Federal Register Vol. 81, No.75,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 75 (April 19, 2016)

Page Range22911-23154
FR Document

81_FR_75
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 23010 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 23009 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 23008 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 23017 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License RenewalPDF
81 FR 23074 - Notice of Intent To Release Airport Property From Quitclaim Deed; North Perry Airport, Hollywood, FLPDF
81 FR 23016 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 22984 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting; Privacy, Security & Confidentiality SubcommitteePDF
81 FR 23003 - Approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a Commercial GaugerPDF
81 FR 23010 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 23074 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 23073 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 23080 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Privacy of Consumer Financial InformationPDF
81 FR 23011 - Completion Date of Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone 8; Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1PDF
81 FR 23010 - Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
81 FR 23006 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange, Grand and Summit Counties, ColoradoPDF
81 FR 23017 - Public Inquiry on Commission Report to the President and CongressPDF
81 FR 22967 - Patent Cooperation TreatyPDF
81 FR 22977 - Release of the Draft Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate MatterPDF
81 FR 23001 - Cooperative Research and Development Agreement: Troposcatter Communications Exploratory DevelopmentPDF
81 FR 22944 - Safety Zone; 2016 Wings Over Vermont Air Show, Lake Champlain, Burlington, VTPDF
81 FR 23007 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; ArizonaPDF
81 FR 22941 - Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth ZonePDF
81 FR 22946 - Safety Zones; San Francisco, CAPDF
81 FR 22939 - Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VAPDF
81 FR 22914 - Cyprodinil; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 22912 - Regulated Navigation Area; Columbia River, Kalama, WAPDF
81 FR 22978 - Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases File Formats and Corrects Technical Appendices Related to the Broadcast Incentive AuctionPDF
81 FR 22911 - Safety Zones; Fireworks and Swim Events in Captain of the Port New York ZonePDF
81 FR 22976 - Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 23001 - Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 02-16; Inspection Guidance for Sail Rigging and Masts on Inspected Sailing VesselsPDF
81 FR 23002 - Navigation Safety Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 22999 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23005 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Tribal Energy Resource AgreementsPDF
81 FR 23004 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing PermitsPDF
81 FR 22960 - 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 22919 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Trip Limit Adjustment for the Common Pool FisheryPDF
81 FR 23079 - Hazardous Materials: U.S. Designated Agents by Non-Resident Firework Manufacturers GuidancePDF
81 FR 22985 - Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention; Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes and Urban Indian CommunitiesPDF
81 FR 22970 - Meeting of the Board of Visitors of Marine Corps UniversityPDF
81 FR 22970 - Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive Patent License; CelerAscent, LLCPDF
81 FR 23117 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Marine Geophysical Survey in the Southeast Pacific Ocean, 2016-2017PDF
81 FR 23004 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 22979 - Final Notice of Intent To Terminate Authorization of JuBe, Communications, LLCPDF
81 FR 23079 - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R) Notice of Request for Clearance of a Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection: National Census of Ferry OperatorsPDF
81 FR 22970 - President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for HispanicsPDF
81 FR 22996 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 22995 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 22997 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 22997 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 22998 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 22997 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 23074 - Notice of Buy America Waiver for a Fall Arrest SystemPDF
81 FR 23076 - Notice of Buy America Waiver for a Radio Communications SystemPDF
81 FR 23077 - Notice of Buy America Waiver for Special Trackwork Turnout Switch Components.PDF
81 FR 23077 - Notice of Buy America Waiver for Ductless Mini-Split Air Conditioning SystemsPDF
81 FR 22997 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: The Development of MRI-1569, MRI-2213 and MRI-2214 as a Therapeutic To Treat Obesity, Diabetes, Fatty Liver Disease and Liver FibrosisPDF
81 FR 22995 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Development of the CB1/iNOS Series of Compounds as a Therapeutic To Treat System Sclerosis, Scleroderma, and Other Skin Fibrotic Diseases in HumansPDF
81 FR 22981 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 22980 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 22980 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 22981 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 22980 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 22981 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23075 - Notice of Buy America Waiver for Steel Excavator With a Continuous Wield PlatformPDF
81 FR 22983 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 22984 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 23083 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
81 FR 22979 - Notice of Termination; 10439 Security Bank, National Association, North Lauderdale, FloridaPDF
81 FR 22966 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); MeetingPDF
81 FR 23035 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt an Early Trading Session and Three New Time-in-Force InstructionsPDF
81 FR 23064 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 72 Relating to Setting InterestPDF
81 FR 22937 - Special Local Regulation, Jacksonville Grand Prix of the Seas; St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FLPDF
81 FR 22975 - Supplemental Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
81 FR 22973 - Gross, Scott I.; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 22973 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 22983 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) Client Contact Form, Public and Media Activity Report Form, and Resource Report FormPDF
81 FR 23032 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS-Y Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt an Early Trading Session and Three New Time-In-Force InstructionsPDF
81 FR 23016 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 22964 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Reinstate an Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 22996 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Open MeetingPDF
81 FR 23023 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Proposed Rule Change To Modify Chapter VII Section B of the Exchange's Pricing SchedulePDF
81 FR 23072 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Certificate of Incorporation of the Exchange's Ultimate Parent Company, Bats Global Markets, Inc.PDF
81 FR 23066 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 23038 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 7018(a)PDF
81 FR 23062 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Certificate of Incorporation of the Exchange's Ultimate Parent Company, Bats Global Markets, Inc.PDF
81 FR 23026 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 8.17 To Provide a Process for an Expedited Suspension Proceeding and Rule 12.15 To Prohibit Layering and SpoofingPDF
81 FR 23040 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 72-Equities Relating to Setting InterestPDF
81 FR 23043 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price List for Equity Transactions in Stocks With a per Share Stock Price More Than $1.00PDF
81 FR 23046 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 8.17 To Provide a Process for an Expedited Suspension Proceeding and Rule 12.15 To Prohibit Layering and SpoofingPDF
81 FR 23060 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Certificate of Incorporation of the Exchange's Ultimate Parent Company, Bats Global Markets, Inc.PDF
81 FR 23021 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Certificate of Incorporation of the Exchange's Ultimate Parent Company, Bats Global Markets, Inc.PDF
81 FR 23082 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities: ExemptionsPDF
81 FR 23052 - Aptus Capital Advisors, LLC, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 23068 - Newtek Business Services Corp.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 22965 - Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 22964 - Minority Farmers and Ranchers Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 22972 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 22971 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 22973 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 22975 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 23008 - The Benzene Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
81 FR 22976 - Notification of Public Teleconference of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Community Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC)PDF
81 FR 22920 - Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear MaterialPDF
81 FR 22948 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation of the Shelby County 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to AttainmentPDF
81 FR 23085 - Requirements for the Distribution and Control of Donated Foods-The Emergency Food Assistance Program: Implementation of the Agricultural Act of 2014PDF
81 FR 22961 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing of the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland CaribouPDF

Issue

81 75 Tuesday, April 19, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

National Agricultural Statistics Service

See

Office of Advocacy and Outreach

Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22981-22983 2016-08979 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Regulated Navigation Areas: Columbia River, Kalama, WA, 22912-22914 2016-09027 Safety Zones: Fireworks and Swim Events in Captain of the Port New York Zone, 22911-22912 2016-09024 PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Grounds: Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA, 22939-22941 2016-09029 Safety Zones: 2016 Wings Over Vermont Air Show, Lake Champlain, Burlington, VT, 22944-22946 2016-09033 Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth Zone, 22941-22943 2016-09031 San Francisco, CA, 22946-22948 2016-09030 Special Local Regulations: Jacksonville Grand Prix of the Seas; St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FL, 22937-22939 2016-08967 NOTICES Cooperative Research and Development Agreements: Troposcatter Communications Exploratory Development, 23001-23002 2016-09034 Guidance for Industry: Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 02-16; Inspection Guidance for Sail Rigging and Masts on Inspected Sailing Vessels, 23001 2016-09022 Meetings: Navigation Safety Advisory Council, 23002-23003 2016-09021 Commerce Commerce Department See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: State Health Insurance Assistance Program Client Contact Form, Public and Media Activity Report Form, and Resource Report Form, 22983 2016-08958 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities; Exemptions, 23082-23083 2016-08936 Privacy of Consumer Financial Information, 23080-23081 2016-09043 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

