 B.C. to A.D. 1800, based on radiocarbon dating and diagnostic artifacts. Fragmentary human remains represent an adult of unknown sex and an additional individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Saddle Rock Ranch (CA-LAN-717) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. This site was excavated by a UCLA field school directed by Brian Dillon on the privately owned ranch. The collection was partially received for curation at UCLA in September of 1984, with additional materials arriving later in April 1997. The site is estimated to date from the Early Period to Historic, circa 4500 B.C. to A.D. 1785. Human remains from Burial 1 represent an adult male and an adult individual of unknown sex. Additional fragmentary human remains represent one individual of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. The 23 associated funerary objects include 1 incised siltstone fragment, 1 stone flake, and 21 unworked animal bones.

    In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Cazador Site, also known as Three Springs Valley (CA-LAN-807) in Westlake Village, Los Angeles County, CA. This site was excavated by a UCLA archeology field course directed by Brian Dillon. Excavations occurred on land privately owned by the Pacifica Corporation. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in March of 1985. The site is estimated to date to the Late Period, after A.D. 1000-1769. Human remains from Burial 1 represent one adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, 44 individuals were removed from Century Ranch (CA-LAN-840) in Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations at the site were a joint field-school project between UCLA (directed by Clement Meighan) and California State University at Northridge (directed by Lou Tartaglia) on land owned by the Hunter family. Each university had a portion of the collection until Kathy Pedrick gathered the CSUN materials in 1978 to incorporate into one collection for analysis and curation. Susan Hector accessioned the UCLA collection August 1977. The area was likely a cemetery featuring both inhumations and cremations, and as such, fragmentary human remains were found in almost every unit. Twelve formal burials were identified by the excavators, but they acknowledged that potential overlapping existed. Of the 44 human individuals identified, 26 are adults (one male, one female, and 24 indeterminate), 6 are juveniles, 4 are infants, and 1 is a perinatal individual. Seven additional individuals were cremations where age and sex could not be determined. No known individuals were identified. The 493 associated funerary objects include: 284 pieces of unmodified animal bones, 9 worked bone artifacts, 3 bags and 4 fragments of charcoal, 34 pieces of chipped-stone tools and flakes, 7 pieces of ochre, 7 wood fragments, 57 pieces of unmodified shell, and 85 pieces and 3 bags of ground stone fragments and tools.

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Agoura Hills (CA-LAN-972) in Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were undertaken by Ancient Enterprises under C. William Clewlow in 1978 on private land being developed for housing. The site is estimated to date from the Late Period to Historic (A.D. 700-1769). The collection arrived at UCLA for curation in 1978. All fragmentary human remains were pulled from midden contexts and represent two adult individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    At some unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Hansen Dam in Los Angeles County, CA. A memo indicated that UCLA loaned human remains from a prehistoric site in the Hansen Dam area to the City of Los Angeles Park Rangers in the 1960s and that they were returned in 1981, but no further information about this loan could be found. The human remains were identified by osteological analysis as an adult male of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a mile South of Carpentaria (CA-SBA-1) in Santa Barbara County, CA, by unknown individuals and given to Loye Miller of the UCLA Biology Department between 1900 and 1950, and accessioned within the Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection. After NAGPRA was enacted, all Native American remains under UCLA's control were transferred to the Fowler Museum for inventory and compliance purposes. The Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection transferred these human remains and several others to the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Zooarchaeology Lab in August 1995, and then to the Archaeology Collections Facility of the Fowler Museum at UCLA on September 18, 1995. The site dates from the Early to Late Periods (5000 B.C. to A.D. 1769). The fragmentary human remains represent one juvenile individual. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was found eroding from the shoreline at the south end of Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara County, CA, on land likely belonging to the Nature Conservancy. They were donated to UCLA in 1984, and represent one adult male individual. No date was assigned, but an osteologist determined the human remains to be of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1985, 1992, and 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Shawa Village (CA-SCRI-192) on Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara County, CA, on land belonging to the Nature Conservancy. Excavations by Jeanne Arnold took place on Santa Cruz in the summers of 1990-1992 and 1994-1997. All collections were curated at UCLA after completion of the field analysis. The site dates from the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Historic contact. Extremely fragmentary human remains were identified from midden contexts and represent 1 infant and 2 adult individuals. One additional individual could not be distinguished by age. None of the human remains could be identified by sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Christy Ranch (CA-SCRI-236) on Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara County, CA, with permission of the private land owner. Excavations by Jeanne Arnold took place on Santa Cruz in the summers of 1990-1992 and 1994-1997. All collections were curated at UCLA upon completion of the field analysis. Radiocarbon dates from site indicate at least intermittent occupation from as early as 2485 B.C. into the Late Period. Human teeth were identified from midden contexts and represent a minimum number of two individuals, of which one could be identified as an adult. One could not be further distinguished by age. None of the human remains could be identified by sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from Xaxas Village (CA-SCRI-240) on Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara County, CA, on land belonging to the Nature Conservancy. Excavations by Jeanne Arnold took place on Santa Cruz in the summers of 1990-1992 and 1994-1997. All collections were curated at UCLA upon completion of the field analysis. Radiocarbon dates obtained from site CA-SCRI-240 indicate it was occupied between 2480 B.C. and A.D. 1425. Its presence in mission documents also indicates that it was occupied into the Historic Period. Fragmentary human remains (many of them teeth) were identified from midden contexts and represent 2 neonatal and 4 infant individuals. One could not be further distinguished by age. None of the human remains could be identified to sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from CA-SLO-267/268 in San Luis Obispo County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Ronald P. Sekkel of UCLA on land owned by the Hearst Corporation. The site dates to the Late Period (A.D. 1200-1500). The human remains consist of one formal burial and fragmentary human remains representing a minimum of 2 individuals, an adult male and a juvenile individual. No known individuals were identified. The 10 burial associated objects consist of one animal bone, one shell fragment, and 8 chert flakes that were pulled from the burial matrix.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from San Miguel Island (CA-SMI-xxx) in Santa Barbara County, CA, from private ranching land, likely in the 1920s, by unknown individuals and given to Loye Miller of the UCLA Biology Department and accessioned within the Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection. After NAGPRA was enacted, all Native American remains under UCLA's control were transferred to the Fowler Museum for inventory and compliance purposes. The Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection transferred these human remains and several others to the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Zooarchaeology Lab in August 1995, and then to the Archaeology Collections Facility of the Fowler Museum at UCLA on September 18, 1995. No date was assigned, but an osteologist determined the human remains to be of Native American ancestry. The fragmentary human remains represent two individuals of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In December 1926, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Little Sycamore Canyon Site (CA-VEN-1) in Ventura County, CA, by A.W. Schmuck, H.T. Cartio, and W.A. Starrett, who collected these human remains from a shellmound at the mouth of Little Sycamore Canyon. According to the accession records, these human remains were received by the UCLA Biology Department through Loye Miller on September 13, 1956. After NAGPRA was enacted, all Native American remains under UCLA's control were transferred to the Fowler Museum for inventory and compliance purposes. The Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection transferred these human remains and several others to the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Zooarchaeology Lab in August 1995, and then to the Archaeology Collections Facility of the Fowler Museum at UCLA on September 18, 1995. Later excavators dated the site to the Early Period (5000-600 B.C.). The fragmentary human remains represent an adult male. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1959 and 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, 16 individuals were removed from Little Sycamore Canyon Site (CA-VEN-1) in Ventura County, CA. The collection was donated by David L. Jennings, Chair of the Earth Sciences Department, Los Angeles City College. Field school excavations conducted by Dr. Jerry Jordan, Jr., led to recovery of the collection, but no final report was ever compiled and no field documentation could be found with the collection. The original catalog listed six burials along with fragmentary human remains from midden contexts that included 10 adults (of which 4 were identified as male), two juveniles, and four individuals of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In the spring of 1964, human remains representing, at minimum, 34 individuals were removed from the Deer Creek Site (CA-VEN-7 and CA-VEN-10) in Ventura County, CA. This site was excavated by a UCLA field school course directed by Clement Meighan and Gene Sterud on private property as ongoing construction was impacting both sites. The excavation was conducted primarily at CA-VEN-7, however, additional excavations occurred at nearby CA-VEN-10. They are likely loci of the same village site along with VEN-2, 6, and 205 and grouped together for NAGPRA as such. The collection was received by UCLA in 1964. A single radiocarbon date and artifact types recovered indicate the site was occupied as early as A.D. 1 until after A.D. 1000. Human remains from seven formal burials as well as fragmentary human remains from midden contexts were identified from the collection and represent 17 adults (2 male, 4 female, and 11 indeterminate), 9 juveniles (1 male), 5 infants, and 2 perinatal individuals. Another individual was too fragmentary to determine age or sex. No known individuals were identified. Associated funerary objects were only recovered from the formal burials at VEN-7. The 55 associated funerary objects include: 1 shell bead, 3 ground stone artifacts, 1 projectile point, 30 pieces and 3 bags of unmodified faunal bone, 6 pebbles, 9 shell fragments, and 2 wood fragments.

    In 1955, 1958, and 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 35 individuals were removed from Simo'mo (CA-VEN-24 aka VEN-26) in Ventura County, CA. The first set of excavations was undertaken by UCLA field courses supervised by Clement Meighan in 1955, and by David M. Pendergast in 1958. A second set of excavations were conducted by a UCLA field course taught by M.B. McKusick on private land in 1959. The excavation materials were all accessioned by UCLA by 1959. The estimated age of the site is A.D. 300-1100. While a report by Meighan discusses finding two formal burials, neither were accessioned by UCLA. Their current location is unknown. A single drawing was found referencing work done in 1958 under David Pendergast. It includes information about Burials 9-13 and states that they are located at San Fernando Valley State College along with their artifacts (although some of the artifacts are included on UCLA's catalog and are present). While no formal burials were found, fragmentary human remains were identified within the faunal bone from the 1956 and 1958 excavations. In addition, faunal remains returned from UCSB included two sets of proveniences that could not be traced to UCLA excavations, which also included fragmentary human remains. Accession 117 includes 15 adults, 5 juveniles, 6 infants, 2 perinatal, and 1 individual that was too fragmentary to determine age or sex. The identified burial associated items are from burials not currently at UCLA and are therefore not included on this notice. Accession 219 consists of two excavated burials and fragmentary human remains representing a minimum number of six individuals (4 adults and 2 juveniles). No known individuals were identified. There are 22 unmodified animal bones removed from the burials and identified as associated funerary objects.

    Between 1966 and 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from La Robleda (CA-VEN-39) at Medea Creek in Ventura County, CA. This collection resulted from excavations carried out by a UCLA field school course on land owned by the Metropolitan Development Corporation under the direction of James N. Hill and Michael Glassow to test different excavation strategies. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1971. The site is estimated to date from 815 B.C. to A.D. 1890. Fragmentary human remains represent two adults and two juvenile individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1960 and 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from Soule Park Site (CA-VEN-61) in Ventura County, CA. The site was excavated by Margaret Susia and a UC Archaeological Survey crew during a salvage project, after being granted permission by the Ventura County of Public Works. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1961. The site is estimated to date to between A.D. 1 and 1500. Fragmentary human remains represent six adults and three juveniles of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1964, 1965, and 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Potrero Valley (CA-VEN-70) in Ventura County, CA. The site was excavated by Nelson N. Leonard and the UCLA Archaeological Survey from December 1964 through May 1965, and by Clay Singer in 1977, on land owned by the Janss Corporation. The collections were accessioned by UCLA after each excavation. The site is estimated to date to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769). Fragmentary human remains represent two adult individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Little Sycamore Canyon (CA-VEN-86) in Ventura County, CA. Bob Gibson directed excavations in the summer and fall of 1971 for the UC Archaeological Survey on private property and under contract with CEDAM International. The contract gave ownership of the collection to UCLA, and the collection was received in August 1971. The site dates to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769). The human remains from Burial 1 represent an adult female and an individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 87 associated funerary objects include: 1 shell bead, 2 worked bone fragments, 2 ground stone artifacts, 42 flaked-stone artifacts, 5 pieces and 4 bags of unmodified faunal bones, 19 unmodified shell fragments, 10 pieces and 1 bag of stone fragments, and 1 cobble.

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from CA-VEN-122 in Oak Park, Ventura County, CA. The collection derives from excavations conducted by a UCLA field class under the direction of C. William Clewlow, Jr., and supervised by Marilyn Beaudry. The site is located on land owned by the Metropolitan Development Corporation. The collection was curated at UCLA in August 1978. This site dates to A.D. 700-1785. A formal burial was designated at the site and left in situ at the request of the Native American monitors. However, additional fragmentary human remains were identified from midden contexts that represent two adults, sex unknown, and another individual represented by an incisor. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1965-1966, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from CA-VEN-138 in Ventura County, CA, by students from Mira Monte Elementary School, under the direction of their teacher Dr. John Hook during the school year. The collection from this Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Historic contact site was donated to UCLA in 1985 by the elementary school. Fragmentary human remains removed from the site include a minimum of 9 individuals: One adult male; one adult, sex unknown; one juvenile, sex unknown; and six other extremely incomplete individuals, age and sex unknown. No known individuals were identified. The collection of 101 associated funerary objects consists of 4 ground stone artifacts, 35 worked stone fragments, 40 unmodified shell fragments, 19 pieces of unmodified animal bones, 1 charcoal fragment, 1 ceramic fragment, and 1 metal knife.

    In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from Big Sycamore Rock Shelters (CA-VEN-195) in Ventura County, CA. The site was excavated under the direction of Robert Gibson with a UC Archaeological Survey crew on private property. This site dates to the Late Period, circa A.D. 1500. Fragmentary human remains represent two incomplete adult individuals of unknown sex, and six individuals of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In the summer of 1975, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from the Running Springs Ranch Site (CA-VEN-261) in Ventura County, CA. This collection derives from a boundary test conducted by C. William Clewlow and Allen Pastron. The site is estimated to date to A.D. 800-1800. Human remains from Burial 1 represent a sub-adult female individual. In addition fragmentary human remains represent three adult individuals, sex unknown. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are a shell fragment and a stone flake.

    In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Conejo Valley (CA-VEN-272) in Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, CA. The site was discovered by a crew of archeologists from the UCLA Archaeological Survey in 1972, and reevaluated in 1976 by Pamela Ivie and David Whitley as part of an environmental impact report on the MGM Ranch. The Late Period site (A.D. 700-1769) was excavated in August of 1977, by a UCLA research team on MGM property. Fragmentary human remains were recovered from a midden context representing one individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In the fall of 1976 and the summer of 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals were removed from Oak Park (CA-VEN-294) in Ventura County, CA. Salvage excavations were conducted on land owned by the Metropolitan Development Corporation and directed by Robert Lopez and C. William Clewlow with the UCLA Archaeological Survey. The site dates to between 48 B.C. and A.D. 1400. Human remains were recovered from five burials as well as midden contexts. They include 6 adults, sex unknown; 3 juveniles, sex unknown; 2 infants, sex unknown; and 1 individual of unknown sex and age. No known individuals were identified. The 697 associated funerary objects are 9 worked bones, 1 shell pendant fragment, 106 unmodified animal bones, 44 unmodified shell fragments, 52 flaked stone artifacts, 1 metal ball, 466 shell beads, 5 serpentine beads, 1 stone pestle, 5 cobble tools, 3 bags of soil samples, and 4 stone fragments.

    In 1975, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from CA-VEN-340 in Ventura County, CA. Nelson N. Leonard led salvage excavations after the Late Period site (A.D. 700-1769) was heavily impacted by construction in the 1970s leaving only a portion of the deposit intact. The collection arrived at UCLA soon after excavations, between 1975 and 1976. Fragmentary human remains represent a minimum of one adult individual, sex unknown. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    Sometime in 1976 or 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from Ferndale Ranch (CA-VEN-404) in Ventura County, CA. Excavations were conducted in 1976 by the UC Archaeological Survey in conjunction with the University of Santa Clara, directed by C.W. Clewlow, Jr., in advance of site development. During the course of excavations, burials were found but left in situ at the request of the Candelaria Indian Tribal Council. There were also two short periods of field excavations again in 1977 by Dr. C. Moser. The excavations were closed at the request of the Candelaria Indian Council as more burials were encountered, and they were reinterred. Construction damaged part of the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Historic contact cemetery after excavations were concluded. A summary report states that the location of the Moser 1977 work is currently unknown and not included in this collection. The collection in the possession and control of the Fowler Museum presumably derives from after the 1977 excavations and comprises 6 burials including 5 adults (2 of which are identified as female), a juvenile, an infant of unknown sex, and an individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 111 associated funerary objects consist of 8 pieces and 4 bags of unmodified faunal bones, 6 pebbles, 1 organic fragment, 1 bone tool, 2 bags of flakes, 49 pieces and 1 bag of stone fragments, 15 pieces and 2 bags of unmodified shell, 20 beads, and 2 ceramic fragments.

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Medea Creek (CA-VEN-542) in Oak Park, Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, CA. The collection was excavated by researchers from the UCLA Archaeological Survey under the direction of Dr. C. William Clewlow, Jr., on land owned by the Metropolitan Development Corporation. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in July 1978. This site was dated to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769). Fragmentary human remains represent one juvenile individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Newbury Park (CA-VEN-544) in Ventura County, CA. The collection is from excavations on Grace Properties by Brian Dillon in the summer of 1982. There was no documentation provided when the human remains were received at UCLA in 1985. The site is dated to the Early Millingstone Period (circa 600-0 B.C.). Fragmentary human remains represent one adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Lindero Canyon (CA-VEN-606) in Ventura County, CA. Collections from the site derive from survey and excavation during the North Ranch Inland Chumash research project led by Dr. William Clewlow, Jr. The second investigation was conducted the same year under the direction of Holly Love and Rheta Resnick. Excavations took place on land privately owned by the Prudential Insurance Company. The collections were curated at UCLA in 1979. The site has been dated to the Late Period, A.D. 1300-1650. Fragmentary human remains represent one adult individual of unknown sex and two infants of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

    The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

    The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. The sites in this notice are located in northwestern Los Angeles, Ventura, southwestern San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. However, they do state that Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva territories were and are occupied by socially distinct, yet interrelated, groups which have been characterized by anthropologists. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

    The associated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Determinations Made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA

    Officials of the Fowler Museum at UCLA have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 1,802 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 46,015 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

    The Fowler Museum is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 21, 2015. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01592 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments; Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Diaper Disposal Systems and Components Thereof, Including Diaper Refill Cassettes, DN 3115; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing under section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,1 and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    1 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.2 The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS.3 Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    2 United States International Trade Commission (USITC): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC and International Refills Company Ltd. on January 21, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain diaper disposal systems and components thereof, including diaper refill cassettes. The complaint names as respondents Munchkin, Inc. of Van Nuys, CA; Munchkin Baby Canada Ltd. of Canada; and Lianyungang Brilliant Daily Products Co. Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3115”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 4 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.5

    5 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 21, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01627 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [Docket No. ODAG 157] Notice of Public Comment Period on Revised; Federal Advisory Committee Work Products AGENCY:

    Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the opening of the comment period on revised subcommittee draft work products of the National Commission on Forensic Science.

    DATES:

    Written public comment regarding revised subcommittee draft work products of the National Commission on Forensic Science meeting materials should be submitted through www.regulations.gov before February 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew J. Bruck, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and Designated Federal Official, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, phone (202) 305-3481.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 10, 2015, the Department of Justice published in the Federal Register a Notice announcing the December 7-8, 2015, Federal Advisory Committee Meeting of the National Commission on Forensic Science (80 FR 69698). During the Commission proceedings on December 7-8, 2015, subcommittees were provided an opportunity to revise existing draft work products. This Notice announces a public comment period to provide an opportunity for submitting comments for the revised work products.

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Commission in response to the revised draft work products. Work products are available on the Commission's Web site: http://www.justice.gov/ncfs/work-products and on www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 21, 2016. Andrew J. Bruck, Designated Federal Official, National Commission on Forensic Science.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01656 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2011-0197] Occupational Safety and Health State Plans; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    OSHA solicits public comments concerning its request for an extension of the OMB's approval of the collections of information associated with its regulations and program regarding State Plans for the development and enforcement of state occupational safety and health standards (29 CFR parts 1902, 1953, 1954 and 1956).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments.

    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.

    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service: When using these methods, you must submit a copy of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0197, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. e.t.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0197) for the Information Collection Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal Register Notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Douglas Kalinowski at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Kalinowski, Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3700, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1978; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., the State Plans) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimized, collection instruments are understandable, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. Currently, OSHA is soliciting comments concerning the extension of the information collection requirements contained in the series of regulations establishing requirements for the submission, initial approval, continuing approval, final approval, monitoring, and evaluation of OSHA-approved State Plans:

    • 29 CFR part 1902, State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards;

    • 29 CFR part 1953, Changes to State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards;

    • 29 CFR part 1954, Procedures for the Evaluation and Monitoring of Approved State Plans; and

    • 29 CFR part 1956, State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards Applicable to State and Local Government Employees in States Without Approved Private Employee Plans.

    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 667) offers an opportunity to the states to assume responsibility for the development and enforcement of state standards through the mechanism of an OSHA-approved State Plan. Absent an approved plan, states are precluded from enforcing occupational safety and health standards in the private sector with respect to any issue for which Federal OSHA has promulgated a standard. Once approved and operational, the state adopts standards and provides most occupational safety and health enforcement and compliance assistance in the state under the authority of its plan, instead of Federal OSHA. States also must extend their jurisdiction to cover state and local government employees and may obtain approval of State Plans limited in scope to these workers. To obtain and maintain State Plan approval, a state must submit various documents to OSHA describing its program structure and operation, including any modifications thereto as they occur, in accordance with the identified regulations. OSHA funds 50 percent of the costs required to be incurred by an approved State Plan, with the state at least matching and providing additional funding at its discretion.

    II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

    Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

    The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

    Ways to minimize the burden on participating states who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

    III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collection of information requirements associated with its State Plan regulations. The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase to adjust the number of burden hours associated with the developmental steps necessary for states in the developmental process, including Maine, Illinois and the Virgin Islands. Maine received initial approval on August 5, 2015 and has been moved to the developmental category. As a result, the total burden hours have increased slightly from 11,369 to 11,519 burden hours (an increase of 150 burden hours). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in its request to OMB.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Title: Occupational Safety and Health State Plans.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0247.

    Affected Public: Designated state government agencies that are seeking or have submitted and obtained approval for State Plans for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health. standards.

    Number of Respondents: 28.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion; quarterly; annually.

    Total Responses: 1,309.

    Average Time per Response: Varies from 30 minutes (.5 hour) to respond to an information inquiry to 80 hours to document state annual performance goals.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 11,519.

    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

    IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0197). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the OSHA docket number, so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information, such as their social security number and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available from the Web site and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

    V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 21, 2016. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01537 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Revision of OMB Circular No. A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” AGENCY:

    Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has revised Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” in light of changes that have taken place in the world of regulation, standards, and conformity assessment since the Circular was last revised in 1998. The revised Circular is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_infopoltech.

    DATES:

    Effective upon publication as of January 27, 2016, OMB is making revised Circular A-119 available to the public.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Law 104-113, the “National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,” codified the existing policies in A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” established reporting requirements, and authorized the National Institute of Standards and Technology to coordinate conformity assessment activities of the agencies. In 1998, OMB revised the Circular in order to make the terminology of the Circular consistent with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, to issue guidance to the agencies on making their reports to OMB, to direct the Secretary of Commerce to issue policy guidance for conformity assessment, and to make changes for clarity.

    OMB has issued a revision of Circular A-119 in light of changes that have taken place in the world of regulation, standards, and conformity assessment since the Circular was last revised in 1998. The revised Circular is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_infopoltech. OMB's revisions are meant to provide more detailed guidance to agencies to take into account several issues, including the Administration's current work in Open Government, developments in regulatory policy and international trade, and changes in technology.

    Howard Shelanski, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01606 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (16-003)] NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Ad Hoc Task Force on Big Data; Meeting AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Big Data. This task force reports to the NASA Advisory Council's Science Committee. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting and discussing, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to big data.

    DATES

    Tuesday, February 16, 2016, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Local Time.

    ADDRESS:

    NASA Headquarters, Glennan Conference Center, Room 1Q39, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0750, fax (202) 358-2779, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The meeting will also be available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 1-800-988-9663, passcode 4718658, to participate in this meeting by telephone. A toll number also is available, 1-517-308-9427 passcode 4718658. The WebEx link is https://nasa.webex.com/; the meeting number is 999 765 122 and the password is [email protected]@16. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

    —NASA's science data cyber-infrastructure —Access to NASA science mission data repositories —Big data best practices in government, academia and industry —Federal big data initiatives Attendees will be required to sign a register and comply with NASA Headquarters security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID before receiving access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, any attendees with drivers licenses issued from non-compliant states must present a second form of ID. [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states are: American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma and Washington. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, expiration date, country); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Ann Delo via email at [email protected] or by fax at (202) 358-2779. U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to submit their name and affiliation no less than 3 working days prior to the meeting to Ann Delo. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Patricia D. Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01514 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Request for Comment Regarding National Credit Union Administration Operating Fee Schedule Methodology AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The NCUA Operating Budget has two primary funding mechanisms: (1) An Overhead Transfer, which is funded by federal credit unions (FCUs) and federally insured state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs); and (2) annual Operating Fees, which are charged only to FCUs. In a voluntary effort to invite input from stakeholders representing federal and state-chartered credit unions, the NCUA Board (Board) is simultaneously requesting comments on the methodologies for both funding mechanisms in separate notices in the Federal Register.

    This request for comments focuses on the methodology NCUA uses to determine the aggregate amount of Operating Fees charged to federal credit unions, including the fee schedule that allocates the Operating Fees at different rates among FCUs according to various asset thresholds. While the NCUA Board is interested in all comments from the public and stakeholders, commenters are also asked to consider the following questions when responding: (1) Are the asset determination thresholds reasonable; and (2) is the method for forecasting projected asset growth for the credit union system reasonable? Responding to these questions will provide valuable insight to the NCUA Board with respect to how the Operating Fee is administered. To be most instructive to the Board, commenters are encouraged to provide the specific basis for their comments and recommendations, as well as documentation to support their proposed adjustments or alternatives.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):

    NCUA Web site: http://www.ncua.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments under the “Board Comments” section of the NCUA Web site.

    Email: Address to [email protected] Include “[Your name]—Comments on Operating Fee Schedule Methodology” in the email subject line.

    Fax: (703) 518-6319. Include your name and the following subject line: “Comments on Operating Fee Schedule.”

    Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.

    Public Inspection: You can view all public comments on NCUA's Web site at http://www.ncua.gov/about/pages/board-comments.aspx as submitted, except for those we cannot post for technical reasons. NCUA will not edit or remove any identifying or contact information from the public comments submitted. You may inspect paper copies of comments at NCUA's headquarters at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, by appointment weekdays between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. To make an appointment, call (703) 518-6570 or send an email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rendell Jones, Chief Financial Officer, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428 or telephone: (703) 518-6570.

    Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1755.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Legal Background II. Historical Practice in Assessing the Operating Fee III. Methodology for Determining the Aggregate Operating Fee Amount IV. Methodology for Determining the Operating Fee Schedule I. Legal Background

    NCUA charters, regulates and insures deposits in federal credit unions (FCUs) and insures deposits in state-chartered credit unions that have their shares insured through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund). To cover expenses related to its statutory mission, the Board adopts an Operating Budget in the fall of each year (Operating Budget). The Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) authorizes two primary sources to fund the Operating Budget: (1) Requisitions from the Share Insurance Fund “for such administrative and other expenses incurred in carrying out the purposes of [Title II of the FCU Act] as [the Board] may determine to be proper”; 1 and (2) “fees and assessments (including income earned on insurance deposits) levied on insured credit unions under [the FCU Act].” 2 The latter of fees are referred to herein as annual Operating Fees, which “may be expended by the Board to defray the expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of [the FCU Act,] including the examination and supervision of [FCUs].” 3

    1 12 U.S.C. 1783(a).

    2 12 U.S.C. 1766(j)(3). Other sources of income for the Operating Budget include interest income, funds from publication sales, parking fee income, and rental income.

    3 12 U.S.C. 1755(d).

    With regard to the Operating Fee, the FCU Act requires each FCU to, “in accordance with rules prescribed by the Board, . . . pay to the [NCUA] an annual operating fee which may be composed of one or more charges identified as to the function or functions for which assessed.” 4 The fee must “be determined according to a schedule, or schedules, or other method determined by the Board to be appropriate, which gives due consideration to the expenses of the [NCUA] in carrying out its responsibilities under the [FCU Act] and to the ability of [FCUs] to pay the fee.” 5 The statute requires the Board to, among other things, “determine the periods for which the fee shall be assessed and the date or dates for the payment of the fee or increments thereof.” 6

    4 12 U.S.C. 1755(a).

    5 12 U.S.C. 1755(b).

    6Id.

    Accordingly, the FCU Act imposes three requirements on the Board in connection with assessing an Operating Fee on FCUs: (1) The fee must be assessed according to a schedule or schedules, or other method that the Board determines to be appropriate, which gives due consideration to NCUA's responsibilities in carrying out the FCU Act and the ability of FCUs to pay the fee; (2) the Board must determine the period for which the fee will be assessed and the due date for payment; and (3) the Board must deposit collected fees into the Treasury to defray the Board's expenses in carrying out the FCU Act.

    The Operating Fee methodology that this document describes meets all three legal requirements. First, the Board is assessing the Operating Fee under a schedule presented later in this document. The schedule sets forth assessment rates for FCUs based on asset size and takes account of NCUA's responsibilities in carrying out the FCU Act as well as the ability of FCUs to pay. Specifically, the schedule reflects consideration of NCUA's expenses in various areas of responsibility under the FCU Act and is scaled by asset size to account for the ability to pay. Second, this document specifies the applicable time period for the assessment, 2016, and notes that a later publication will update the due date. Third, NCUA will deposit collected fees in the United States Treasury, and the collected fees will fund some of NCUA's expenses in carrying out its responsibilities under the FCU Act.