Education Department Education Department NOTICES Meetings: President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, 22970-22971 2016-08997 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material, 22920-22937 2016-08885
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances: Cyprodinil, 22914-22919 2016-09028 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Tennessee; Redesignation of the Shelby County 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 22948-22960 2016-08796 NOTICES Charter Renewals: Environmental Financial Advisory Board, 22976-22977 2016-09023 Draft Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 22977-22978 2016-09036 Meetings: Farm, Ranch, and Rural Community Federal Advisory Committee, 22976 2016-08914 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES Airport Property Releases: Quitclaim Deed, North Perry Airport, Hollywood, FL, 23074 2016-09079 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES File Formats and Technical Appendices Related to the Broadcast Incentive Auction; Correction, 22978-22979 2016-09026 Terminations of Authority: JuBe, Communications, LLC, 22979 2016-09006 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: Security Bank, National Association, North Lauderdale, FL, 22979-22980 2016-08972 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 22971-22975 2016-08922 2016-08923 2016-08924 2016-08925 2016-08964 Filings: Gross, Scott I., 22973 2016-08965 Meetings: Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, American Wind Energy Association; Technical Conferences, 22975-22976 2016-08966 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 22980 2016-08983 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 22981 2016-08984 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Corrections, 22980-22981 2016-08981 2016-08982 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 22980 2016-08980 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Buy America Waivers: Continuous Wield Platform, 23075-23076 2016-08978 Ductless Mini-Split Air Conditioning Systems, 23077-23079 2016-08987 Fall Arrest System, 23074-23075 2016-08990 Radio Communications System, 23076-23077 2016-08989 Special Trackwork Turnout Switch Components, 23077 2016-08988 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou; Amended Listing, 22961-22963 2016-08617 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service RULES Requirements for the Distribution and Control of Donated Foods and the Emergency Food Assistance Program, 23086-23115 2016-08639 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 23083-23084 2016-08973 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23004 2016-09007 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Community Living Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

PROPOSED RULES 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties, 22960-22961 2016-09017 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22983-22985 2016-08974 2016-08975 Meetings: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, Subcommittee on Privacy, Confidentiality, and Security, 22984 2016-09075
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Permits, 23004-23005 2016-09018 Tribal Energy Resource Agreements, 23005-23006 2016-09019 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Funding Availability: Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes and Urban Indian Communities, 22985-22995 2016-09012 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23008 2016-09095 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange, Grand and Summit Counties, CO, 23006-23007 2016-09040 Plats of Survey: Arizona, 23007-23008 2016-09032 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23009 2016-09098 National Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22964-22965 2016-08950 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board, 22965-22966 2016-08933 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Exclusive Licenses: Development of MRI-1569, MRI-2213 and MRI-2214 as a Therapeutic to Treat Obesity, Diabetes, Fatty Liver Disease, and Liver Fibrosis, 22997-22998 2016-08986 Development of the CB1/iNOS Series of Compounds as a Therapeutic to Treat System Sclerosis, Scleroderma, and Other Skin Fibrotic Diseases in Humans, 22995 2016-08985 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 22997 2016-08991 National Cancer Institute, 22996 2016-08949 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 22998-22999 2016-08992 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 22997 2016-08993 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 22997 2016-08994 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 22995-22997 2016-08995 2016-08996 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Trip Limit Adjustment for the Common Pool Fishery, 22919 2016-09016 NOTICES Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 22966 2016-08971 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Marine Geophysical Survey in the Southeast Pacific Ocean, 2016-2017, 23118-23154 2016-09008 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23010 2016-09142 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: Board of Visitors of Marine Corps University, 22970 2016-09011 Proposed Partially Exclusive Patent Licenses: CelerAscent, LLC, 22970 2016-09009 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Amendment Applications: Completion Date of Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone 8; Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 23011-23016 2016-09042 Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 23010-23011 2016-09041 Meetings: ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels, 23010 2016-09073 ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures, 23016 2016-09078 ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal, 23017 2016-09094 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23016-23017 2016-08954 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Benzene Standard, 23008-23009 2016-08915 Advocacy Outreach Office of Advocacy and Outreach NOTICES Meetings: Minority Farmers and Ranchers Advisory Committee, 22964 2016-08932 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Patent Cooperation Treaty, 22967-22970 2016-09037 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Hazardous Materials: U.S. Designated Agents by Non-Resident Firework Manufacturers Guidance, 23079 2016-09015 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES Public Inquiries on Commission Reports to the President and Congress, 23017-23021 2016-09038 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Aptus Capital Advisors, LLC, et al., 23052-23060 2016-08935 Newtek Business Services Corp., 23068-23071 2016-08934 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 23021-23023, 23046-23052 2016-08938 2016-08940 Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 23060-23062 2016-08939 Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 23026-23032, 23062-23064 2016-08943 2016-08944 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 23072-23073 2016-08947 BATS Exchange, Inc., 23035-23038 2016-08969 BATS-Y Exchange, Inc., 23032-23035 2016-08955 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 23023-23026 2016-08948 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 23038-23040 2016-08945 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 23043-23046, 23064-23066 2016-08941 2016-08968 NYSE Arca, Inc., 23066-23068 2016-08946 NYSE MKT, LLC, 23040-23043 2016-08942 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23073-23074 2016-09070 2016-09071 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 22999-23001 2016-09020 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23079-23080 2016-08998
Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Commercial Gaugers; Approvals: AmSpec Services, LLC, 23003-23004 2016-09074 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Agriculture Department, Food and Nutrition Service, 23086-23115 2016-08639 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 23118-23154 2016-09008 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 75 Tuesday, April 19, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0207] Safety Zones; Fireworks and Swim Events in Captain of the Port New York Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones within the Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified dates and times. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, participants and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks displays and swim events. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES:

The regulation for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160 will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this notice, call or email Petty Officer First Class Ronald Sampert U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4197, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Tables 1 and 2 below. This regulation was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69614).

Table 1 1. Schnider Party, Poughkeepsie, NY, Hudson River Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(5.13) • Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 41°42′24.50″ N. 073°56′44.16″ W. (NAD 1983), approximately 420 yards north of the Mid Hudson Bridge. This Safety Zone is a 300-yard radius from the barge. • Date: March 25, 2016. • Time: 8:30 p.m.-10:20 p.m. 2. The Battery, The Battery, Hudson River Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(5.2) • Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°42′00″ N. 074°01′17″ W. (NAD 1983) approximately 500 yards south of The Battery, Manhattan, New York. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from the barge. • Date: April 18, 2016. • Time: 8:45 p.m.-10:00 p.m. 3. N.E.C.O. Awards, Liberty Island Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(2.1) • Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°41′16.5″ N. 074°02′23″ W. (NAD 1983) located in Federal Anchorage 20-C, about 360 yards east of Liberty Island. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from the barge. • Date: May 7, 2016. • Time: 11:00 p.m.-12:10 a.m. 4. Town of North Hempstead Summer Kick Off, Bar Beach, Hempstead Harbor Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(3.9) • Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°49′50″ N. 073°39′12″ W. (NAD 1983), approximately 190 yards north of Bar Beach, Hempstead Harbor, New York. This Safety Zone is a 180-yard radius from the barge. • Date: May 28, 2016. • Time: 9:00 p.m.-10:30 p.m. Table 2 1. Swim Across America Swim Event, 33 CFR 165.160(3.0) Date: July 30, 2016 • Location: Participants will swim between Glen Cove and Larchmont, New York and an area of Hempstead Harbor between Glen Cove and the vicinity of Umbrella Point. This Safety Zone includes all waters within a 100-yard radius of each participating swimmer. • Date: July 30, 2016. • Time: 5:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. 2. Newburgh Beacon Swim, Swim Event, 33 CFR 165.160(1.2) Date: August 6, 2016 • Location: Participants will cross the Hudson River between Newburgh and Beacon, New York approximately 1300 yards south of the Newburgh-Beacon Bridges. This Safety Zone includes all waters within a 100-yard radius of each participating swimmer. • Date: August 6, 2016. • Time: 09:15 a.m.-1:15 p.m.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the safety zone.