    II. Historical Practice in Assessing the Operating Fee

    NCUA has a regulation that governs Operating Fee processes.7 The regulation establishes (i) the basis for charging Operating Fees (i.e., total assets), (ii) a notice process, (iii) rules for new charters, conversions, mergers, and liquidations, and (iv) administrative fees and interest for late payment, among other principles and processes.8 Certain aspects of and adjustments to the Operating Fee process, such as the asset tier of FCUs that are exempt from Operating Fees and the multipliers that are used to determine fees applicable to higher asset tiers, are usually not published in the Federal Register. Instead, the Board traditionally set the Operating Fee during an open meeting each November, after determining the Operating Budget and Overhead Transfer at the same open meeting. At an open meeting in November 2015, the Board delegated authority to the Chief Financial Officer to administer the Board-approved Operating Fee methodology, and to set the Operating Fees as calculated per the approved methodology each annual budget cycle beginning with 2016.9

    7 12 CFR 701.6.

    8Id.

    Although it is not required to do so under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Board now chooses to specifically solicit public comments on the methodology and process NCUA uses for the fee schedule through this Federal Register publication, as it has done on occasion in the past.

    The Board adopted the current Operating Fee methodology in 1979, after Congress passed the Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978.10 This legislation permitted the Board to consolidate previously separate chartering, supervision, and examination fees into a single Operating Fee, charged “in accordance with schedules, and for time periods, as determined by the Board, in an amount necessary to offset the expenses of the Administration at a rate consistent with a credit union's ability to pay.” 11 In combination with a proposed change to NCUA Regulation 12 CFR 701.6 in 1979, the Board proposed an initial fee schedule in the Federal Register, including rates for 12 asset tiers.12 It later published a final rule in the Federal Register, which also included a finalized fee schedule for 1979.13

    10 44 FR 11786 (Mar. 2, 1979).

    11Id.

    12Id. at 11787.

    13 44 FR 27379 (May 10, 1979).

    On three additional occasions, the Board has requested comments on potential changes to the Operating Fee schedule through a Federal Register notice, independent of any changes to 12 CFR 701.6. First, in 1990, the Board provided notice to the public that it was considering consolidating the Operating Fee schedule from 14 asset tiers to two asset tiers, retaining an exemption for FCUs under $50,000 in assets and implementing a $100 minimum fee.14 The Board provided a 60-day comment period.15

    14 55 FR 29857 (July 23, 1990).

    15Id.

    In 1990, the Board determined that current 14 asset tier Operating Fee scale was sharply regressive. In looking at the issue of fairness, the Board concluded the previous scale was no longer based fairly on the ability to pay, as evidenced by the rate for the smallest credit unions being $2.41 per $1,000 in assets, compared to $0.07 per $1,000 in assets for the largest credit unions, so that the burden on smaller credit unions had become significantly greater than on larger credit unions. In 1989, the Operating Fee was an average of 3.96 percent of expenses for credit unions in the lowest asset bracket, compared to 0.23 percent of expenses for the largest credit union. While a single rate was initially considered to be potentially more equitable, the fees from a single rate would have more than tripled for the largest credit unions. In 1990, the Board instead adopted a final two-bracket, two-rate structure proposal as the most feasible solution. In general, larger federal credit unions pay a higher dollar Operating Fee, but based on a lower (regressive) rate. The Board considered this regressive rate approach to be the fairest method of balancing the competing concepts and views of larger federal credit unions' higher dollar fees paid as subsidizing smaller federal credit unions, and larger federal credit unions not receiving proportionally more service from NCUA for the fees they pay. The Board-adopted proposal in 1990 exempted credit unions with assets under $50,000, set a minimum fee of $100, established two brackets with $250 million in assets as the dividing line between the two, and allowed the dividing points to be changed based on projected asset growth. The proposed fee structure did even out the effect on credit unions. For credit unions between $250,000 and $1 million in assets, the fee was 0.58 percent of expenses, down from 3.00 percent, and for credit unions over $1 billion in assets, the fee was 0.33 percent of expenses, up from 0.25 percent.

    In restructuring the scale in 1990, the Board also established a policy that the asset level dividing points between the brackets be adjusted annually or “indexed” in accordance with the projected asset growth of federal credit unions. This indexing was made in order to preserve the same relative relationship of the scale to the asset base to which it is applied.

    Two years later, the Board adopted a new third bracket at its open Board meeting in late 1992 that applied to assets exceeding $1 billion. The Board made this change in the interest of fairness to all credit unions. At that time, there were four federal credit unions with assets over $1 billion. The current approach to the fee schedule for natural-person FCUs continues to use three asset tiers.

    Second, also in 1992, the Board requested comments on a plan to limit Operating Fees to the first $1 million of each FCU's assets.16 The Board provided a 30-day comment period.17 It later extended the comment period by an additional 20 days.18

    16 57 FR 34152 (Aug. 3, 1992).

    17Id.

    18 57 FR 38329 (Aug. 24, 1992).

    Third, in 1995, the Board requested comments on a plan to restructure the Operating Fee schedule for natural-person FCUs, to exempt FCUs with assets of $500,000 or less.19 It also requested comments on imposing a minimum fee of $100 on all natural-person FCUs with assets over $500,000 but less than or equal to $750,000.20 The Board provided a 30-day comment period.21

    19 60 FR 32925 (June 26, 1995).

    20Id.

    21Id.

    The Board did not publish a response to the comments in the Federal Register in any of the cases referenced above. Instead, it adopted changes at open Board meetings. At its open meeting on November 12, 1992, for example, rather than eliminating fees for FCUs with assets under $1 million as proposed in the Federal Register, the Board adopted a third rate of 0.0003 for that asset tier.22 At its open meeting on November 16, 1995, after a discussion of the comments received, the Board adopted changes as proposed in the Federal Register, exempting FCUs under $500,000 in assets and imposing a $100 fee on FCUs with between $500,000 and $750,000 in assets.23

    22 Board Action Memorandum on Operating Fee Assessment for Fiscal Year 1993 (Nov. 12, 1992).

    23 Minutes of Board Meeting, National Credit Union Administration, p. 2 (Nov. 16, 1995); Board Action Memorandum on Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996 Budget (Nov. 16, 1995).

    In general, since 1995, the Board has not used Federal Register notices in connection with the annual adjustments to the asset tiers and rates of the Operating Fee schedule. In the past, the Board has opted to adopt such changes at open meetings. As recently as 2012, for example, the Board increased the asset threshold used to exempt FCUs from Operating Fees from $500,000 to $1 million at an open meeting without requesting advance comment in the Federal Register.24 While the Board has varied its practice with respect to fee schedule changes, it has done so within the FCU Act's broad directive that the fee schedule should be as “determined by the Board to be appropriate,” subject to its consideration of its expenses and the ability of FCUs to pay.25 In addition, NCUA's existing regulation on Operating Fee processes includes a standing invitation for written comments from FCUs on existing fee schedules.26

    24 Board Action Memorandum on 2013 Operating Fee (Nov. 15, 2012).

    25 12 U.S.C. 1755(b).

    26 12 CFR 701.6(c).

    III. Methodology for Determining the Aggregate Operating Fee Amount

    The Board adopts an Operating Budget in the fall of each year. The Operating Budget provides the resources required to execute the goals and objectives as outlined in NCUA's strategic plan. NCUA develops its Operating Budget using zero-based budgeting techniques, which ensure each activity is properly justified before the Board considers it for funding.27 As discussed above, two primary sources fund the Operating Budget: (1) The Overhead Transfer Rate (OTR); and (2) FCU Operating Fees. The following summarizes the various adjustments to arrive at the FCU Operating Fee and is illustrated below in Table 1.

    27 Additional information on the NCUA budget may be found at the following Web address: http://www.ncua.gov/About/Pages/budget-strategic-planning/supplementary-materials.aspx.

    Adjustments to the Budget. When calculating the aggregate annual Operating Fee requirements, the Board first subtracts amounts transferred for operational expenses from the Share Insurance Fund through the Overhead Transfer Rate and other expected income amounts from the operating budget for that year.

    Overhead Transfer Rate: The FCU Act authorizes NCUA to expend funds from the Share Insurance Fund for administrative and other expenses related to federal share insurance.28 An Overhead Transfer from the Share Insurance Fund covers the expenses associated with insurance-related functions of NCUA's operations. The Overhead Transfer is one of the funding sources for the budget, but the Overhead Transfer Rate does not affect the amount of the budget. The Board approves the budget separately and without regard to the Overhead Transfer Rate. The Overhead Transfer Rate is applied to actual expenses incurred each month.29

    28 12 U.S.C. 1783(a).

    29 In November 2015, the Board delegated authority to the Director of the Office of Examination and Insurance to administer the methodology approved by the Board for calculating the Overhead Transfer Rate, and set the rate as calculated per the approved methodology and validated by the Chief Financial Officer each budget cycle, beginning with the rate for 2016. Board Action Memorandum on Overhead Transfer Rate Delegation (Nov. 19, 2015), https://www.ncua.gov/About/Documents/Agenda%20Items/AG20151119Item5a.pdf.

    Other Income: Other income reduces the required Operating Fees by providing an additional source of funds to cover regulatory (i.e., non-insurance) related aspects of operating NCUA. Other income is projected based on the latest financial statements and includes interest income and miscellaneous revenues. Interest income includes interest on investments of annual Operating Fees not needed for current operations. Such investments may be made only in interest-bearing securities of the United States, with maturities requested by the Board, bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.30 Other income includes miscellaneous revenues, such as proceeds from publication sales, parking fee income, and rental income. Publication sales include proceeds from the sale of printed publications and brochures. NCUA leases office space to commercial tenants in its Central Office building and recognizes rental income in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). NCUA's Central Office has a parking garage and NCUA collects income on parking fees, which are divided among the complex owners according to the percentage of parking garage space owned by each.

    30 12 U.S.C. 1755(e)(2).

    Adjustments for cash and non-cash needs. The balance remaining after removing the Overhead Transfer amount and other expected income is then adjusted for cash and non-cash needs. Cash needs include additions for capital acquisitions and the payment of the note payable for the NCUA Central Office building on King Street. Non-cash needs include deductions for accrued annual leave and depreciation. Additional deductions or additions to cash needs are necessary to maintain a sufficient cash reserve to continue NCUA's operations. Operating Fund Mid-Session adjustments may also result in changes to cash needs, normally in the form of a reduction.

    Sufficient Cash Reserves: NCUA's policy for the Operating Fund is to maintain cash reserves of at least one month for contingencies.31 Cash requirements are projected to last approximately 15 months from the end of the current budget year, until the subsequent Operating Fee collections are received from FCUs. NCUA sends an annual Letter to FCUs that establishes the Operating Fees for the coming year.32 It then provides invoices that require payment by April 15.

    31 2016 Operating Fee BAM.

    32https://www.ncua.gov/Resources/Documents/LFCU2015-01.pdf.

    Accrued Annual Leave: Accrued annual leave is the change in the economic value of earned, but unpaid annual leave for current NCUA employees. It is a non-cash expense under GAAP and therefore is excluded when determining the required Operating Fees. NCUA uses historical data to determine the annual amount of accrued annual leave.

    Depreciation: Capital acquisitions are investments in assets including information technology software and building improvement projects. Depreciation is a reduction in the value of an asset with the passage of time. For NCUA's Operating Budget, depreciation expenses are included for assets such as NCUA's Central Office building, furniture and equipment, and leasehold improvements. The Share Insurance Fund covers a percentage of the depreciation expenses based on the OTR. The cash needs of all budgeted capital acquisitions are added to the FCU Operating Fee requirements.

    Repayment of NCUA Central Office on King Street, Note Payable. In 1992, the Operating Fund entered into a commitment to borrow up to $42.0 million in a 30-year secured term note with the Share Insurance Fund to fund the costs of constructing NCUA's Central Office in 1993. Since the Operating Fund borrowed monies from the Share Insurance Fund, the annual scheduled principal payments are excluded from the OTR and Overhead Transfer amount. The annual scheduled principal payments are treated as a cash need and applied as an increase to Operating Fee requirements.

    Operating Fee Requirements. The amount remaining after adjustments for all cash and non-cash needs is the total budgeted Operating Fee requirements. The total budgeted Operating Fee requirements (i.e., line 11 below) represents Operating Fees for both natural-person and corporate FCUs. The natural-person FCU Operating Fees required (i.e. line 13 below) is determined by deducting the corporate FCU Operating Fees (i.e. line 12 below) from the total budgeted Operating Fee requirements (i.e., line 11 below).

    Table 1—Operating Fee Calculation Factors and Explanation Natural-person Federal Credit Union operating fee calculation factors and explanation Calculation formula 1 Proposed Annual Operating Fund Budget amount determines the baseline fee requirement 2 Overhead Transfer Rate calculated from the examiner time survey results, determines the amount of the budget to be reimbursed by the Share Insurance Fund. This amount is subtracted from the proposed budget amount OTR% × − 1. 3 Interest Income projected for the year is estimated based on the latest financial statements, and is subtracted from the budget 4 Miscellaneous (rents, publication fees, FOIA fees) is estimated based on the latest financial statements, and is subtracted from the budget 5 Net Adjustment to Budget Sum lines 1-4. 6 Reduction of any Operating Fund Mid-Session return adjustment reduce cash collections. 7 Reduction of Accrued Annual Leave (based on historical annual amounts) reduce cash collections. 8 Depreciation (e.g. building, leasehold, and equipment estimate) reduce cash collections. 9 New investment projects requested in capital budget increase cash collections. 10 Annual payment of King Street Note Payable (scheduled principal payments) increase cash collections. 11 Budgeted Operating Fee/Capital Requirements Sum lines 5-10. 12 Corporate federal credit union fees are collected and subtracted from natural-person credit union fee requirement (based on corporate credit union scale) 13 Natural-Person Federal Credit Union Operating Fees Required Sum lines 11-12. 14 Estimated Fee collections for end of year (December 31). This projection uses the current Operating Fee scale with estimated asset growth from an internal NCUA economic forecasting models. Based on the June 30 assets, the year-end assets are projected using the estimated asset growth to calculate fee collection estimates for the following year. The Operating Fee assessment is applied against the year-end credit union asset value 15 Difference between estimated Operating Fee collections and projected collections based on estimated asset growth Difference between lines 13 and 14. 16 Average Rate Adjustment Indicated Line 15 divided by 14. IV. Methodology for Determining the Operating Fee Schedule

    The corporate credit union fee schedule was established in 1979 and has changed little over the years. In fact, for many years, the Operating Fee scale remained virtually unchanged. The main driver for no change is the concept that corporate FCUs hold assets of natural-person credit unions, which are already assessed under the natural-person Operating Fees. Assessing corporate FCUs at the same rate would, effectively, assess the same assets twice. Corporate FCUs return a large portion of their earnings to natural-person FCUs in the form of lower fees and higher dividends. Raising Operating Fee assessments for corporate FCUs would result in higher expenses for corporate FCUs. Corporate FCUs would need to pass the higher expenses to natural-person FCUs in the form of higher fees and lower investment yields. The corporate credit union fee schedule is a method of charging corporate FCUs a supervisory fee to defray costs. Table 2 below outlines the 2016 corporate FCU Operating Fee schedule:

    Table 2—Corporate Federal Credit Union Operating Fee Schedule If total assets are over But not over The Operating Fee assessment is: $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $10,593.90 plus 0.0001987 of the total assets over $50,000,000. $100,000,000 No limit $20,528.90 plus 0.0000123 of the total assets over $100,000,000.

    As stated above, the Board delegated authority to the Chief Financial Officer to administer the methodology approved by the Board for calculating the Operating Fees and to set the fee schedule as calculated per the approved methodology beginning in 2016. After determining the Operating Fee requirements for natural-person FCUs (i.e., line 13 above), the Chief Financial Officer creates the natural-person FCU Operating Fee schedule for the upcoming year. Table 3 below outlines the 2016 Operating Fee schedule for natural-person FCUs.

    Table 3—Natural-Person Federal Credit Union Operating Fee Schedule If total assets are more than $1,000,000, the Operating Fee assessment is: Assessment rates Asset tiers 0.00018198 on the first $1,275,170,573 of assets, plus. 0.00005304 on the next 2,583,476,422 of assets, plus. 0.00001771 on assets over 3,858,646,995

    A different assessment rate is applied to each tier. FCUs with $1 million or less in assets pay no Operating Fee.

    There are two primary steps used to determine the adjustments to the Operating Fee schedule for the upcoming year. They are: (1) Updating the prior year asset tiers using the projected asset growth rate; and (2) updating the prior year assessment rates for each asset tier by determining the average assessment rate adjustment.

    Updating prior year asset levels. The first step in determining the new Operating Fee schedule is to increase each asset tier from the prior year by the projected asset growth rate. Assets are indexed annually to preserve the same relative relationship of the scale to the applicable asset base.

    The projected asset growth rate is a forecast of FCU asset growth rates for a year. NCUA's Office of Chief Economist (OCE) uses three different methods to forecast asset growth and combines them to generate an overall asset growth rate forecast.

    Forecasting Method #1: Uses Call Report data for the first half of the year to predict full-year asset growth. This is done by first calculating the ratio of first-half asset growth to full-year asset growth. The percentage of full-year growth accounted for by first-half asset growth varies from year to year but, on average, nearly 80 percent of the asset growth for FCUs occurs in the first half of the year. Using the growth rate in the first half of the year, OCE projects the full-year growth rate.

    Forecasting Method #2: Uses Call Report data to determine the most recent four-quarter growth rate and sets this rate to the full-year asset growth rate. This approach is based on the idea that an FCU is likely to establish and maintain a relatively constant growth rate over a short period, after accounting for variations in the growth rate that is attributable to seasonal fluctuations. This implies that a good forecast of full-year asset growth is the most recently available four-quarter asset growth.

    Forecasting Method #3: Uses a time series statistical model. Using quarterly Call Report data, OCE predicts future four-quarter asset growth using the four-quarter growth in assets for the period ending two quarters earlier (that is, four-quarter asset growth lagged two quarters).

    Combined Forecast: In general, forecasting literature shows that combining forecasts from different approaches can improve forecast accuracy and decrease the likelihood of forecast errors. Using the root mean squared error statistic to calculate the accuracy of the individual approaches and combined forecast approaches, OCE has found that the combined forecast approach is better at predicting the final asset growth rate than any of the individual approaches. OCE therefore averages the forecasts from the three approaches to maximize accuracy.

    Updating the prior year's assessment rates. After updating the prior year asset tiers, the next step is to project Operating Fees using the updated asset tiers and the prior year assessment rates charged to each tier. The percentage difference between the projected Operating Fees (i.e., line 14 above) and the required Operating Fees (i.e., line 13 above) is the average rate adjustment (i.e., line 16 above).

    The average rate adjustment (i.e., line 16 above) is used to amend the prior year's assessment rates for each asset tier either upwards or downwards. If the projected amount of Operating Fees is less than the required amount, then the assessment rates for each asset tier are adjusted upwards. If the projected amount is more than the required amount, then the assessment rates for each asset tier are adjusted downwards.

    The resulting new Operating Fee schedule and due date are communicated via a Letter to Federal Credit Unions and posted to www.NCUA.gov at least 30 days in advance of the due date. No later than March of each year, natural-person FCUs with assets greater than $1 million will receive an invoice for their Operating Fee. Operating Fees are based on actual assets reported as of December 31 of the previous year. NCUA combines the annual Operating Fee and capitalization deposit adjustment into a single invoice normally due in April. As required by the FCU Act, NCUA will deposit the collected fees in the United States Treasury.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on January 21, 2016. Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01623 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Request for Comment Regarding National Credit Union Administration Draft 2017-2021 Strategic Plan AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The NCUA Board (Board) is requesting comment on its 2017-2021 Draft Strategic Plan. The NCUA Draft Strategic Plan 2017-2021 summarizes our analysis of the internal and external environment impacting NCUA; evaluates NCUA programs and risks; and provides goals and objectives for the next five years. While the Board welcomes all comments from the public and stakeholders, it specifically invites comments and input on the proposed goals and objectives of the strategic plan.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):

    NCUA Web site: https://www.ncua.gov/about/pages/board-comments.aspx. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Address to [email protected] Include “[Your name]—Comments on NCUA 2017-2021 Draft Strategic Plan” in the email subject line.

    Fax: (703) 518-6319. Include your name and the following subject line: “Comments on NCUA 2017-2021 Draft Strategic Plan.”

    Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.

    Public Inspection: You can view all public comments on NCUA's Web site at https://www.ncua.gov/about/pages/board-comments.aspx as submitted, except for those we cannot post for technical reasons. NCUA will not edit or remove any identifying or contact information from the public comments submitted. You may inspect paper copies of comments at NCUA's headquarters at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, by appointment weekdays between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. To make an appointment, call (703) 518-6570 or send an email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Lowden, Performance Analyst, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428 or telephone: (703) 518-1182.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 306.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires agencies to prepare strategic plans, annual performance plans and annual performance reports with measurable performance indicators to address the policy, budgeting and oversight needs of both Congress and agency leaders, partners/stakeholders, and program managers. In 2010, Congress passed the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, which further requires a leadership-driven governance model with emphasis on quarterly reviews and transparency. The GPRA Modernization Act requires agencies to set priority goals linked to longer-term Agency strategic goals. Part 6 of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 provides additional guidance and requirements for federal agencies to implement these laws.

    The NCUA Draft Strategic Plan 2017-2021 is issued pursuant to the GPRA, the GPRA Modernization Act, and OMB Circular A-11.

    It highlights the agency's three strategic goals and supporting strategic objectives, which reflect the outcome or greater impact of the broader strategic goals. The three strategic goals for 2017-2021 are to:

    • Ensure a Safe and Sound Credit Union System.

    • Promote Consumer Protection and Financial Literacy.

    • Cultivate an Inclusive, Collaborative Workplace at NCUA that Maximizes Productivity and Enhances Impact.

    The draft NCUA Draft Strategic Plan 2017-2021 is available at the following Web address: https://www.ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/Pages/board-comments.aspx.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on January 21, 2016. Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01625 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0234] Draft NUREG/CR-7209, A Compendium of Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response Analyses to Severe Fire Accident Scenarios AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft NUREG/CR; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft NUREG/CR-7209, “A Compendium of Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response Analyses to Severe Fire Accident Scenarios.” This report summarizes studies of rail and truck transport accidents involving fires, relative to regulatory requirements for shipment of commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF).

    DATES:

    Submit comments by March 28, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0234. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jimmy Chang, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20005-000; telephone: 301- 415-7427; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0234 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0234.

    • 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] Draft NUREG/CR-7209, “A Compendium of Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response Analyses to Severe Fire Accident Scenarios,” is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16015A016.

    • NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0234 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Discussion

    The NRC is issuing draft NUREG/CR-7209, “A Compendium of Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response Analyses to Severe Fire Accident Scenarios.” This report summarizes studies of truck and rail transport accidents involving fires, relative to regulatory requirements for shipment of commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF). The fire accident scenarios were based on the most severe historical railway and roadway fires in terms of their potential impact on SNF containers. The accident scenarios that were analyzed include one railway tunnel fire, two roadway tunnel fires, and one roadway enclosed overpass fire. The combined summary of this work demonstrates that the current NRC regulations and packaging standards provide a high degree of protection to the public health and safety against release of radioactive material in real-world transportation accidents, were such events to involve SNF containers.

    The purpose of this notice is to provide the public with an opportunity to review and provide comments on draft NUREG/CR-7209. Any comments received will be considered in the final version or subsequent revisions of the draft NUREG/CR.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21 day of January, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Christian Araguas, Chief, Containment, Structural, and Thermal Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01654 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0079] Information Collection: NRC's Policy Statement on Cooperation With States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production and Utilization Facilities AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production and Utilization Facilities, Policy Statement.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Vlad Dorjets, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0163), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-7315; email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Benney, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6355; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0079 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0079.

    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 supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15342A105.

    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.

    NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting the NRC's Acting Clearance Officer, Kristen Benney, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6355; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at http://www.regulations.gov and entered into ADAMS. Comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    I. Background

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production and Utilization Facilities, Policy Statement.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on August 26, 2015 (80 FR 51847).

    1. The title of the information collection: Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production and Utilization Facilities, Policy Statement.

    2. OMB approval number: 3150-0163.

    3. Type of submission: Extension.

    4. The form number if applicable: N/A.

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: On occasion, when a State or Tribe wishes to observe NRC inspection or perform inspections for the NRC or when a State or Tribe wishes to negotiate an agreement to observe or perform inspections. States with an agreement and State Resident Engineer have both regular reporting and occasion-specific reporting.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: States and Tribes interested in observing or performing inspections.

    7. The estimated number of annual responses: 213.

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 36.

    9. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 1,380.

    10. Abstract: States and Tribes are involved and interested in monitoring the safety status of nuclear power plants and radioactive materials. This involvement is, in part, in response to the States' and Tribes' public health and safety responsibilities and, in part, in response to their citizens' desire to become more knowledgeable about the safety of nuclear power plants and radioactive materials. States have identified NRC inspections as one possible source of knowledge for their personnel regarding plant and materials licensee activities, and the NRC, through the policy statement on Cooperation with States, has been amenable to accommodating the States' needs in this regard. Additionally, the NRC has been able to accommodate Tribal interests in the same way. The NRC has also entered into reimbursable Agreements with certain States under Section 274i of the Act, as amended, to employ their resources to conduct radioactive materials security inspections against NRC Orders.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of January 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Kristen Benney, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01617 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-76965; File No. SR-BYX-2016-01] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.24, Retail Price Improvement Program, To Extend the Pilot Period January 22, 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 January 12, 2016, BATS Y-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 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 the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to extend the pilot period for the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement (“RPI”) Program (the “Program”), which is currently set to expire on January 31, 2016, for 6 months, to expire on July 31, 2016.

    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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    In November 2012, the Commission approved the RPI Program on a pilot basis.3 The Program is designed to attract retail order flow to the Exchange, and allows such order flow to receive potential price improvement. The Program is currently limited to trades occurring at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share. Under the Program, all Exchange Users 4 are permitted to provide potential price improvement for Retail Orders 5 in the form of non-displayed interest that is better than the national best bid that is a Protected Quotation (“Protected NBB”) or the national best offer that is a Protected Quotation (“Protected NBO”, and together with the Protected NBB, the “Protected NBBO”).6

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68303 (November 27, 2012), 77 FR 71652 (December 3, 2012) (“RPI Approval Order”) (SR-BYX-2012-019).

    4 A “User” is defined in BYX Rule 1.5(cc) as any member or sponsored participant of the Exchange who is authorized to obtain access to the System.

    5 A “Retail Order” is defined in Rule 11.24(a)(2) as an agency order that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a RMO, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any computerized methodology. See Rule 11.24(a)(2).

    6 The term Protected Quotation is defined in BYX Rule 1.5(t) and has the same meaning as is set forth in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(58). The terms Protected NBB and Protected NBO are defined in BYX Rule 1.5(s). The Protected NBB is the best-priced protected bid and the Protected NBO is the best-priced protected offer. Generally, the Protected NBB and Protected NBO and the national best bid (“NBB”) and national best offer (“NBO”, together with the NBB, the “NBBO”) will be the same. However, a market center is not required to route to the NBB or NBO if that market center is subject to an exception under Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(1) or if such NBB or NBO is otherwise not available for an automatic execution. In such case, the Protected NBB or Protected NBO would be the best-priced protected bid or offer to which a market center must route interest pursuant to Regulation NMS Rule 611.

    The Program was approved by the Commission on a pilot basis running one-year from the date of implementation.7 The Commission approved the Program on November 27, 2012.8 The Exchange implemented the Program on January 11, 2013, and has extended the pilot period two times.9 The pilot period for the Program is scheduled to end on January 31, 2016.

    7See RPI Approval Order, supra note 3 at 71652.

    8Id.

    9See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71249 (January 7, 2014), 79 FR 2229 (January 13, 2014) (SR-BYX-2014-001) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Pilot Period for the Retail Price Improvement Program); 74111 (January 22, 2015), 80 FR 4598 (January 28, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-05) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Pilot Period for BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.'s Retail Price Improvement (“RPI”) Program for 12 Months, To Expire on January 31, 2016).

    Proposal to Extend the Operation of the Program

    The Exchange established the RPI Program in an attempt to attract retail order flow to the Exchange by potentially providing price improvement to such order flow. The Exchange believes that the Program promotes competition for retail order flow by allowing Exchange members to submit Retail Price Improvement Orders (“RPI Orders”) 10 to interact with Retail Orders. Such competition has the ability to promote efficiency by facilitating the price discovery process and generating additional investor interest in trading securities, thereby promoting capital formation. The Exchange believes that extending the pilot is appropriate because it will allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to gather and analyze data regarding the Program that the Exchange has committed to provide.11 As such, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to extend the current operation of the Program.12 Through this filing, the Exchange seeks to extend the current pilot period of the Program until July 31, 2016.

    10 A “Retail Price Improvement Order” is defined in Rule 11.24(a)(3) as an order that consists of non-displayed interest on the Exchange that is priced better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such. See Rule 11.24(a)(3).

    11See RPI Approval Order, supra note 3 at 71655.

    12 Concurrently with this filing, the Exchange has submitted a request for an extension of the exemption under Regulation NMS Rule 612 previously granted by the Commission that permits it to accept and rank the RPI orders in sub-penny increments. See Letter from Anders Franzon, SVP, Associate General Counsel, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 12, 2016.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.13 In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,14 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. The Exchange believes that extending the pilot period for the RPI Program is consistent with these principles because the Program is reasonably designed to attract retail order flow to the exchange environment, while helping to ensure that retail investors benefit from the better price that liquidity providers are willing to give their orders. Additionally, as previously stated, the competition promoted by the Program may facilitate the price discovery process and potentially generate additional investor interest in trading securities. The extension of the pilot period will allow the Commission and the Exchange to continue to monitor the Program for its potential effects on public price discovery, and on the broader market structure.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change extends an established pilot program for 6 months, thus allowing the RPI Program to enhance competition for retail order flow and contribute to the public price discovery process.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from Members or other interested parties.

    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) of the Act 15 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 16 thereunder. Because the foregoing proposed rule 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 if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file 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,17 the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 18 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.19

    15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3(A).

    16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    17 The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.

    18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    19 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,20 a proposal does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period after which a proposed rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) becomes operative so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted. Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the proposal operative upon filing.21

    20Id.