Dated: March 18, 2016. M.H. Day, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2016-09024 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0237] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Columbia River, Kalama, WA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) covering the waters of the Columbia River between river miles 71 and 73, in the vicinity of the mouth of the Kalama River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the persons and vessels conducting salvage operations on the subject waters at the Port of Kalama in Kalama, WA. Specifically, this regulation implements a no-wake requirement for vessels operating in the RNA during those salvage operations.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from April 19, 2016 through April 30, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from April 7, 2016 through April 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0237 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 Mr. Kenneth Lawrenson, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

The 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 to do so would be impracticable since the salvage operations are on-going and delaying promulgation of the regulation could result in injury or damage to the persons and vessels conducting those operations.

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 until 30 days after publication would be impracticable since the salvage operations are on-going and delaying promulgation of the regulation could result in injury or damage to the persons and vessels conducting those operations.

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 Columbia River (COTP) has determined that the wake created by vessels transiting the waters of the Columbia River, between river miles 71 and 73, creates a safety hazard for the persons, including divers, and vessels engaged in salvage operations involving the M/V SPARNA at the Port of Kalama in Kalama, WA. As such, this rule is necessary to ensure the safety of those persons, including divers, and vessels.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The on-going salvage operations at the Port of Kalama, in Kalama, WA, involve underwater dive operations with support vessels. These operations are, by their nature, hazardous and sensitive to water movement. Wakes from passing vessels could pose significant risks of injury or death to the involved personnel and risks of damage to involved vessels. In order to mitigate the safety risks vessel wakes pose to these operations, it is necessary to control vessel movement through the area. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure the safety of waterway users for the duration of this salvage operation. In order to minimize such unexpected or uncontrolled movement of water, the RNA requires all vessels transiting this area to operate in such a manner as to create no wake. The RNA will encompass all waters of the Columbia River between river miles 71 and 73.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited size, location, duration of the RNA. In addition, vessel traffic will be able to transit through this RNA at any time.

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the temporary establishment of an RNA to deal with an emergency situation for one week or longer in duration. 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. Add § 165.T13-0237 to read as follows:
§ 165.T13-0237 Regulated Navigation Area; Columbia River, Kalama, WA.

(a) Location. The following area is a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA): All waters of the Columbia River between river miles 71 and 73.

(b) Regulations. All vessels operating within the RNA created in paragraph (a) must proceed with caution and operate in such a manner as to produce no wake.

(c) Enforcement period. The RNA created in paragraph (a) is effective from April 7, 2016 through April 30, 2016. The Captain of the Port, Columbia River will provide any updates regarding the enforcement period of the RNA via Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, and/or other appropriate means.

(d) Contact information. For questions regarding this RNA and/or to report violations contact U.S. Coast Guard Sector Columbia River at 503-861-6211 or via VHF-Channel 16.

Dated: April 6, 2016. D.L. Cottrell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-09027 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0180; FRL-9943-85] Cyprodinil; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of cyprodinil in or on Nut, Tree, Crop Group 14-12; except almond and pistachio. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES:

This regulation is effective April 19, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 20, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0180, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket 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. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0180 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 20, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0180, 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 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.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

In the Federal Register of April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22466) (FRL-9925-79), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4F8333) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.532 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide cyprodinil, 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine, in or on Nut, Tree, Crop Group 14-12; except almond and pistachio at 0.04 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Group, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for cyprodinil including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyprodinil follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

The major target organs of cyprodinil are the liver and the kidney. Liver effects were consistent among male and female rats and mice in both sub-chronic and chronic studies and typically included increased liver weights along with increases in serum clinical chemistry parameters associated with adverse effects on liver function (i.e., increased cholesterol and phospholipid levels). Microscopic lesions in rats and mice included hepatocyte hypertrophy and hepatocellular necrosis. In the kidneys, adverse effects were seen as chronic tubular lesions and chronic kidney inflammation following sub-chronic exposure of male rats. Chronically, cyprodinil caused increased kidney weights and progressive nephropathy in male rats. Chronic effects in dogs were limited to decreased body-weight gain, decreased food consumption and decreased food efficiency; liver toxicity was not seen in the dog. The hematopoietic system also appeared to be a target of cyprodinil as mild anemia was seen in rats exposed sub-chronically (reductions in hematocrit and hemoglobin and microcytosis). Although increases in thyroid weight and/or hypertrophy of thyroid follicular cells were observed at higher doses in the rat 28-day oral-toxicity studies and in the 90-day oral-toxicity study in rats, treatment related changes in thyroid weights or gross/microscopic observations were not observed in the chronic rat study or in other studies.

A 28-day dietary immunotoxicity study in mice resulted in no apparent suppression of the humoral component of the immune system. The only effect attributed to cyprodinil treatment was higher mean absolute, relative (to body weight), and adjusted liver weights for the 5000 ppm group. There were no treatment-related effects on absolute, adjusted, or relative spleen or thymus weights; no effects on specific activity or total activity of splenic Immunoglobulin M antibody-forming cells to the T cell-dependent red blood cell antigens. No dermal or systemic toxicity was seen following repeated dermal application at the highest dose in a 21-day dermal toxicity study in rabbits.

An acute neurotoxicity study indicated systemic toxicity with signs of induced hunched posture, piloerection, and reduced responsiveness to sensory stimuli and reduced motor activity. Females were slightly more affected than males per daily clinical observations, which disappeared by day 3 to 4. A dose-related reduction in body temperature was seen in all treated animals, thus hypothermia is considered a compound-related effect in the highest dose tested and was found to be statistically significant, whereas the lower dosed animals was not or only marginally significant and was fully reversible in all groups. Clinical signs, hypothermia, and changes in motor activity were found to all be reversible by day 8 and 15 investigations. There were no histopathological findings to support evidence of damage to the central nervous system, eyes, optic nerves, or skeletal muscles. A sub-chronic neurotoxicity study showed no treatment related effects on mortality, clinical signs, or gross or histological neuropathology. Functional observational battery and motor activity testing revealed no treatment related effects up to the highest dose tested.

There was no evidence of increased susceptibility in the developmental rat or rabbit study following in utero exposure or in the two-generation reproduction study following pre- and post-natal exposure. Fetal toxicity, manifested as significantly lower fetal weights and an increased incidence of delayed ossification in the rat and a slight increase in litters showing extra ribs (13th) in the rabbit, was reported in developmental toxicity studies. In a rat two-generation reproduction study, significantly lower pup weights for F1 and F2 offspring were observed. However, each of these fetal/neonatal effects occurred at the same dose levels at which maternal toxicity (decreased body weight gain) was observed and were considered to be secondary to maternal toxicity.

Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats at doses that were judged to be adequate to the carcinogenic potential, cyprodinil was classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by cyprodinil as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document, “Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition Proposing a New Tolerance for the Use of cyprodinil in/on Nut, Tree, Crop Group 14-12; except almond and pistachio” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0180.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyprodinil used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of October 16, 2012 (77 FR 49732) (FRL-9359-7).