    21 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, 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 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 Number SR-BYX-2016-01 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2016-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2016-01, and should be submitted on or before February 17, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.22

    22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01664 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-76956; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-005] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Limit Order Protection and a Market Order Protection January 21, 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 January 12, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq's Rule 4757, entitled “Book Processing” to adopt a Limit Order Protection or “LOP” and a Market Order Protection for members accessing the Nasdaq Market Center.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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 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 Exchange proposes to adopt two new mechanisms to protect against erroneous orders which are entered into the Nasdaq Market Center. Specifically, these features address risks to market participants of human error in entering Orders at unintended prices. LOP and the Market Order Protection would prevent certain Orders from executing or being placed on the Order Book at prices outside pre-set standard limits. The System would not accept such Orders, rather than executing them automatically. The proposed LOP and Market Order Protection features are similar to risk features which exist today on the NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”) 3 and are available for Options Participants.

    3See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c) and Section 18.

    Background

    Today, the National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the “Plan”) 4 provides a limit up-limit down (“LULD”) mechanism designed to prevent trades in NMS securities from occurring outside of specified price bands. The bands are set at a percentage level above and below the average transaction price of the security over the immediately preceding five-minute period, and are calculated on a continuous basis during regular trading hours.5 Rule 4120, entitled “Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Halts,” describes this process for the Nasdaq Market Center.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (Order Approving, on a Pilot Basis, the National Market System Plan To Address Extraordinary Market Volatility). See also Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act.

    5 If the National Best Offer (“NBO”) equals the lower price band without crossing the NBBO, or National Best Bid (“NBB”) equals the upper price band without crossing the NBBO, then the stock will enter a limit state quotation period of 15 seconds during which no new reference prices or price bands will be calculated. A stock will exit the limit state when the entire size of all quotations are executed or cancelled. If the limit state exists and trading continues to occur at the price band, or no trading occurs within the price band, for more than 15 seconds, then a five minute trading pause will be enacted.

    The Exchange proposes to adopt two new features, LOP for Limit Orders and Market Order Protection for Market Orders, which would cancel these Orders back to the member when the order exceeds certain defined logic. These two new features would be in addition to the LULD protections, which exist today.6 Each mechanism is explained further below.

    6 While LULD bands are in place from 9:30 to 4:00 p.m. E.T. each trading day, these new protections will be in place for each trading session.

    LOP

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new LOP feature on the Nasdaq Market Center to prevent certain Limit Orders at prices outside of pre-set standard limits (“LOP Limit Table”) from being accepted by the System. LOP shall apply to all Quotes and Orders,7 including any modified Orders.8 LOP would not apply to Market Orders. LOP would be operational each trading day, except during opening and closing crosses, initial public offerings and trading halts.9 Since Nasdaq Rules provided controls for the opening, closing and initial public offering processes within the Rulebook, the proposed protections are rendered ineffective for those processes.10 Members will be subject to certain parameters when submitting Orders into the Order Book.

    7 An Intermarket Sweep or ISO Order, which is an Order that is immediately executable within the Nasdaq Market Center against Orders against which they are marketable, is subject to LOP. See NASDAQ Rule 4702.

    8 If an Order is modified, LOP will review the order anew and, if LOP is triggered, such modification will not take effect and the original order will not be accepted.

    9 LOP has the ability to suspend by symbol or system wide. The Exchange would notify market participants of any suspension that may be in place via an alert.

    10 The Nasdaq Rulebook provides specific rules for certain auction mechanisms, such as the opening, closing and initial public offering process. The mechanisms contain their own protections with respect to the entry of Orders within those mechanisms. The addition of the proposed protections does not add value in the Exchange's analysis of those structures.

    The Exchange proposes to not accept incoming Limit Orders that exceed the LOP Reference Threshold. The LOP Limit Table contains upper limits and lower limits, for a particular security, across all trading sessions. For example, today, if the NBO is at $50 and a Limit Buy Order was entered into the System at $500, the Limit Buy Order would execute at $50 and then would continue to be executed at other applicable price levels within the Order Book until the Limit Buy Order was canceled or halted. The Exchange proposes LOP to avoid a series of improperly priced aggressive orders transacting in the Order Book.

    With respect to Market Maker Peg Orders,11 the applicable limits shall be two times greater than the limits stated in the LOP Limit Table. A Market Maker Peg Order is a passive Order type which will not otherwise remove liquidity from the Order Book. This Order type was designed to assist Market Makers with meeting their quoting obligations which may require quoting at levels that are not standardized with LULD guidelines. Market Makers have a diverse business model as compared with other market participants. Widening the applicable limits for these market participants serves to promote market making. The Exchange believes that because Market Makers have other risk protections in place to prevent them from quoting outside of their financial means, the risk level for erroneous trades is not the same as with other market participants. Market Makers have more sophisticated infrastructures than other market participants and are able to manage their risk, particularly with quoting, utilizing other tools which may not be available to other market participants.

    11 A “Market Maker Peg Order” is an Order Type designed to allow a Market Maker to maintain a continuous two-sided quotation at a displayed price that is compliant with the quotation requirements for Market Makers set forth in Rule 4613(a)(2). The displayed price of the Market Maker Peg Order is set with reference to a “Reference Price” in order to keep the displayed price of the Market Maker Peg Order within a bounded price range. A Market Maker Peg Order may be entered through RASH, FIX or QIX only. A Market Maker Peg Order must be entered with a limit price beyond which the Order may not be priced. The Reference Price for a Market Maker Peg Order to buy (sell) is the then-current National Best Bid (National Best Offer) (including Nasdaq), or if no such National Best Bid or National Best Offer, the most recent reported last-sale eligible trade from the responsible single plan processor for that day, or if none, the previous closing price of the security as adjusted to reflect any corporate actions (e.g., dividends or stock splits) in the security. See Nasdaq Rule 4702(b)(7).

    The Exchange will send an Equity Trader Alert in advance of implementation with the initial LOP Limit Table and, thereafter, to modify the LOP Limit Table. The initial LOP Limit Table utilizes the same limits as LULD to compare against the LOP Reference Threshold. The Exchange believes that utilizing the same tiers and bands will seek to provide additional market protection to Nasdaq members that submit erroneous trades, prior to reaching LULD limits. The initial LOP table is below.

    Securities Time period Price band percentage Tier 1 and Tier 2 NMS Securities Reference Price > $3.00 Market Hours, excluding Open/Close (9:45 a.m. to 3:35 p.m.) 5% (Tier 1) & 10% (Tier 2). Tier 1 and Tier 2 NMS Securities Reference Price equal to $0.75 to and including $3.00 Market Hours, excluding Open/Close (9:45 a.m. to 3:35 p.m.) 20%. Tier 1 & 2 NMS Securities Reference Price Less than $0.75 Market Hours, excluding Open/Close (9:45 a.m. to 3:35 p.m.) The lesser of $0.15 or 75%. Tier 1 and Tier 2 NMS Securities Reference Price > $3.00 During Market Open/Close 4:00 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. 3:35 p.m. and 8:00 p.m 10% & 20% Note: Band % is doubled during these times. Tier 1 and Tier 2 NMS Securities Reference Price equal to $0.75 to and including $3.00 During Market Open/Close 4:00 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. 3:35 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Same as above 40% Note: Band % is doubled during these times. Tier 1 and Tier 2 NMS Securities Reference Price less than $0.75 During Market Open/Close 4:00 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. 3:35 p.m. and 8:00 p.m Lesser of $0.30 or 150% (upper band only) Note: Band % is doubled during these times.

    LOP will cause Limit Orders to not be accepted if the price of the Limit Order is greater than the LOP Reference Threshold for a buy Limit Order. Limit Orders will also not be accepted if the price of the Limit Order is less than the LOP Reference Threshold for a sell Limit Order.

    The Exchange believes that doubling the band percentage for pre-open and post-close sessions is reasonable due to the volatility which may occur in the market during those trading sessions. The LULD Plan also doubles the percentages for pre-open and post-close thereby aligning this protection with the LULD Plan.12

    12 The LULD Plan provides that between 9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. ET, and 3:35 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. ET, or in the case of an early scheduled close, during the last 25 minutes of trading before the early scheduled close, the Price Bands shall be calculated by applying double the Percentage Parameters set forth in Appendix A. See Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act.

    The LOP Reference Price shall be the current consolidated national Best Bid or Best Offer (consolidated NBBO), the Bid for sell orders and the Offer for buy orders. If there is no consolidated NBBO for a security, or if there is a one-sided market, the last regular way consolidated sale, adjusted for corporate actions, if any, will be the LOP Reference Price. If there is no last regular way consolidated sale on that trade date, then the prior day's adjusted close will be the LOP Reference Price.

    The LOP Reference Threshold for buy orders will be the LOP Reference Price (offer) plus the applicable percentage specified in the LOP Limit Table. The LOP Reference Threshold for sell orders will be the LOP Reference Price (bid) minus the applicable percentage specified in the LOP Limit Table.

    Market Order Protection

    With respect to Market Orders, these Orders will not be accepted if the security is in an LULD Straddle State.13 If the offer is in a Straddle State then all buy Market Orders will not be accepted. If the bid is in a Straddle State than all sell market orders will not be accepted. The Exchange believes that this Market Order Protection feature will prevent Participants from executing Market Orders that stray widely from the LULD defined reference price.

    13 The LULD Plan defines a Straddle State as when the National Best Bid (Offer) is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band and the NMS Stock is not in a Limit State. For example, assume the Lower Price Band for an NMS Stock is $9.50 and the Upper Price Band is $10.50, such NMS stock would be in a Straddle State if the National Best Bid were below $9.50, and therefore non-executable, and the National Best Offer were above $9.50 (including a National Best Offer that could be above $10.50). If an NMS Stock is in a Straddle State and trading in that stock deviates from normal trading characteristics, the Primary Listing Exchange may declare a Trading Pause for that NMS Stock. See Section VII(A)(2) of the Plan.

    The Exchange also notes that both LOP and Market Order Protection will be applicable to all protocols.14 Both the LOP and Market Order Protection features will be mandatory for all Nasdaq members. The Exchange proposes to implement this rule within ninety (90) days of the implementation date. The Exchange will issue an Equities Trader Alert in advance to inform market participants of such implementation date.

    14 Nasdaq maintains several communications protocols for Participants to use in entering Orders and sending other messages to the Nasdaq Market Center, such as: OUCH, RASH, QIX, FLITE and FIX.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 15 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 16 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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, by mitigating risks to market participants of human error in entering Orders at clearly unintended prices. Also, the Market Order Protection feature would protect Market Orders from being executed in very wide markets when those prices are compared to the reference price. The Exchange believes that the proposals are appropriate and reasonable, because they offer protections to both Limit and Market Orders which should encourage price continuity and, in turn, protect investors and the public interest by reducing executions occurring at dislocated prices.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed LOP and Market Order Protection features would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by mitigating the risks associated with errors resulting in executions at prices that are away from the Best Bid or Offer and potentially erroneous. Further the proposal protects investors from potentially receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time.

    The Exchange believes that the LOP Limit Table is appropriate because it is based on the current LULD bands. The Exchange believes that the proposed specified percentages are appropriate because LOP and is designed to reduce the risk of, and to potentially prevent, the automatic execution of Orders at prices that may be considered clearly erroneous. The System will only execute Limit Orders priced within the LOP Limit Table or within the upper (lower) band of LULD, if the latter is more conservative.

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to not accept System Orders in a Straddle State will prevent Market Orders from being entered by market participants at erroneous prices which the Exchange believes would stray widely from the LULD defined reference price.

    The Exchange believes LOP and Market Order Protection will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market because these features will operate in tandem with LULD.

    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. The Exchange believes the LOP and Market Order Protection features will provide market participants with additional protection from anomalous executions, in addition to LULD protections. Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact on competition. These types of risk protections are in place today for NOM Participants.17 The Exchange believes that offering these protections to the Nasdaq Market Center will not impose any undue burden on intra-market competition, rather, it would permit equities and options members to be protected in a similar manner from erroneous executions.

    17See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c) and Section 18.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

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

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-005 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-005. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-005 and should be submitted on or before February 17, 2016.

    18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.18

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01538 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-76950; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-003] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Options Regulatory Fee January 21, 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 January 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, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XV, entitled “Options Pricing,” at Section 5, entitled “NASDAQ Options Regulatory Fee,” which governs pricing for Exchange Participants using the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”), the Exchange's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index options. The Exchange proposes to increase the current Options Regulatory Fee.

    While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on February 1, 2016.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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 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 Exchange proposes to (1) increase the ORF from $0.0015 to $0.0019 as of February 1, 2016 to balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the anticipated costs; and (2) remove the requirement that the ORF may only be modified semi-annually.

    Background

    The ORF is assessed to each Participant for all options transactions executed or cleared by the Participant that are cleared at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the Customer range (i.e., that clear in the Customer account of the Participant's clearing firm at OCC). The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The ORF is imposed upon all transactions executed by a Participant, even if such transactions do not take place on the Exchange.3 The ORF also includes options transactions that are not executed by a Participant but are ultimately cleared by a Participant.4 The ORF is not charged for Participant proprietary options transactions because Participants incur the costs of owning memberships and through their membership are charged transaction fees, dues and other fees that are not applicable to non-members. The dues and fees paid by Participants go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation. The ORF is collected indirectly from Participants through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.

    3 The ORF applies to all “C” account origin code orders executed by a Participant on the Exchange.

    4 In the case where one Participant both executes a transaction and clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to the Participant only once on the execution. In the case where one Participant executes a transaction and a different Participant clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed only to the Participant who executes the transaction and is not assessed to the Participant who clears the transaction. In the case where a non-member executes a transaction and a Participant clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to the Participant who clears the transaction.

    The ORF is designed to recover a portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its Participants, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission.

    ORF Adjustments

    The Exchange proposes to increase the ORF from $0.0015 to $0.0019 as of February 1, 2016 in order to balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the anticipated costs. The Exchange regularly reviews its ORF to ensure that the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange believes this adjustment will permit the Exchange to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, while not exceeding regulatory costs.

    Semi-Annual Changes to ORF

    Currently, the ORF specifies the Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February or August.5 The Exchange is proposing to eliminate this requirement because the Exchange believes it requires the flexibility to amend its ORF to meet its regulatory requirements and adjust its ORF to account for the regulatory revenue that it receives and the costs that it incurs, as needed. While the Exchange is eliminating the requirement to adjust only semi-annually, it will continue to submit a rule proposal with the Commission for each modification to the ORF and notify participants via an Options Trader Alert of any anticipated change in the amount of the fee at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the effective date. The Exchange believes that the prior notification to market participants will provide guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF and ensure market participants are prepared to configure their systems to properly account for the ORF. The Exchange notified Participants of this ORF adjustment thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed operative date.

    5See NOM Rules at Chapter XV, Section 5.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act 7 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    The Exchange believes that increasing the ORF from $0.0015 to $0.0019 as of February 1, 2016 is reasonable because the Exchange's collection of ORF needs to be balanced against the amount of regulatory revenue collected by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed adjustments noted herein will serve to balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the anticipated regulatory costs.

    The Exchange believes that increasing the ORF from $0.0015 to $0.0019 as of February 1, 2016 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this adjustment would be applicable to all members on all of their transactions that clear as Customer at OCC. In addition, the ORF seeks to recover the costs of supervising and regulating members, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities.