C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to cyprodinil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing cyprodinil tolerances in 40 CFR 180.532. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyprodinil in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for cyprodinil. EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA utilized the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16 default processing factors and tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used food consumption information from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA dietary survey conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA utilized residue data from field trials to obtain average residues and assumed 100 PCT. Empirically derived processing factors were used in these assessments when available; all other processing factors used the DEEM-FCID Version 7.81 default processing factors.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that cyprodinil does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk was not conducted.

iv. Anticipated residue information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for cyprodinil and CGA 249287 in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of cyprodinil and CGA 249287. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of cyprodinil and CGA 249287 for acute exposures are estimated to be 34.8 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.05 ppb for ground water. EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 24.7 ppb for surface water and 1.80 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 34.8 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 24.7 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Cyprodinil is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Ornamental plants. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Only short-term inhalation exposures to adult residential handlers from application to ornamental plants. Though there may be short-term dermal exposures to handlers, this was not assessed since no dermal endpoint was identified. Post-application exposures to adults and children are not expected. Intermediate or chronic exposures are not expected. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found cyprodinil to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and cyprodinil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite engendered by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that cyprodinil does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In a rat developmental toxicity study, there were significantly lower mean fetal weights in the high-dose group compared to controls as well as a significant increase in skeletal anomalies in the high-dose group due to abnormal ossification. The skeletal anomalies/variations were considered to be a transient developmental delay that occurs secondary to the maternal toxicity noted in the high-dose group. In the rabbit study, the only treatment related developmental effect was indication of an increased incidence of a 13th rib at maternally toxic doses. Signs of fetal effects in the reproductive toxicity study included significantly lower F1 and F2 pup weights in the high-dose group during lactation, which continued to be lower than controls post-weaning and after the pre-mating period in the F1 generation only. Reproductive effects were seen only at doses that also caused parental toxicity.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for non-inhalation routes of exposure and retained at 10X for inhalation exposure scenarios for all population groups. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for cyprodinil is complete, except for a 90-day inhalation toxicity study required to reduce uncertainty associated with the use of an oral POD for assessing risk via the inhalation route. In the absence of a route-specific inhalation study, a 10x FQPA SF factor for residential scenarios will be retained for risk assessments involving inhalation exposure.

ii. As indicated by an acute neurotoxicity study in mice, clinical signs, hypothermia, and changes in motor activity were all found to be reversible and no longer seen at day 8 and 15 investigations. There were no treatment related effects on mortality, gross or histological neuropathology. Reduced motor activity, induced hunched posture, piloerection and reduced responsiveness to sensory stimuli were observed and disappeared in all animals by day 3 to 4. In a sub-chronic neurotoxicity study in rats, there were no treatment related effects on mortality, clinical signs, or gross or histological neuropathology. No clinical signs suggestive of neurobehavioral alterations or evidence of neuropathological effects were observed in the available oral-toxicity studies. Based on this evidence, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. In the prenatal developmental rat and rabbit studies and in the 2-generation reproduction rat study, toxicity to the fetuses/offspring, when observed, occurred at the same doses at which effects were observed in maternal/parental animals. All of these fetal effects were considered to be secondary to maternal toxicity. There is no evidence that cyprodinil results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary assessment was conservative and based on 100 PCT and tolerance level residues as well as DEEM default and empirical processing factors. The chronic dietary assessment was partially refined with average field trial residues for some commodities and tolerance-level residues for the remaining commodities. DEEM default and empirical processing factors were also incorporated into the chronic dietary assessment. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to cyprodinil in drinking water. Based on the discussion in Unit III.C.3, post-application exposure to children as well as incidental oral exposure to toddlers is not expected. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by cyprodinil.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to cyprodinil will occupy 8.6% of the aPAD for children one to two years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to cyprodinil from food and water will utilize 85% of the cPAD for children one to two years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of cyprodinil is not expected.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Cyprodinil is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to cyprodinil. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short term exposures, EPA has estimated short-term food, water and residential exposures. For adults, oral dietary and inhalation estimates were combined using the total aggregate risk index (ARI) methodology since the levels of concern (LOC) for oral and dietary exposure (LOC=100) and inhalation (LOC 1,000) are different. The short-term ARI for adults is 70 which is greater than 1 and is therefore, not of concern.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, cyprodinil is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for cyprodinil.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, cyprodinil is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to cyprodinil residues.

IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate HPLC/UV methods (AG-631 and AG-631B) are available for enforcing tolerances of cyprodinil on plant commodities.

The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

B. International Residue Limits

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has not established an MRL for cyprodinil in/on tree nut commodities other than pistachio and almond.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyprodinil, in or on Nut, Tree Crop Group 14-12; except almond and pistachio at 0.04 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 7, 2016. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

2. In § 180.532, add alphabetically the commodity “Nut, tree, group 14-12; except almond and pistachio” to the table in paragraph (a), to read as follows:
§ 180.532 Cyprodinil; tolerances for residues.

(a) * * * (1) * * *

Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Nut, tree, group 14-12; except almond and pistachio 0.04 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-09028 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 150105004-5355-01] RIN 0648-XE569 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Trip Limit Adjustment for the Common Pool Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.

    SUMMARY:

    This action increases the trip limit for Gulf of Maine cod, Gulf of Maine haddock, and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder for Northeast multispecies common pool vessels for the remainder of the 2015 fishing year. The regulations authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the trip limits for common pool vessels in order to facilitate harvest of, or prevent exceeding, the pertinent common pool quotas during the fishing year. Increasing these trip limits is intended to provide additional fishing opportunities and help allow the common pool fishery to catch its allowable quota for this stock.

    DATES:

    The trip limit increase is effective April 14, 2016, through April 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Heil, Supervisory Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9257.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator (RA) to adjust the possession limits for common pool vessels in order to prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas. As of April 5, 2016, the common pool had caught approximately 61 percent of its annual quota of Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod, 11 percent of its GOM haddock quota, and 88 percent of its Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder quota. To allow the common pool fishery to catch more of its quota for these stocks, effective April 14, 2016, the trip limits for GOM cod, GOM haddock, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder for all common pool vessels are increased as summarized in Table 1. These changes are intended to provide additional fishing opportunities for common pool vessels.

    Table 1—Fishing Year 2015 Common Pool Trip Limit Increases Stock Current possession/trip limit New possession/trip limit GOM Cod 25 lb (11.3 kg) per trip 100 lb (45.4 kg) per trip. GOM Haddock 50 lb (22.7 kg) per DAS up to 200 lb (90.7 kg) per trip 500 lb (226.8 kg) per DAS up to 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) per trip. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 50 lb (22.7 kg) per trip 500 lb (226.8 kg) per DAS up to 1,000 lb (453.6 kg) per trip.

    Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/MultiMonReports.htm. We will continue to monitor common pool catch through vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, vessel monitoring system catch reports, and other available information and, if necessary, we will make additional adjustments to common pool management measures.

    Classification

    This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

    The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the RA to adjust the Northeast multispecies possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the pertinent common pool sub-ACLs. The catch data used to justify increasing the possession and trip limit for GOM cod, GOM haddock, and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder only recently became available. The possession and trip limit increase implemented through this action allows for increased harvest of these stocks, to help ensure that the fishery may achieve optimum yield. As a result, the time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent us from increasing the possession and trip limit for these stocks before the end of the fishing year on April 30, 2016, which would prevent the additional fishing opportunities this action is intended to provide. This would undermine management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and cause unnecessary negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery. There is additional good cause to waive the delayed effective period because this action relieves restrictions on fishing vessels by increasing a trip limit.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09016 Filed 4-14-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 75 Tuesday, April 19, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 710 [Docket No. DOE-HQ-2012-0001-0274] RIN 1992-AA36 Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to amend its regulations which set forth the policies and procedures for resolving questions concerning eligibility for DOE access authorization. The proposed revisions would update and provide added clarity throughout the current rule, and streamline the process for resolving access authorization eligibility determinations. Additionally, DOE proposes to update references to DOE Offices and officials to reflect the current DOE organizational structure.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this proposed rulemaking must be received on or before close of business May 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Determining Eligibility for Access and RIN 1992-AA36,” by any of the following methods (comments by email are encouraged):

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

    Email to: [email protected] Include Determining Eligibility for Access and RIN 1992-AA36 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail to: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Departmental Personnel Security, AU-53, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark R. Pekrul, Office of Departmental Personnel Security, (202) 586-4097, [email protected]; or Christina Pak, Office of the General Counsel, (202) 586-4114, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Section-by-Section Analysis III. Procedural Analysis A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy I. Background

    The Department of Energy is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in order to update and clarify DOE's policies and procedures for the denial and revocation of access authorizations.

    10 CFR part 710 has not been substantively updated since 2001 (66 FR 47062, Sept. 11, 2001). Since that time, as the Department has gained operational experience under the current rule, revisions to update and clarify provisions in the rule are appropriate. The proposed rule would: (1) Accord primacy to the national Adjudicative Standards when determining eligibility for access authorization; (2) clarify that DOE can, in exigent circumstances, suspend an access authorization without recourse to certain administrative procedures; (3) permit individuals subject to criminal proceedings to suspend access authorization revocation proceedings under this part, subject to certain conditions; (4) limit the ability of the Appeal Panel to consider new evidence on appeal of a decision by the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals or the Manager to deny or revoke access authorization; (5) introduce a one-year waiting period before an individual, previously the subject of denial or revocation of access authorization, may be reconsidered for access authorization; (6) add to part 710 the requirements of Presidential Policy Directive 19, which provides appeal rights to the Department's Office of Inspector General under certain circumstances; (7) revise, delete, and add definitions for certain terms used in the regulation; and (8) update references to DOE Offices and officials to reflect the current DOE organizational structure.