    The ORF is not charged for member proprietary options transactions because members incur the costs of owning memberships and through their memberships are charged transaction fees, dues and other fees that are not applicable to non-members. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those members that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of Customer options business they conduct.

    Regulating Customer trading activity is more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-Customer trading activity. Surveillance, regulation and examination of non-Customer trading activity generally tends to be more automated and less labor intensive. As a result, the costs associated with administering the Customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are anticipated to be higher than the costs associated with administering the non-Customer component of its regulatory program. The Exchange proposes assessing higher fees to those members that will require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of Customer options business they conduct.8 Additionally, the dues and fees paid by members go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation. The Exchange has in place a regulatory structure to surveil for, exam [sic] and monitor the marketplace for violations of Exchange Rules. The ORF assists the Exchange to fund the cost of this regulation of the marketplace.

    8 The ORF is not charged for orders that clear in categories other than the Customer range at OCC (e.g., NOM Market Maker orders) because members incur the costs of memberships and through their memberships are charged transaction fees, dues and other fees that go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to remove the limit to amend the ORF only semi-annually, with advance notice, is reasonable because the Exchange will continue to provide market participants with thirty (30) days advance notice of amending its ORF. Also, the Exchange is required to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to remove the semi-annual limit to amend its ORF in order to permit the Exchange to make amendments to its ORF as necessary to comply with the Exchange's obligations.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to remove the limit to amend the ORF only semi-annually, with advance notice, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all members that are subject to the ORF. Also, all members will continue to receive advance notice of changes to the ORF.

    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. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.

    The Exchange does not believe that increasing its ORF creates an undue burden on intra-market competition because the adjustment will apply to all members on all of their transactions that clear as Customer at OCC. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. Additionally, the dues and fees paid by members go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation. The Exchange's members are subject to ORF on other options markets.9

    9 The following options exchanges assess an ORF, [sic] Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), C2 Options Exchange, Inc. (“C2”), the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”), NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSEArca”) and [sic] NYSE AMEX LLC (“NYSEAmex”), BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS”) and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (“Phlx' [sic]”).

    The Exchange does not believe that removing the limit to amend the ORF semi-annually, with advance notice, creates an undue burden on competition. The Exchange will continue to provide the same advance notice of changes to the ORF as it does today.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.10

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    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-2016-003 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-003. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-003 and should be submitted on or before February 17, 2016.

    11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.11

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01532 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-76968; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-10] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Establishing the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances Proprietary Market Data Product January 22, 2016.

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that on January 13, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances proprietary market data product. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances datafeed as a separate, stand-alone market data product. The NYSE Arca Order Imbalances product would be a real-time datafeed of the information that the Exchange provides in advance of an auction.

    The Exchange is establishing the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances product in connection with the implementation of Pillar, the Exchange's proposed new technology trading platform.4 Pillar is the integrated trading technology platform designed to use a single specification for connecting to the equities and options markets operated by NYSE Arca and its affiliates, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”). NYSE Arca Equities would be the first trading system to migrate to Pillar. Rule 7.35P(a)(4)(C) provides that the Exchange will disseminate Auction Imbalance Information via a proprietary data feed during the times specified in the rule, and through this filing, the Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances feed as the proprietary data feed to which Rule 7.35P(a)(4)(C) refers.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74951 (May 13, 2015), 80 FR 28721 (May 19, 2015) (Notice) and 75494 (July 20, 2015), 80 FR 44170 (July 24, 2015) (Order) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-38) (“Pillar I Filing”); 75497 (July 21, 2015), 80 FR 45022 (July 28, 2015) (Notice) and 76267 (Oct. 26, 2015), 80 FR 66951 (Oct. 30, 2015) (Order) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-56)(“Pillar II Filing”); 75467 (July 16, 2015), 80 FR 43515 (July 22, 2015) (Notice) and 76198 (Oct. 20, 2015), 80 FR 65274 (Oct. 26, 2015) (Order) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-58) (“Pillar III Filing”); and 76085 (Oct. 6, 2015), 80 FR 61513 (Oct. 13, 2015) (Notice) and 76869 (Jan. 11, 2016) (Order) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-86) (“Pillar Auction Filing”).

    Rule 7.35P(a)(4) defines Auction Imbalance Information as the information disseminated by the Exchange for an auction. As set forth in Rule 7.35P, Auction Imbalance information includes, if applicable, the Total Imbalance, Market Imbalance, Indicative Match Price and Matched Volume, each as defined in Rule 7.35P(a). The Auction Imbalance Information would be disseminated on a time frame specified in Rule 7.35P. The NYSE Arca Order Imbalances market data product would provide Auction Imbalance Information with respect to symbols migrated to the Pillar platform.

    NYSE Arca order imbalance information, as defined in Rule 7.35, is currently available through the NYSE ArcaBook and NYSE Arca Integrated proprietary market data products and would continue to be disseminated on these data feeds when symbols migrate to Pillar.5 When a symbol migrates to Pillar, the NYSE Arca order imbalance information available through NYSE ArcaBook and NYSE Arca Integrated proprietary market data products would be based on Rule 7.35P.

    5See Pillar Auction Filing Notice, footnotes 22 and 23. See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59039 (Dec. 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 (Dec. 9, 2008) (NYSE ArcaBook); and 65669 (Nov. 2, 2011), 76 FR 69311 (Nov. 8, 2011) (NYSE Arca Integrated Data Feed).

    The Exchange proposes to offer the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances product through networks in the Exchange's Mahwah, New Jersey data center that are available to users of the Exchange's co-location services. The Exchange also would offer the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances product through the Exchange's Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (SFTI) network, through which all other users and member organizations access the Exchange's trading and execution systems and other proprietary market data products.

    The Exchange will file a separate rule filing to establish the fees for the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances product. As noted above, the Exchange is establishing the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances product in conjunction with the implementation of Pillar, the Exchange's proposed new technology trading platform,6 and the Exchange will announce the date that the product will be available through an NYSE Market Data Notice.

    6See note 4, supra.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) 7 of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) 8 of the Act, 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, 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, and it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. This proposal is in keeping with those principles in that it promotes increased transparency through the dissemination of the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances market data product to those interested in receiving it.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing investors with new options for receiving market data as requested by market data vendors and purchasers. The proposed rule change would benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access to the real-time information contained in the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances market data product.

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances market data product is precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:

    Efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.9

    9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (“Regulation NMS Adopting Release”).

    The Exchange further notes that the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's product, including order imbalances products offered by the Exchange's affiliates, NYSE and NYSE MKT,10 and by the Nasdaq Stock Market (“NASDAQ”),11 as well as real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange is not unreasonably discriminatory because vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives as their individual business cases warrant. This proposed new data feed provides investors with new options for receiving market data, which was a primary goal of the market data amendments adopted by Regulation NMS.12

    10See Securities Act Release Nos. 59543 (March 9, 2009), 74 FR 11159 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-132) (NYSE Order Imbalances) and 59743 (April 9, 2009), 74 FR 17699 (April 16, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-11)(NYSE Amex Order Imbalances, n/k/a NYSE MKT Order Imbalances).

    11See Nasdaq TotalView-ITCH, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=Totalview2 (last visited November 25, 2015)(displays the full order book depth for Nasdaq market participants and also disseminates the Net Order Imbalance Indicator (NOII) for the Nasdaq Opening and Closing Crosses and Nasdaq IPO/Halt Cross).

    12See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra, at 37503.

    The NYSE Arca Order Imbalances market data product will help to protect a free and open market by providing additional data to the marketplace and by giving investors greater choices. In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the product will be available to all of the Exchange's customers and broker-dealers through both SFTI and the Liquidity Center Network.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,13 the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Because other exchanges already offer similar products, the Exchange's proposed NYSE Arca Order Imbalances market data product will enhance competition. The NYSE Arca Order Imbalances product will foster competition by providing an alternative to similar products offered by other exchanges, including order imbalances products offered by the Exchange's affiliates, NYSE and NYSE MKT,14 and by NASDAQ.15 This proposed new data feed provides investors with new options for receiving market data, which was a primary goal of the market data amendments adopted by Regulation NMS.16

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    14See note 10, supra.

    15See note 11, supra.

    16See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra, at 37503.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    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 17 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.18

    17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    18 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 19 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 20 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 stated that it anticipates migrating symbols to Pillar beginning February 1, 2016, and that waiver of the operative delay would permit market data that would be available in existing products for symbols that have migrated to Pillar to also be available in a stand-alone product, which would offer an alternative to currently available proprietary data products. 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.21

    19 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    20 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    21 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 Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-10 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-10. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-10, and should be submitted on or before February 17, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.22

    22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01667 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-76946; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-006] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Subsection (a)(7) of Rule 7003, Registration and Processing Fees January 21, 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 January 13, 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, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend subsection (a)(7) of Rule 7003, Registration and Processing Fees.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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 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 Exchange proposes to make changes to the continuing education fees section of Rule 7003 to provide that the continuing education session fee will be $55 if the session is conducted via Web delivery. The continuing education session fee will remain $100 if the session is conducted at a testing center. The Exchange is also eliminating the $60 session fee for the S501 continuing education Regulatory Element, which FINRA eliminated as of January 4, 2016.3

    3 Currently, Rule 7003(a) provides that certain fees will be collected and retained by FINRA via the Web CRD registration system for the registration of associated persons of Nasdaq members that are not also FINRA members. Under Rule 7003(a)(7), FINRA collects and retains a $100 session fee for each individual who is required to complete the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 1120 (S101 and S201) and a $60 session fee for each individual who is required to complete the Proprietary Trader Regulatory Element (S501).

    On August 8, 2015, the Commission approved SR-FINRA-2015-015 amending FINRA Rule 1250 to provide a Web-based delivery method for completing the Regulatory Element of the continuing education requirements.4 Pursuant to the rule change, effective October 1, 2015, the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Programs for the S201 for Registered Principals and Supervisors is now administered through Web-based delivery or such other technological manner and format as specified by FINRA. FINRA launched Web-based delivery of the S101 Regulatory Element program on January 4, 2016.5

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75581 (July 31, 2015), 80 FR 47018 (August 6, 2015) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Provide a Web-based Delivery Method for Completing the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements) (SR-FINRA-2015-015).

    5 The Regulatory Element of the S101 and S201 Continuing Education Programs will continue to be offered at testing centers until no later than six months after January 4, 2016. Test-center delivery of the Regulatory Element will be phased out by no later than six months after January 4, 2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75581 (July 31, 2015), 80 FR 47018 (August 6, 2015) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Provide a Web-Based Delivery Method for Completing the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education) (SR-FINRA-2015-015).

    Pursuant to the approval order for SR-FINRA-2015-015, the fee for test-center delivery of the Regulatory Elements of the S101 and S201 Continuing Education programs will continue to be $100 per session through no later than six months after January 4, 2016 when the programs will no longer be offered at testing centers. However, under the SR-FINRA-2015-015 approval order the fee for Web-based delivery of the Regulatory Elements of the S101 and the S201 Continuing Education programs is now $55.

    The Exchange currently utilizes FINRA's Continuing Education programs for its own continuing education requirements which include the S101 and S201 programs. Consistent with SR-FINRA-2015-015, the Exchange recently filed a separate proposed rule change relating to continuing education.6 In that filing, the Exchange proposed to follow the changes set forth in SR-FINRA-2015-015 with respect to Web-based delivery of the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education programs for the S101 and the S201. Consistent with SR-FINRA-2015-015 this proposed rule change would amend Rule 7003 to provide that the following fees will be collected and retained by FINRA for the registration of associated persons of Nasdaq members that are not also FINRA members: A $100 session fee ($55 if the Continuing Education is Web-based) for each individual who is required to complete the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 1120 (S101 and S201). The proposal will eliminate the $60 session fee for each individual who is required to complete the Proprietary Trader Regulatory Element (S501).7

    6See SR-NASDAQ-2015-167 filed December 30, 2015.

    7 As noted above, the S501 Proprietary Trader Regulatory Element was discontinued by FINRA as of January 4, 2016. The Exchange anticipates filing a subsequent rule change to eliminate the reference to the $100 session fee when the test center option is eliminated for the S101 and S201 Regulatory Elements.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.8 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 9 requirements that the rules of an exchange be 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 regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and 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. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 10 requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    10Id.

    Web-based delivery will remove time parameters that exist with respect to taking continuing education at testing centers. Having additional time to take continuing education may result in better learning outcomes, which should enhance investor protection. In addition, the option to have Web-based delivery of the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education program at a reduced cost removes impediments to a free and open market and national market system by making it easier and less costly for registrants to participate in the market. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that Web-based delivery of the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Program and reducing the costs of continuing education in general are goals that are 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. As FINRA has stated, the proposed rule change is specifically intended to reduce the burdens of continuing education on market participants while preserving the integrity of the Continuing Education program.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.11

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    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-2016-006 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-006. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-006 and should be submitted on or before February 17, 2016.

    12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.12

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01530 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-76947; File No. SR-BX-2016-004] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Subsection (a)(7) of Rule 7003, Registration and Processing Fees January 21, 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 January 13, 2016, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (“BX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend subsection (a)(7) of Rule 7003, Registration and Processing Fees, as described further below.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.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 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 Exchange proposes to make changes to the continuing education fees section of Rule 7003 to provide that the continuing education session fee will be $55 if the session is conducted via Web delivery. The continuing education session fee will remain $100 if the session is conducted at a testing center. The Exchange is deleting the $60 session fee for the S501 Regulatory Element, which FINRA discontinued as of January 4, 2016.3

    3 Currently, Rule 7003(a) provides that certain fees will be collected and retained by FINRA via the Web CRD registration system for the registration of associated persons of Exchange members that are not also FINRA members. Under Rule 7003(a)(7), FINRA collects and retains a $100 session fee for each individual who is required to complete the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements pursuant to Exchange Rule 1120 (S101 and S201) and a $60 session fee for each individual who is required to complete the Proprietary Trader Regulatory Element (S501).

    On August 8, 2015, the Commission approved SR-FINRA-2015-015 relating proposed changes to FINRA Rule 1250 to provide a Web-based delivery method for completing the Regulatory Element of the continuing education requirements.4 Pursuant to the rule change, effective October 1, 2015, the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Programs for the S201 for Registered Principals and Supervisors is now administered through Web-based delivery or such other technological manner and format as specified by FINRA. FINRA launched Web-based delivery of the S101 Regulatory Element program on January 4, 2016.5

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75581 (July 31, 2015), 80 FR 47018 (August 6, 2015) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Provide a Web-based Delivery Method for Completing the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements) (SR-FINRA-2015-015).

    5 The Regulatory Element of the S101 and S201 Continuing Education Programs will continue to be offered at testing centers until no later than six months after January 4, 2016. Test-center delivery of the Regulatory Element will be phased out by no later than six months after January 4, 2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75581 (July 31, 2015), 80 FR 47018 (August 6, 2015) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Provide a Web-Based Delivery Method for Completing the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education) (SR-FINRA-2015-015).