    Laws, regulations and directives which may apply to part 710 include, but are not limited to: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954; Executive Order 13467 (73 FR 38103, June 30, 2008; Executive Order 12968 (60 FR 40245, August 2, 1995, as amended); Executive Order 13526 (75 FR 707, January 5, 2010); Executive Order 10865 (25 FR 1583, February 24, 1960, as amended); Executive Order 10450 (18 FR 2489, April 27, 1954, as amended); Presidential Policy Directive 19 (October 10, 2012).

    II. Section-by-Section Analysis

    DOE proposes to amend 10 CFR part 710 as follows:

    The title of this part would be revised to delete the words “CRITERIA AND” to reflect the proposed deletion of the criteria in current § 710.8, and because the term “Procedures” adequately describes the content of the rule. Additionally, the heading, Subpart A, “General Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material,” is proposed to be deleted. Previously, the entire body of this rule was denominated as Subpart A to Part 710. In this proposed revision, each existing undesignated subpart heading would be designated as an individual subpart, in accordance with the U.S. Government Printing Office's Document Drafting Handbook.

    1. The current heading “GENERAL PROVISIONS” located above current § 710.1 would be revised to add “SUBPART A—” at the beginning.

    2. Proposed § 710.1 “Purpose” would delete references to the specific types of individuals to which this part applies since this information is set forth in § 710.2; and would update the applicable legal authorities.

    3. Proposed § 710.2 “Scope” would clarify that determining eligibility for an individual's access authorization would require application of the national Adjudicative Guidelines, and reference to “criteria” would be deleted.

    4. Proposed § 710.3 “Reference” would delete the reference to the Atomic Energy Act and replace it with a reference to the Adjudicative Guidelines.

    5. Proposed § 710.4 “Policy” would replace the phrase “criteria for determining eligibility for access authorization and” with “procedures” in paragraph (a) to reflect the proposed deletion of the criteria in current § 710.8. Current § 710.4(c) would be renumbered § 710.32(b)(1). Current § 710.4(d) would be renumbered § 710.32(b)(2). Current paragraphs (e) and (f) would be deleted since the situations addressed in those paragraphs are already covered in the current rule. Current paragraph (g) would be renumbered § 710.32(c).

    6. In proposed § 710.5 “Definitions” a number of new or revised definitions are proposed. In addition, the terms contained in this section would be re-ordered so that they are listed in alphabetical order; current § 710.5(b) would be deleted as unnecessary.

    The term “DOE Counsel” would be amended to delete the requirement that such an individual be subject to a favorably adjudicated background investigation. Instead, the requirement that such an individual must hold a DOE Q access authorization, the grant of which is predicated on a favorably adjudicated background investigation, would be added.

    The term “Administrative Judge” is proposed to be amended in the same fashion and for the same reasons as the definition of “DOE Counsel,” and also to delete the requirement that this person be a “senior management official.”

    The term “Director” would be added and defined as the Director, Office of Departmental Personnel Security, to reflect organizational changes within the DOE's personnel security program.

    The terms “Local Director of Security” and “Manager” would be revised to reflect organizational changes throughout DOE.

    The term “national security information” would be deleted as it does not appear anywhere in this rule.

    7. The current heading “CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED MATTER OR SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL” located above current § 710.6 would be revised to add “SUBPART B—” at the beginning, and to delete “CRITERIA AND” to reflect the deletion of the criteria in proposed § 710.8.

    8. Proposed § 710.6 “Cooperation by the individual.”

    (1) Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would revise the language for clarity but would not change it substantively.

    (2) Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would update the reference to polygraph examinations to be consistent with the intent of 10 CFR part 709, and to update terms as in paragraph (a)(1), described above.

    (3) Proposed paragraph (b) would reflect current DOE organizational structures.

    (4) Proposed paragraph (c) would clarify the process by which an individual could appeal decisions taken by DOE under proposed paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2).

    9. The proposed changes to § 710.7 “Application of the criteria” would remove references to the criteria and clarify that all determinations of eligibility for access authorization at DOE would be made in accordance with the national Adjudicative Guidelines. DOE has for several decades utilized the criteria currently in § 710.8 to determine eligibility for access authorization. When the national Adjudicative Guidelines were introduced in 1997, DOE began using them in conjunction with the criteria in § 710.8. The revision proposed today would make all access authorization determinations in reliance solely on the Adjudicative Guidelines. The current title “Application of the criteria” would be revised to replace “criteria” with “Adjudicative Guidelines.” Additionally, the current § 710.9(a) would be renumbered § 710.7(d) to clearly indicate how information obtained by DOE may be considered derogatory under the Adjudicative Guidelines and used to determine access authorization eligibility. The last sentence of the current § 710.7(a) would be moved to the beginning of proposed § 710.7(d) where it more logically fits.

    10. Current § 710.8 “Criteria” would be removed in its entirety, since exclusive reliance on the national Adjudicative Guidelines for making access authorization eligibility determinations would render this section unnecessary.

    11. The current § 710.9 “Action on derogatory information” would be renumbered § 710.8.

    (1) Current paragraph (a) would be moved to proposed § 710.7(d) as indicated in the discussion of proposed § 710.7.

    (2) Proposed paragraph (a)—currently paragraph (b)—would remove the specific reference to a DOE mental evaluation as an example of actions that can be taken to resolve derogatory information. Since a mental evaluation is just one of many actions DOE can take to resolve derogatory information, DOE proposes to delete the example to avoid any misperception that DOE is limited to this action.

    (3) Current paragraph (e) would be renumbered as paragraph (d) and would be revised to reflect changes in the DOE organizational structure.

    12. Current § 710.10 “Suspension of access authorization” would be renumbered § 710.9.

    (1) Proposed paragraph (b) would clarify that the Department can take immediate action to suspend an individual's access authorization, without taking actions to investigate derogatory information, when there are immediate threats to the national security or to the safety and security of a DOE facility or employee. An individual whose access authorization has been suspended under these circumstances would be entitled to due process protections as set forth in part 710 before the Department makes a final decision on the individual's eligibility for access authorization.

    (2) The current paragraph (b) would be renumbered as paragraph (c). Proposed paragraph (c) would clarify the responsibilities of the Manager upon the recommendation of a Local Director of Security that an individual's access authorization should be suspended.

    (3) Proposed paragraph (e) has been added to reflect the requirements of Presidential Policy Directive 19, and would provide that a Federal employee who believes action to suspend his or her access authorization was taken as retaliation for having made a protected disclosure of information may appeal the decision to the Department's Office of the Inspector General.

    13. The current heading, “ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,” located above current § 710.20, would be redesignated as Subpart C by adding, “SUBPART C—” at the beginning.

    14. Section 710.20 “Purpose of administrative review” would remain unchanged except for an editorial revision to clarify that the procedures in proposed Subpart C “govern” and not just “establish methods for” the conduct of administrative review proceedings under this part.

    15. Proposed § 710.21 “Notice to the individual”

    (1) Proposed paragraph (b)(7) would clarify that the Administrative Judge has the option of conducting administrative review hearings via video teleconferencing. The use of video teleconferencing for this purpose has been piloted with successful results. Additionally, proposed paragraph (b)(7) would include information currently contained in § 710.34, “Attorney representation,” which is proposed to be deleted. The current § 710.34 addresses the responsibility of the individual to provide DOE with notice of representation by an attorney, so the substance of § 710.34 would fit better in proposed paragraph (b)(7) since it already addresses the individual's right to attorney representation.

    (2) Proposed paragraph (b)(8) would clarify that in the event that an individual fails to file a timely written request for a hearing before an Administrative Judge, the Manager shall issue a final decision to revoke or deny an individual's access authorization.

    (3) Current paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) would be renumbered as paragraphs (b)(10) and (b)(11), respectively, for better flow.

    (4) Proposed new paragraphs (b)(12)(i) through (iii) would address the rights of individuals who, at the time they receive a notification letter pursuant to proposed § 710.21, are the subject of criminal proceedings for a felony offense or for an offense which is punishable by more than a year in prison. The proposed addition would clarify that individuals in that situation have the right to decide whether to continue with or withdraw from the Administrative Review process. Under the current rule, the discretion to continue with the Administrative Review process resides with DOE. Under the proposed revision, the individual concerned would decide to either (1) proceed with Administrative Review, requiring him/her to participate fully in the process, or (2) withdraw from the Administrative Review process, resulting in the administrative withdrawal of the individual's access authorization. Once the individual's criminal law matter concludes, a request for access authorization could be resubmitted.

    (5) Proposed new paragraph (c)(2), embodying the requirements of Presidential Policy Directive 19, would be added to provide that a Federal employee who believes action to deny or revoke access authorization under the Administrative Review process was taken as retaliation for having made a protected disclosure of information may appeal the decision to the Department's Office of the Inspector General.

    16. Proposed § 710.22 “Initial Decision Process” would clarify, in paragraph (c)(4), that if the individual does not exercise his/her right to appeal the initial decision of a Manager to deny or revoke access authorization within 30 calendar days of that decision, the Manager's initial decision would become final action not subject to further review or appeal.

    17. Proposed § 710.25 “Appointment of Administrative Judge; prehearing conference; commencement of hearings” would clarify the authority of the Administrative Judge to conduct hearings via video teleconferencing and shorten the time limit for the Administrative Judge to commence a hearing, from 90 days to 60 days from the date the individual's request for hearing is received by the Office of Hearings and Appeals. This proposed change reflects the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals' current internal procedures for commencing a hearing.

    18. Proposed § 710.27 “Administrative Judge's decision” would indicate that the Administrative Judge shall render a decision as to the granting or restoring of an individual's access authorization within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the hearing transcript. This proposed change reflects the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals' current internal procedures for issuing a decision.

    19. Proposed § 710.28 “Action on the Administrative Judge's decision” would clarify that an Administrative Judge's decision shall constitute final action not subject to review or further appeal if a written request for a review of the decision by the Appeal Panel is not filed within a timely manner with the Director. Additionally, proposed paragraph (c) would address the process by which the Department may appeal a decision by the Administrative Judge to grant or to continue an individual's access authorization, to comport with the process in current paragraph (b) which addresses how the individual may appeal a decision by the Administrative Judge to deny or revoke access authorization.

    20. Proposed § 710.29 “Final appeal process” would reflect, in paragraph (e), that an appeal decision would be based solely upon information in the administrative record at the time of the Manager's decision or the Administrative Judge's initial decision. Consequently, current paragraphs (h), (i) and (j) would be deleted in their entirety. Paragraphs (a) through (d) would be revised to reflect the current Departmental organization and to more clearly describe the process by which an Appeal Panel is convened. Paragraph (f) would be revised to clarify that the Appeal Panel's decision is not subject to further review or appeal.

    21. Current § 710.30 “New evidence” would be deleted to reflect that an appeal decision would be based solely upon information in the administrative record at the time of the Manager's decision or the Administrative Judge's initial decision.

    22. Proposed § 710.30 “Action by the Secretary,” currently § 710.31 and renumbered § 710.30 in the proposed rule, would state that the Secretary's responsibilities could be delegated in accordance with Executive Orders 12968 and 10865. Also, references to current § 710.29(h) and (i) would be deleted since those sections are proposed to be deleted.

    23. Proposed § 710.31 “Reconsideration of Access Eligibility.” This proposed section, which would be renumbered from § 710.32, would provide for a minimum of one year between a final decision to deny or revoke access authorization and the time when an individual may apply for reconsideration. Currently, part 710 contains no time limit and many individuals seek reconsideration within days of receiving a final decision denying or revoking the individual's access authorization. Further, individuals have been permitted to file a request for reconsideration repeatedly, even after previous reconsideration requests have been denied. A one-year time limit would convey clear expectations to the individual as to when a reconsideration request could be accepted and would reduce the undue burden on the Department of considering multiple close-in-time appeals. In addition, paragraph (d) would more clearly describe the reconsideration process.

    24. The current heading, “TERMINATIONS,” located above current § 710.33 would be redesignated as Subpart D by adding, “SUBPART D—” at the beginning.

    25. Proposed § 710.32 “Terminations.” This proposed section, would be renumbered from § 710.33. Proposed § 710.32(a), currently § 710.33, would clarify that if the procedures of this part are terminated after an unfavorable initial agency decision has been rendered, any subsequent requests for access authorization for an individual would be processed as a review of the decision by the Appeal Panel, unless a minimum of one year had elapsed. Proposed § 710.32(b)(1), currently § 710.4(c), would indicate that the type of criminal proceedings for which DOE may take action to terminate processing an access authorization application include felony offenses and offenses punishable by one year of imprisonment or longer. Currently, this threshold is six months; this proposed change to one year would be consistent with the one-year time frame in proposed § 710.21. Proposed § 710.32(b)(2) and § 710.32(c), would be renumbered from current § 710.4(d) and (g), respectively.

    26. Current § 710.34 “Notice to individual” would be deleted. The substance of current § 710.34 would be added to proposed § 710.21.

    27. Proposed § 710.33 “Time frames,” currently § 710.35, would be renumbered as § 710.33.

    28. Proposed § 710.34 “Acting Officials,” currently § 710.36, would reflect organizational changes within the Department and permit the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security greater flexibility to delegate his/her responsibilities under part 710. Currently, these responsibilities can only be exercised by persons in security-related Senior Executive Service positions. The proposed change would permit the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security to delegate his/her authorities under part 710 to persons in senior security-related positions. It is expected that only persons in GS-15 or Senior Executive Service positions would meet this requirement. This proposed change would enhance the Department's ability to effectively manage the Administrative Review process prescribed by part 710.

    APPENDICES

    The national Adjudicative Guidelines would be Appendix A.

    III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    The regulatory action proposed today has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this proposed 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.

    DOE has also reviewed the proposed regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. DOE believes that this NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits.

    B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction.

    With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed regulation meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” (67 FR 53461, August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site at http://www.gc.doe.gov.

    This proposed rule would amend procedures that apply to the determination of eligibility of individuals for access to classified information and access to special nuclear material. The proposed rule applies to individuals, and would not apply to “small entities,” as that term is defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As a result, if adopted, the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Accordingly, DOE certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE has concluded that promulgation of this proposed rule falls into a class of actions which would not individually or cumulatively have significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations (10 CFR part 1021, subpart D) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from NEPA review because the amendments to the existing rule are strictly procedural (categorical exclusion A6). Therefore, this proposed rule does not require an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and, if adopted, would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of costs and benefits of any rule imposing a Federal Mandate with costs to State, local or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. This rulemaking does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.

    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule or policy that may affect family well being. The proposed rule, if adopted, will have no impact on family well-being. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    I. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution and use. This proposed rule is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under implementing guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    K. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

    The Office of the Secretary of Energy has approved issuance of this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 710

    Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Government contracts, Government employees, nuclear energy.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 28, 2016. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Deputy Secretary.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, DOE is proposing to revise part 710 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

    PART 710—PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED MATTER AND SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 710.1 Purpose. 710.2 Scope. 710.3 Reference. 710.4 Policy. 710.5 Definitions. Subpart B—Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material 710.6 Cooperation by the individual. 710.7 Application of the adjudicative guidelines. 710.8 Action on derogatory information. 710.9 Suspension of access authorization. Subpart C—Administrative Review 710.20 Purpose of administrative review. 710.21 Notice to the individual. 710.22 Initial decision process. 710.23 Extensions of time by the manager. 710.24 Appointment of DOE Counsel. 710.25 Appointment of Administrative Judge; prehearing conference; commencement of hearings. 710.26 Conduct of hearings. 710.27 Administrative Judge's decision. 710.28 Action on the Administrative Judge's decision. 710.29 Final appeal process. 710.30 Action by the Secretary. 710.31 Reconsideration of access eligibility. Subpart D—Miscellaneous 710.32 Terminations. 710.33 Time frames. 710.34 Acting officials. Appendix A—Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (December 30, 2005) Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2165, 2201, 5815, 7101, et seq., 7383h-l; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; E.O. 10450, 3 CFR 1949-1953 comp., p. 936, as amended; E.O. 10865, 3 CFR 1959-1963 comp., p. 398, as amended, 3 CFR Chap. IV; E.O. 13526, 3 CFR 2010 Comp., pp. 298-327 (or successor orders); E.O. 12968, 3 CFR 1995 Comp., p. 391.