    Pursuant to the approval order for SR-FINRA-2015-015, the fee for test-center delivery of the Regulatory Element of the S201 Continuing Education programs will continue to be $100 per session through no later than six months after January 4, 2016 when the program will no longer be offered at testing centers. However, under the SR-FINRA-2015-015 approval order the fee for Web-based delivery of the Regulatory Elements of the S101 and the S201 Continuing Education programs is now $55.

    The Exchange currently utilizes FINRA's Continuing Education programs for its own continuing education requirements which include the S101 and S201 programs. Consistent with SR-FINRA-2015-015, the Exchange recently filed a separate proposed rule change relating to continuing education.6 In that filing, the Exchange proposed to follow the changes set forth in SR-FINRA-2015-015 with respect to Web-based delivery of the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education programs for the S101 and the S201. Consistent with SR-FINRA-2015-015 this proposed rule change would amend Rule 7003 to provide that the following fees will be collected and retained by FINRA for the registration of associated persons of Exchange members that are not also FINRA members: A $100 session fee ($55 if the Continuing Education is Web-based) for each individual who is required to complete the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements pursuant to Exchange Rule 1120 (S101 and S201). The proposal will eliminate the $60 session fee for each individual who is required to complete the Proprietary Trader Regulatory Element (S501).7

    6See SR-BX-2016-02 [sic].

    7 As noted above, the S501 Proprietary Trader Regulatory Element was discontinued January 4, 2016. The Exchange anticipates filing a subsequent rule change to eliminate the reference to the $100 session fee when the test center option is eliminated for the S101 and S201 Regulatory Elements.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.8 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 9 requirements that the rules of an exchange be 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 regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and 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. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 10 requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    10Id.

    Web-based delivery will remove time parameters that exist with respect to taking continuing education at testing centers. Having additional time to take continuing education may result in better learning outcomes, which should enhance investor protection. In addition, the option to have Web-based delivery of the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education program at a reduced cost makes it easier and less costly for registrants to participate in the market. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that Web-based delivery of the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Program and reducing the costs of continuing education in general are goals that are 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. As FINRA has stated, the proposed rule change is specifically intended to reduce the burdens of continuing education on market participants while preserving the integrity of the Continuing Education program.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.11

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    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-BX-2016-004 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-004. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-004 and should be submitted on or before February 17, 2016.

    12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.12

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-01531 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-76954; File No. SR-BATS-2016-02] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares, to List and Trade Shares of the iShares iBonds Dec 2023 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2024 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2025 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF of the iShares U.S. ETF Trust January 21, 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 January 12, 2016, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BATS”) 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 Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to a rule change to list and trade shares of the iShares iBonds Dec 2023 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2024 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2025 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (each a “Fund” or, collectively, the “Funds”) of the iShares U.S. ETF Trust (the “Trust”) under BATS Rule 14.11(i) (“Managed Fund Shares”). The shares of the Funds are referred to herein as the “Shares.”

    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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under BATS Rule 14.11(i), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.3 The Funds will be actively managed funds. The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on June 21, 2011. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a registration statement on behalf of the Funds on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission.4

    3 The Commission approved BATS Rule 14.11(i) in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65225 (August 30, 2011), 76 FR 55148 (September 6, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-018).

    4See Registration Statement on Form N-1A for the Trust, dated November 2, 2015 (File Nos. 333-179904 and 811-22649). The descriptions of the Funds and the Shares contained herein are based, in part, on information in the Registration Statement. The Commission has issued an order granting certain exemptive relief to the Trust under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) (“1940 Act”) (the “Exemptive Order”). See Investment Company Act Release No. 29571 (January 24, 2011) (File No. 812-13601).

    Description of the Shares and the Funds

    BlackRock Fund Advisors is the investment adviser (“BFA” or “Adviser”) to the Funds.5 State Street Bank and Trust Company is the administrator, custodian, and transfer agent (“Administrator,” “Custodian,” and “Transfer Agent,” respectively) for the Trust. BlackRock Investments, LLC serves as the distributor (“Distributor”) for the Trust.

    5 BFA is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc.

    BATS Rule 14.11(i)(7) provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.6 In addition, Rule 14.11(i)(7) further requires that personnel who make decisions on the investment company's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the applicable investment company portfolio. Rule 14.11(i)(7) is similar to BATS Rule 14.11(b)(5)(A)(i), however, Rule 14.11(i)(7) in connection with the establishment of a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer reflects the applicable open-end fund's portfolio, not an underlying benchmark index, as is the case with index-based funds. The Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer, but is affiliated with multiple broker-dealers and has implemented “fire walls” with respect to such broker-dealers regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to a Fund's portfolio. In addition, Adviser personnel who make decisions regarding a Fund's portfolio are subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the Fund's portfolio. In the event that (a) the Adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or newly affiliated with another broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or such broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.

    6 An investment adviser to an open-end fund is required to be registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). As a result, the Adviser and its related personnel are subject to the provisions of Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act relating to codes of ethics. This Rule requires investment advisers to adopt a code of ethics that reflects the fiduciary nature of the relationship to clients as well as compliance with other applicable securities laws. Accordingly, procedures designed to prevent the communication and misuse of non-public information by an investment adviser must be consistent with Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act. In addition, Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act makes it unlawful for an investment adviser to provide investment advice to clients unless such investment adviser has (i) adopted and implemented written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation, by the investment adviser and its supervised persons, of the Advisers Act and the Commission rules adopted thereunder; (ii) implemented, at a minimum, an annual review regarding the adequacy of the policies and procedures established pursuant to subparagraph (i) above and the effectiveness of their implementation; and (iii) designated an individual (who is a supervised person) responsible for administering the policies and procedures adopted under subparagraph (i) above.

    iShares iBonds Dec 2023 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF

    According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to maximize tax-free current income and terminate on or around December 2023. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances,7 at least 80% of its net assets in Municipal Securities, as defined below, such that the interest on each security is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax (the “AMT”). The Fund is not a money market fund and does not seek to maintain a stable net asset value of $1.00 per share. The Fund will be classified as a “non-diversified” investment company under the 1940 Act.8

    7 The term “under normal circumstances” includes, but is not limited to, the absence of adverse market, economic, political, or other conditions, including extreme volatility or trading halts in the financial markets; operational issues causing dissemination of inaccurate market information; or force majeure type events such as systems failure, natural or man-made disaster, act of God, armed conflict, act of terrorism, riot, or labor disruption, or any similar intervening circumstance.

    8 The diversification standard is set forth in Section 5(b)(1) of the 1940 Act.

    The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain RIC qualification under Subchapter M.

    Principal Holdings—Municipal Securities

    To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances, in U.S.-dollar denominated investment-grade fixed-rate Municipal Securities, as defined below. The Fund will invest in both callable and non-callable municipal bonds. Investment-grade securities are rated a minimum of BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and/or Fitch, or Baa3 or higher by Moody's, or if unrated, determined by the Adviser to be of equivalent quality.9 Under normal circumstances, the Fund's effective duration will vary within one year (plus or minus) of the effective duration of the securities comprising the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2023 Index, which, as of December 15, 2015, was 6.51 years.10

    9 According to the Adviser, BFA may determine that unrated securities are of “equivalent quality” based on such credit quality factors that it deems appropriate, which may include among other things, performing an analysis similar, to the extent possible, to that performed by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization when rating similar securities and issuers. In making such a determination, BFA may consider internal analyses and risk ratings, third party research and analysis, and other sources of information, as deemed appropriate by the Adviser.

    10 Effective duration is a measure of the Fund's price sensitivity to changes in yields or interest rates.

    Municipal securities (“Municipal Securities”) are fixed and variable rate securities issued in the U.S. by U.S. states and territories, municipalities and other political subdivisions, agencies, authorities, and instrumentalities of states and multi-state agencies and authorities and will include only the following instruments: General obligation bonds,11 limited obligation bonds (or revenue bonds),12 municipal notes,13 municipal commercial paper,14 tender option bonds,15 variable rate demand obligations (“VRDOs”),16 municipal lease obligations,17 stripped securities,18 structured securities,19 when issued securities,20 zero coupon securities,21 and exchange traded and non-exchange traded investment companies (including investment companies advised by BFA or its affiliates) that invest in such Municipal Securities.22

    11 General obligation bonds are obligations involving the credit of an issuer possessing taxing power and are payable from such issuer's general revenues and not from any particular source.

    12 Limited obligation bonds are payable only from the revenues derived from a particular facility or class of facilities or, in some cases, from the proceeds of a special excise or other specific revenue source, and also include industrial development bonds issued pursuant to former U.S. federal tax law. Industrial development bonds generally are also revenue bonds and thus are not payable from the issuer's general revenues. The credit and quality of industrial development bonds are usually related to the credit of the corporate user of the facilities. Payment of interest on and repayment of principal of such bonds is the responsibility of the corporate user (and/or any guarantor).

    13 Municipal notes are shorter-term municipal debt obligations that may provide interim financing in anticipation of tax collection, receipt of grants, bond sales, or revenue receipts.

    14 Municipal commercial paper is generally unsecured debt that is issued to meet short-term financing needs.

    15 Tender option bonds are synthetic floating-rate or variable-rate securities issued when long-term bonds are purchased in the primary or secondary market and then deposited into a trust. Custodial receipts are then issued to investors, such as the Fund, evidencing ownership interests in the trust.

    16 VRDOs are tax-exempt obligations that contain a floating or variable interest rate adjustment formula and a right of demand on the part of the holder thereof to receive payment of the unpaid principal balance plus accrued interest upon a short notice period not to exceed seven days.

    17 Municipal lease obligations include certificates of participation issued by government authorities or entities to finance the acquisition or construction of equipment, land, and/or facilities.

    18 Stripped securities are created when an issuer separates the interest and principal components of an instrument and sells them as separate securities. In general, one security is entitled to receive the interest payments on the underlying assets and the other to receive the principal payments.

    19 Structured securities are privately negotiated debt obligations where the principal and/or interest is determined by reference to the performance of an underlying investment, index, or reference obligation, and may be issued by governmental agencies. While structured securities are part of the principal holdings of the Fund, the Issuer represents that such securities, when combined with those instruments held as part of the other portfolio holdings described below, will not exceed 20% of the Fund's net assets.

    20 The Fund may purchase or sell securities that it is entitled to receive on a when issued or delayed delivery basis as well as through a forward commitment.

    21 Zero coupon securities are securities that are sold at a discount to par value and do not pay interest during the life of the security. The discount approximates the total amount of interest the security will accrue and compound over the period until maturity at a rate of interest reflecting the market rate of the security at the time of issuance. Upon maturity, the holder of a zero coupon security is entitled to receive the par value of the security.

    22 The Fund currently anticipates investing in only registered open-end investment companies, including mutual funds and the open-end investment company funds described in BATS Rule 14.11. The Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies to the extent permitted by law.

    In the last year of operation, as the bonds held by the Fund mature, the proceeds will not be reinvested in bonds but instead will be held in cash and cash equivalents, including, without limitation, shares of affiliated money market funds, AMT-free tax-exempt municipal notes, VRDOs, tender option bonds and municipal commercial paper. In or around December 2023, the Fund will wind up and terminate, and its net assets will be distributed to then current shareholders.

    In the absence of normal circumstances, the Fund may temporarily depart from its normal investment process, provided that such departure is, in the opinion of the Adviser, consistent with the Fund's investment objective and in the best interest of the Fund. For example, the Fund may hold a higher than normal proportion of its assets in cash in response to adverse market, economic or political conditions.

    The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.23 The Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain RIC qualification under Subchapter M.

    23 26 U.S.C. 851.

    Other Portfolio Holdings

    The Fund may also, to a limited extent (under normal circumstances, less than 20% of the Fund's net assets), engage in transactions in futures contracts, options, or swaps in order to facilitate trading or to reduce transaction costs.24 The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to achieve leveraged returns (i.e. two times or three times the Fund's benchmark, as described in the Registration Statement).

    24 Derivatives might be included in the Fund's investments to serve the investment objectives of the Fund. Such derivatives include only the following: Interest rate futures, interest rate options, interest rate swaps, and swaps on Municipal Securities indexes. The derivatives will be centrally cleared and they will be collateralized. Derivatives are not a principal investment strategy of the Fund.

    The Fund may also enter into repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements for Municipal Securities (collectively, “Repurchase Agreements”). Repurchase Agreements involve the sale of securities with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment and have the characteristics of borrowing as part of the Fund's principal holdings.25

    25 The Fund's exposure to reverse repurchase agreements will be covered by liquid assets having a value equal to or greater than such commitments. The use of reverse repurchase agreements is a form of leverage because the proceeds derived from reverse repurchase agreements may be invested in additional securities. As further stated below, the Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to achieve leveraged returns.

    The Fund may also invest in short-term instruments (“Short-Term Instruments”),26 which includes exchange traded and non-exchange traded investment companies (including investment companies advised by BFA or its affiliates) that invest in money market instruments.

    26 The Fund may invest in Short-Term Instruments, including money market instruments, on an ongoing basis to provide liquidity or for other reasons. Money market instruments are generally short-term investments that include only the following: (i) Shares of money market funds (including those advised by BFA or otherwise affiliated with BFA); (ii) obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities (including government-sponsored enterprises); (iii) negotiable certificates of deposit (“CDs”), bankers' acceptances, fixed-time deposits and other obligations of U.S. and non-U.S. banks (including non-U.S. branches) and similar institutions; (iv) commercial paper, including asset-backed commercial paper; (v) non-convertible corporate debt securities (e.g., bonds and debentures) with remaining maturities at the date of purchase of not more than 397 days and that satisfy the rating requirements set forth in Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act; and (vi) short-term U.S. dollar-denominated obligations of non-U.S. banks (including U.S. branches) that, in the opinion of BFA, are of comparable quality to obligations of U.S. banks which may be purchased by the Fund. All money market securities acquired by the Fund will be rated investment grade. The Fund does not intend to invest in any unrated money market securities. However, it may do so, to a limited extent, such as where a rated money market security becomes unrated, if such money market security is determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality. BFA may determine that unrated securities are of comparable quality based on such credit quality factors that it deems appropriate, which may include, among other things, performing an analysis similar, to the extent possible, to that performed by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization rating similar securities and issuers.

    Investment Restrictions

    The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), as deemed illiquid by the Adviser 27 under the 1940 Act.28 The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid assets. Illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.

    27 In reaching liquidity decisions, the Adviser may consider factors including: The frequency of trades and quotes for the security; the number of dealers wishing to purchase or sell the security and the number of other potential purchasers; dealer undertakings to make a market in the security; the nature of the security and the nature of the marketplace trades (e.g., the time needed to dispose of the security, the method of soliciting offers, and the mechanics of transfer); any legal or contractual restrictions on the ability to transfer the security or asset; significant developments involving the issuer or counterparty specifically (e.g., default, bankruptcy, etc.) or the securities markets generally; and settlement practices, registration procedures, limitations on currency conversion or repatriation, and transfer limitations (for foreign securities or other assets).