    Subpart A—General Provisions
    § 710.1 Purpose.

    (a) This part establishes the procedures for determining the eligibility of individuals described in § 710.2 for access to classified matter or special nuclear material, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or for access to national security information in accordance with Executive Order 13526 (Classified National Security Information).

    (b) This part implements: Executive Order 12968, 60 FR 40245 (August 2, 1995), as amended; Executive Order 13526, 75 FR 707 (January 5, 2010); Executive Order 10865, 25 FR 1583 (February 24, 1960), as amended; Executive Order 10450, 18 FR 2489 (April 27, 1954), as amended; and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information approved by the President (the “Adjudicative Guidelines”; see Appendix A of this part).

    § 710.2 Scope.

    The procedures outlined in this rule require the application of the Adjudicative Guidelines (see § 710.7) in determining eligibility for access authorization for:

    (a) Employees (including consultants) of, and applicants for employment with, contractors and agents of the DOE;

    (b) Access permittees of the DOE and their employees (including consultants) and applicants for employment;

    (c) Employees (including consultants) of, and applicants for employment with, the DOE; and

    (d) Other persons designated by the Secretary of Energy.

    § 710.3 Reference.

    The Adjudicative Guidelines are set forth in Appendix A to this part.

    § 710.4 Policy.

    (a) It is the policy of DOE to provide for the security of its programs in a manner consistent with traditional American concepts of justice and fairness. To this end, the Secretary has established procedures that will afford those individuals described in § 710.2 the opportunity for administrative review of questions concerning their eligibility for access authorization.

    (b) It is also the policy of DOE that none of the procedures established for determining eligibility for access authorization shall be used for an improper purpose, including any attempt to coerce, restrain, threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against individuals for exercising their rights under any statute, regulation or DOE directive. Any DOE officer or employee violating, or causing the violation of this policy, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

    § 710.5 Definitions.

    (a) As used in this part:

    Access authorization means an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.

    Administrative Judge means a DOE attorney appointed by the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, pursuant to § 710.25 of this part. An Administrative Judge shall be a U.S. citizen and shall hold a Q access authorization.

    Classified matter means the material of thought or expression that is classified pursuant to statute or Executive Order.

    Director means the Director, DOE Office of Departmental Personnel Security.

    DOE Counsel means a DOE attorney assigned to represent DOE in proceedings under this part. DOE Counsel shall be a U.S. citizen and shall hold a Q access authorization.

    Local Director of Security means the individual with primary responsibility for safeguards and security at the Chicago, Idaho, Oak Ridge, Richland, and Savannah River Operations Offices; for Naval Reactors, the individual(s) designated under the authority of the Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program; for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the individual designated in writing by the Chief, Defense Nuclear Security; and for DOE Headquarters cases the Director, Office of Headquarters Personnel Security Operations.

    Manager means the senior Federal official at the Chicago, Idaho, Oak Ridge, Richland, or Savannah River Operations Offices; for Naval Reactors, the individual designated under the authority of the Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program; for the NNSA, the individual designated in writing by the NNSA Administrator or Deputy Administrator; and for DOE Headquarters cases, the Director, Office of Headquarters Security Operations.

    Secretary means the Secretary of Energy, as provided by section 201 of the Department of Energy Organization Act.

    Special nuclear material means plutonium, uranium enriched in the isotope 233, or in the isotope 235, and any other material which, pursuant to the provisions of section 51 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, has been determined to be special nuclear material, but does not include source material; or any material artificially enriched by any of the foregoing, not including source material.

    (b) Reserved.

    Subpart B—Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material
    § 710.6 Cooperation by the individual.

    (a)(1) It is the responsibility of the individual to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to DOE's relevant and material questions, and when requested, to furnish or authorize others to furnish information that the DOE deems pertinent to the individual's eligibility for access authorization. This obligation to cooperate applies when completing security forms, during the course of a personnel security background investigation or reinvestigation, and at any stage of DOE's processing of the individual's access authorization request, including but not limited to, personnel security interviews, DOE-sponsored mental health evaluations, and other authorized DOE investigative activities under this part. The individual may elect not to cooperate; however, such refusal may prevent DOE from reaching an affirmative finding required for granting or continuing access authorization. In this event, any access authorization then in effect may be administratively withdrawn or, for applicants, further processing may be administratively terminated.

    (2) It is the responsibility of an individual subject to 10 CFR 709.3(d) to consent to and take a polygraph examination required by part 709. A refusal to consent to or take such an examination may prevent DOE from reaching an affirmative finding required for continuing access authorization. In this event, any access authorization then in effect may be administratively withdrawn.

    (b) If the individual believes that the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section have been inappropriately applied, the individual may file a written appeal of the action with the Director within 30 calendar days of the date the individual was notified of the action.

    (c) Upon receipt of the written appeal, the Director shall conduct an inquiry as to the circumstances involved in the action and shall, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the written appeal, notify the individual, in writing, of his/her decision. If the Director determines that the action was inappropriate, the Director shall notify the Manager that access authorization must be reinstated or, for applicants, that the individual must continue to be processed for access authorization. If the Director determines the action was appropriate, the Director shall notify the individual of this fact in writing. The Director's decision is final and not subject to further review or appeal.

    § 710.7 Application of the Adjudicative Guidelines.

    (a) The decision on an access authorization request is a comprehensive, commonsense judgment, made after consideration of all relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting or continuation of access authorization will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. Any doubt as to an individual's access authorization eligibility shall be resolved in favor of the national security.

    (b) All such determinations shall be based upon application of the Adjudicative Guidelines, or any successor national standard issued under the authority of the President.

    (c) Each Adjudicative Guideline sets forth a series of concerns that may create a doubt regarding an individual's eligibility for access authorization. In resolving these concerns, all DOE officials involved in the decision-making process shall consider: The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the age and maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct; the voluntariness of participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; the likelihood of continuation or recurrence; and other relevant and material factors.

    (d) If the reports of investigation of an individual or other reliable information tend to establish the validity and significance of one or more areas of concern as set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines, such information shall be regarded as derogatory and create a question as to the individual's access authorization eligibility. Absent any derogatory information, a favorable determination will be made as to access authorization eligibility.

    § 710.8 Action on derogatory information.

    (a) If a question arises as to the individual's access authorization eligibility, the Local Director of Security shall authorize the conduct of an interview with the individual, or other appropriate actions and, on the basis of the results of such interview or actions, may authorize the granting of the individual's access authorization. If, in the opinion of the Local Director of Security, the question as to the individual's access authorization eligibility has not been favorably resolved, the Local Director of Security shall submit the matter to the Manager with a recommendation that authority be obtained to process the individual's case under administrative review procedures set forth in this part.

    (b) If the Manager agrees that unresolved derogatory information is present and that appropriate attempts to resolve such derogatory information have been unsuccessful, the Manager shall notify the Director of the proposal to conduct an administrative review proceeding, accompanied by an explanation of the security concerns and a duplicate Personnel Security File. If the Manager believes that the derogatory information has been favorably resolved, the Manager shall direct that access authorization be granted for the individual. The Manager may also direct the Local Director of Security to obtain additional information prior to deciding whether to grant the individual access authorization or to submit a request for authority to conduct an administrative review proceeding. A decision in the matter shall be rendered by the Manager within 10 calendar days of its receipt.

    (c) Upon receipt of the Manager's notification, the Director shall review the matter and confer with the Manager on:

    (1) The institution of administrative review proceedings set forth in §§ 710.20 through 710.30;

    (2) The granting of access authorization; or

    (3) Other actions as the Director deems appropriate.

    (d) The Director shall act pursuant to one of these options within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Manager's notification unless an extension is granted by the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.