    28 The Commission has stated that long-standing Commission guidelines have required open-end funds to hold no more than 15% of their net assets in illiquid securities and other illiquid assets. See Investment Company Act Release No. 28193 (March 11, 2008), 73 FR 14618 (March 18, 2008), footnote 34. See also, Investment Company Act Release No. 5847 (October 21, 1969), 35 FR 19989 (December 31, 1970) (Statement Regarding “Restricted Securities”); Investment Company Act Release No. 18612 (March 12, 1992), 57 FR 9828 (March 20, 1992) (Revisions of Guidelines to Form N-1A). A fund's portfolio security is illiquid if it cannot be disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the value ascribed to it by the fund. See Investment Company Act Release No. 14983 (March 12, 1986), 51 FR 9773 (March 21, 1986) (adopting amendments to Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act); Investment Company Act Release No. 17452 (April 23, 1990), 55 FR 17933 (April 30, 1990) (adopting Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933).

    The Fund may also invest up to 20% of its net assets in Municipal Securities that pay interest that is subject to the AMT.

    The Fund will not purchase the securities of issuers conducting their principal business activity in the same industry if, immediately after the purchase and as a result thereof, the value of the Fund's investments in that industry would equal or exceed 25% of the current value of the Fund's total assets, provided that this restriction does not limit the Fund's: (i) Investments in securities of other investment companies, (ii) investments in securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, (iii) investments in securities of state, territory, possession or municipal governments and their authorities, agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions or (iv) investments in repurchase agreements collateralized by any such obligations.29

    29See Form N-1A, Item 9. The Commission has taken the position that a fund is concentrated if it invests in more than 25% of the value of its total assets in any one industry. See, e.g., Investment Company Act Release No. 9011 (October 30, 1975), 40 FR 54241 (November 21, 1975).

    iShares iBonds Dec 2024 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF

    According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to maximize tax-free current income and terminate on or around December 2024. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances,30 at least 80% of its net assets in Municipal Securities, as defined below, such that the interest on each security is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax (the “AMT”). The Fund is not a money market fund and does not seek to maintain a stable net asset value of $1.00 per share. The Fund will be classified as a “non-diversified” investment company under the 1940 Act.31

    30 The term “under normal circumstances” includes, but is not limited to, the absence of adverse market, economic, political, or other conditions, including extreme volatility or trading halts in the financial markets; operational issues causing dissemination of inaccurate market information; or force majeure type events such as systems failure, natural or man-made disaster, act of God, armed conflict, act of terrorism, riot, or labor disruption, or any similar intervening circumstance.

    31 The diversification standard is set forth in Section 5(b)(1) of the 1940 Act.

    The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain RIC qualification under Subchapter M.

    Principal Holdings—Municipal Securities

    To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances, in U.S.-dollar denominated investment-grade fixed-rate Municipal Securities, as defined below. The Fund will invest in both callable and non-callable municipal bonds. Investment-grade securities are rated a minimum of BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and/or Fitch, or Baa3 or higher by Moody's, or if unrated, determined by the Adviser to be of equivalent quality.32 Under normal circumstances, the Fund's effective duration will vary within one year (plus or minus) of the effective duration of the securities comprising the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2024 Index, which, as of December 15, 2015, was 7.24 years.33

    32 According to the Adviser, BFA may determine that unrated securities are of “equivalent quality” based on such credit quality factors that it deems appropriate, which may include among other things, performing an analysis similar, to the extent possible, to that performed by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization when rating similar securities and issuers. In making such a determination, BFA may consider internal analyses and risk ratings, third party research and analysis, and other sources of information, as deemed appropriate by the Adviser.

    33 Effective duration is a measure of the Fund's price sensitivity to changes in yields or interest rates.

    Municipal securities (“Municipal Securities”) are fixed and variable rate securities issued in the U.S. by U.S. states and territories, municipalities and other political subdivisions, agencies, authorities, and instrumentalities of states and multi-state agencies and authorities and will include only the following instruments: General obligation bonds,34 limited obligation bonds (or revenue bonds),35 , municipal notes,36 municipal commercial paper,37 tender option bonds,38 variable rate demand obligations (“VRDOs”),39 municipal lease obligations,40 stripped securities,41 structured securities,42 when issued securities,43 zero coupon securities,44 and exchange traded and non-exchange traded investment companies (including investment companies advised by BFA or its affiliates) that invest in such Municipal Securities.45

    34 General obligation bonds are obligations involving the credit of an issuer possessing taxing power and are payable from such issuer's general revenues and not from any particular source.

    35 Limited obligation bonds are payable only from the revenues derived from a particular facility or class of facilities or, in some cases, from the proceeds of a special excise or other specific revenue source, and also include industrial development bonds issued pursuant to former U.S. federal tax law. Industrial development bonds generally are also revenue bonds and thus are not payable from the issuer's general revenues. The credit and quality of industrial development bonds are usually related to the credit of the corporate user of the facilities. Payment of interest on and repayment of principal of such bonds is the responsibility of the corporate user (and/or any guarantor).

    36 Municipal notes are shorter-term municipal debt obligations that may provide interim financing in anticipation of tax collection, receipt of grants, bond sales, or revenue receipts.

    37 Municipal commercial paper is generally unsecured debt that is issued to meet short-term financing needs.

    38 Tender option bonds are synthetic floating-rate or variable-rate securities issued when long-term bonds are purchased in the primary or secondary market and then deposited into a trust. Custodial receipts are then issued to investors, such as the Fund, evidencing ownership interests in the trust.

    39 VRDOs are tax-exempt obligations that contain a floating or variable interest rate adjustment formula and a right of demand on the part of the holder thereof to receive payment of the unpaid principal balance plus accrued interest upon a short notice period not to exceed seven days.

    40 Municipal lease obligations include certificates of participation issued by government authorities or entities to finance the acquisition or construction of equipment, land, and/or facilities.

    41 Stripped securities are created when an issuer separates the interest and principal components of an instrument and sells them as separate securities. In general, one security is entitled to receive the interest payments on the underlying assets and the other to receive the principal payments.

    42 Structured securities are privately negotiated debt obligations where the principal and/or interest is determined by reference to the performance of an underlying investment, index, or reference obligation, and may be issued by governmental agencies. While structured securities are part of the principal holdings of the Fund, the Issuer represents that such securities, when combined with those instruments held as part of the other portfolio holdings described below, will not exceed 20% of the Fund's net assets.

    43 The Fund may purchase or sell securities that it is entitled to receive on a when issued or delayed delivery basis as well as through a forward commitment.

    44 Zero coupon securities are securities that are sold at a discount to par value and do not pay interest during the life of the security. The discount approximates the total amount of interest the security will accrue and compound over the period until maturity at a rate of interest reflecting the market rate of the security at the time of issuance. Upon maturity, the holder of a zero coupon security is entitled to receive the par value of the security.

    45 The Fund currently anticipates investing in only registered open-end investment companies, including mutual funds and the open-end investment company funds described in BATS Rule 14.11. The Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies to the extent permitted by law.

    In the last year of operation, as the bonds held by the Fund mature, the proceeds will not be reinvested in bonds but instead will be held in cash and cash equivalents, including, without limitation, shares of affiliated money market funds, AMT-free tax-exempt municipal notes, VRDOs, tender option bonds and municipal commercial paper. In or around December 2024, the Fund will wind up and terminate, and its net assets will be distributed to then current shareholders.

    In the absence of normal circumstances, the Fund may temporarily depart from its normal investment process, provided that such departure is, in the opinion of the Adviser, consistent with the Fund's investment objective and in the best interest of the Fund. For example, the Fund may hold a higher than normal proportion of its assets in cash in response to adverse market, economic or political conditions.

    The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.46 The Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain RIC qualification under Subchapter M.

    46 26 U.S.C. 851.

    Other Portfolio Holdings

    The Fund may also, to a limited extent (under normal circumstances, less than 20% of the Fund's net assets), engage in transactions in futures contracts, options, or swaps in order to facilitate trading or to reduce transaction costs.47 The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to achieve leveraged returns (i.e. two times or three times the Fund's benchmark, as described in the Registration Statement).

    47 Derivatives might be included in the Fund's investments to serve the investment objectives of the Fund. Such derivatives include only the following: Interest rate futures, interest rate options, interest rate swaps, and swaps on Municipal Securities indexes. The derivatives will be centrally cleared and they will be collateralized. Derivatives are not a principal investment strategy of the Fund.

    The Fund may also enter into repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements for Municipal Securities (collectively, “Repurchase Agreements”). Repurchase Agreements involve the sale of securities with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment and have the characteristics of borrowing as part of the Fund's principal holdings.48

    48 The Fund's exposure to reverse repurchase agreements will be covered by liquid assets having a value equal to or greater than such commitments. The use of reverse repurchase agreements is a form of leverage because the proceeds derived from reverse repurchase agreements may be invested in additional securities. As further stated below, the Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to achieve leveraged returns.

    The Fund may also invest in short-term instruments (“Short-Term Instruments”),49 which includes exchange traded and non-exchange traded investment companies (including investment companies advised by BFA or its affiliates) that invest in money market instruments.

    49 The Fund may invest in Short-Term Instruments, including money market instruments, on an ongoing basis to provide liquidity or for other reasons. Money market instruments are generally short-term investments that include only the following: (i) Shares of money market funds (including those advised by BFA or otherwise affiliated with BFA); (ii) obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities (including government-sponsored enterprises); (iii) negotiable certificates of deposit (“CDs”), bankers' acceptances, fixed-time deposits and other obligations of U.S. and non-U.S. banks (including non-U.S. branches) and similar institutions; (iv) commercial paper, including asset-backed commercial paper; (v) non-convertible corporate debt securities (e.g., bonds and debentures) with remaining maturities at the date of purchase of not more than 397 days and that satisfy the rating requirements set forth in Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act; and (vi) short-term U.S. dollar-denominated obligations of non-U.S. banks (including U.S. branches) that, in the opinion of BFA, are of comparable quality to obligations of U.S. banks which may be purchased by the Fund. All money market securities acquired by the Fund will be rated investment grade. The Fund does not intend to invest in any unrated money market securities. However, it may do so, to a limited extent, such as where a rated money market security becomes unrated, if such money market security is determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality. BFA may determine that unrated securities are of comparable quality based on such credit quality factors that it deems appropriate, which may include, among other things, performing an analysis similar, to the extent possible, to that performed by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization rating similar securities and issuers.

    Investment Restrictions

    The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), as deemed illiquid by the Adviser 50 under the 1940 Act.51 The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid assets. Illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.

    50 In reaching liquidity decisions, the Adviser may consider factors including: The frequency of trades and quotes for the security; the number of dealers wishing to purchase or sell the security and the number of other potential purchasers; dealer undertakings to make a market in the security; the nature of the security and the nature of the marketplace trades (e.g., the time needed to dispose of the security, the method of soliciting offers, and the mechanics of transfer); any legal or contractual restrictions on the ability to transfer the security or asset; significant developments involving the issuer or counterparty specifically (e.g., default, bankruptcy, etc.) or the securities markets generally; and settlement practices, registration procedures, limitations on currency conversion or repatriation, and transfer limitations (for foreign securities or other assets).

    51 The Commission has stated that long-standing Commission guidelines have required open-end funds to hold no more than 15% of their net assets in illiquid securities and other illiquid assets. See Investment Company Act Release No. 28193 (March 11, 2008), 73 FR 14618 (March 18, 2008), footnote 34. See also, Investment Company Act Release No. 5847 (October 21, 1969), 35 FR 19989 (December 31, 1970) (Statement Regarding “Restricted Securities”); Investment Company Act Release No. 18612 (March 12, 1992), 57 FR 9828 (March 20, 1992) (Revisions of Guidelines to Form N-1A). A fund's portfolio security is illiquid if it cannot be disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the value ascribed to it by the fund. See Investment Company Act Release No. 14983 (March 12, 1986), 51 FR 9773 (March 21, 1986) (adopting amendments to Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act); Investment Company Act Release No. 17452 (April 23, 1990), 55 FR 17933 (April 30, 1990) (adopting Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933).

    The Fund may also invest up to 20% of its net assets in Municipal Securities that pay interest that is subject to the AMT.

    The Fund will not purchase the securities of issuers conducting their principal business activity in the same industry if, immediately after the purchase and as a result thereof, the value of the Fund's investments in that industry would equal or exceed 25% of the current value of the Fund's total assets, provided that this restriction does not limit the Fund's: (i) Investments in securities of other investment companies, (ii) investments in securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, (iii) investments in securities of state, territory, possession or municipal governments and their authorities, agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions or (iv) investments in repurchase agreements collateralized by any such obligations.52

    52See Form N-1A, Item 9. The Commission has taken the position that a fund is concentrated if it invests in more than 25% of the value of its total assets in any one industry. See, e.g., Investment Company Act Release No. 9011 (October 30, 1975), 40 FR 54241 (November 21, 1975).

    iShares iBonds Dec 2025 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF

    According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to maximize tax-free current income and terminate on or around December 2025. To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances,53 at least 80% of its net assets in Municipal Securities, as defined below, such that the interest on each security is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax (the “AMT”). The Fund is not a money market fund and does not seek to maintain a stable net asset value of $1.00 per share. The Fund will be classified as a “non-diversified” investment company under the 1940 Act.54

    53 The term “under normal circumstances” includes, but is not limited to, the absence of adverse market, economic, political, or other conditions, including extreme volatility or trading halts in the financial markets; operational issues causing dissemination of inaccurate market information; or force majeure type events such as systems failure, natural or man-made disaster, act of God, armed conflict, act of terrorism, riot, or labor disruption, or any similar intervening circumstance.

    54 The diversification standard is set forth in Section 5(b)(1) of the 1940 Act.

    The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain RIC qualification under Subchapter M.

    Principal Holdings—Municipal Securities

    To achieve its objective, the Fund will invest, under normal circumstances, in U.S.-dollar denominated investment-grade fixed-rate Municipal Securities, as defined below. The Fund will invest in both callable and non-callable municipal bonds. Investment-grade securities are rated a minimum of BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and/or Fitch, or Baa3 or higher by Moody's, or if unrated, determined by the Adviser to be of equivalent quality.55 Under normal circumstances, the Fund's effective duration will vary within one year (plus or minus) of the effective duration of the securities comprising the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2025 Index, which, as of December 15, 2015, was 8.26 years.56

    55 According to the Adviser, BFA may determine that unrated securities are of “equivalent quality” based on such credit quality factors that it deems appropriate, which may include among other things, performing an analysis similar, to the extent possible, to that performed by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization when rating similar securities and issuers. In making such a determination, BFA may consider internal analyses and risk ratings, third party research and analysis, and other sources of information, as deemed appropriate by the Adviser.

    56 Effective duration is a measure of the Fund's price sensitivity to changes in yields or interest rates.

    Municipal securities (“Municipal Securities”) are fixed and variable rate securities issued in the U.S. by U.S. states and territories, municipalities and other political subdivisions, agencies, authorities, and instrumentalities of states and multi-state agencies and authorities and will include only the following instruments: General obligation bonds,57 limited obligation bonds (or revenue bonds),58 municipal notes,59 municipal commercial paper,60 tender option bonds,61 variable rate demand obligations (“VRDOs”),62 municipal lease obligations,63 stripped securities,64 structured securities,65 when issued securities,66 zero coupon securities,67 and exchange traded and non-exchange traded investment companies (including investment companies advised by BFA or its affiliates) that invest in such Municipal Securities.68

    57 General obligation bonds are obligations involving the credit of an issuer possessing taxing power and ar