    § 710.9 Suspension of access authorization.

    (a) If derogatory information is received, the Local Director of Security shall authorize action(s), to be taken on an expedited basis, to resolve the question pursuant to § 710.8(a). If the question as to the individual's continued access authorization eligibility is not resolved in favor of the individual, the Local Director of Security shall submit the matter to the Manager with the recommendation that the individual's access authorization be suspended pending the final determination resulting from the procedures set forth in this part.

    (b) If the information received is determined to represent an immediate threat to national security or to the safety or security of a DOE facility or employee, or is determined to be so serious in nature that action(s) to resolve the matter as set forth in § 710.8(b) are not practical or advisable, the Local Director of Security shall immediately submit the matter to the Manager with a recommendation that the individual's access authorization be suspended pending the final determination resulting from the procedures set forth in this part. The Manager shall either authorize the immediate suspension of access authorization, or shall direct the Local Director of Security to take action(s) as set forth in § 710.8(b), in an expedited manner, to resolve the matter.

    (c) The Manager shall, within two working days of receipt of the recommendation from the Local Director of Security to suspend the individual's DOE access authorization:

    (1) Approve the suspension of access authorization; or

    (2) Direct the continuation of access authorization, or

    (3) Take or direct other such action(s) as the Manager deems appropriate.

    (d) Upon suspension of an individual's access authorization pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the individual, the individual's employer, any other DOE office or program having an access authorization interest in the individual, and, if known, any other government agency where the individual holds an access authorization, security clearance, or access approval, or to which the DOE has certified the individual's DOE access authorization, shall be notified immediately in writing. The appropriate DOE database for tracking access authorizations and related actions shall also be updated. Notification to the individual shall reflect, in general terms, the reason(s) why the suspension has been affected. Pending final determination of the individual's eligibility for access authorization from the operation of the procedures set forth in this part, the individual shall not be afforded access to classified matter, special nuclear material, or unescorted access to security areas that require the individual to possess a DOE access authorization.

    (e) Written notification to the individual shall include, if the individual is a Federal employee, notification that if the individual believes that the action to suspend his/her access authorization was taken as retaliation against the individual for having made a protected disclosure, as defined in Presidential Policy Directive 19, Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to Classified Information, or any successor directive issued under the authority of the President, the individual may appeal this matter directly to the DOE Office of the Inspector General. Such an appeal shall have no impact upon the continued processing of the individual's access authorization eligibility under this part.

    (f) Following the decision to suspend an individual's DOE access authorization pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the Manager shall immediately notify the Director in writing of the action and the reason(s) therefor. In addition, the Manager, within 10 calendar days of the date of suspension (unless an extension of time is approved by the Director), shall notify the Director in writing of his/her proposal to conduct an administrative review proceeding, accompanied by an explanation of its basis and a duplicate Personnel Security File.

    (g) Upon receipt of the Manager's notification, the Director shall review the matter and confer with the Manager on:

    (1) The institution of administrative review procedures set forth in §§ 710.20 through 710.30; or

    (2) The reinstatement of access authorization; or

    (3) Other actions as the Director deems appropriate.

    (h) The Director shall act pursuant to one of these options within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the Manager's notification unless an extension is granted by the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.

    Subpart C—Administrative Review
    § 710.20 Purpose of Administrative Review.

    These procedures govern the conduct of the administrative review of questions concerning an individual's eligibility for access authorization when it is determined that such questions cannot be favorably resolved by interview or other action.

    § 710.21 Notice to the individual.

    (a) Unless an extension is authorized in writing by the Director, within 30 calendar days of receipt of authority to institute administrative review procedures, the Manager shall prepare and deliver to the individual a notification letter approved by the local Office of Chief Counsel, or the Office of the General Counsel for Headquarters cases. Where practicable, the letter shall be delivered to the individual in person.

    (b) The letter shall state:

    (1) That reliable information in the possession of DOE has created a substantial doubt concerning the individual's eligibility for access authorization.

    (2) The information which creates a substantial doubt regarding the individual's access authorization eligibility (which shall be as comprehensive and detailed as the national security permits) and why that information creates such doubt.

    (3) That the individual has the option to have the substantial doubt regarding eligibility for access authorization resolved in one of two ways:

    (i) By the Manager, without a hearing, on the basis of the existing information in the case; or

    (ii) By personal appearance before an Administrative Judge (a “hearing”).

    (4) That, if the individual desires a hearing, the individual must, within 20 calendar days of the date of receipt of the notification letter, make a written request for a hearing to the Manager from whom the letter was received.

    (5) That the individual may also file with the Manager the individual's written answer to the reported information which raises the question of the individual's eligibility for access authorization, and that, if the individual requests a hearing without filing a written answer, the request shall be deemed a general denial of all of the reported information.

    (6) That, if the individual so requests, a hearing shall be scheduled before an Administrative Judge, with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives, for the purpose of affording the individual an opportunity of supporting his eligibility for access authorization. The Administrative Judge shall decide whether the hearing will be conducted via video teleconferencing.

    (7) That, if a hearing is requested, the individual will have the right to appear personally before an Administrative Judge or, at the discretion of the Administrative Judge, via video teleconferencing; to present evidence in his/her own behalf, through witnesses, or by documents, or both; and, subject to the limitations set forth in § 710.26(g), to be present during the entire hearing and be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or other representative of the individual's choosing and at the individual's own expense at every stage of the proceedings. Such representative or counsel, if applicable, shall be identified in writing to the Administrative Judge and DOE Counsel and authorized by the individual to receive all correspondence, transcripts and other documents pertaining to the proceedings under this part.

    (8) That the individual's failure to file a timely written request for a hearing before an Administrative Judge in accordance with paragraph (b)(4) of this section, unless time deadlines are extended for good cause, shall be considered as a relinquishment by the individual of the right to a hearing provided in this part, and that in such event a final decision to deny or revoke the individual's access authorization shall be made by the Manager.

    (9) That in any proceedings under this subpart DOE Counsel will participate on behalf of and representing DOE and that any statements made by the individual to DOE Counsel may be used in subsequent proceedings;

    (10) The individual's access authorization status until further notice;

    (11) The name and telephone number of the designated DOE official to contact for any further information desired concerning the proceedings, including an explanation of the individual's rights under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act;

    (12) If applicable, that if the individual is currently the subject of criminal charges for a felony offense or an offense punishable by imprisonment of one year or more, the individual must elect either to continue with the Administrative Review process and have the substantial doubt regarding eligibility for access authorization resolved by the Manager or by a hearing, or to withdraw from the Administrative Review process.

    (i) If the individual elects to continue with the Administrative Review process a determination as to the individual's access authorization shall be made by the Manager or by an Administrative Judge via a hearing. The individual will be expected to participate fully in the process. Any refusal to cooperate, answer all questions, or provide requested information may prevent DOE from reaching an affirmative finding required for granting or continuing access authorization.

    (ii) If the individual elects to withdraw from the Administrative Review process, the individual's access authorization shall be administratively withdrawn. Such action shall be taken in accordance with applicable procedures set forth in pertinent Departmental directives. Any future requests for access authorization for the individual must be accompanied by documentary evidence of resolution of the criminal charges.

    (iii) The individual must, within 20 calendar days of receipt of the notification letter, indicate in writing his/her decision to continue or to withdraw from the Administrative Review process. Such notification must be made to the Manager from whom the notification letter was received.

    (c) The notification letter referenced in paragraph (b) of this section shall also:

    (1) Include a copy of this part, and

    (2) For Federal employees only, indicate that if the individual believes that the action to process the individual under this part was taken as retaliation against the individual for having made a protected disclosure, as defined in Presidential Policy Directive 19, Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to Classified Information, or any successor directive issued under the authority of the President, the individual may appeal this matter directly to the DOE Office of the Inspector General. Such an appeal shall have no impact upon the continued processing of the individual's access authorization eligibility under this part.

    § 710.22 Initial decision process.

    (a) The Manager shall make an initial decision as to the individual's access authorization eligibility based on the existing information in the case if:

    (1) The individual fails to respond to the notification letter by filing a timely written request for a hearing before an Administrative Judge or fails to respond to the notification letter after requesting an extension of time to do so;

    (2) The individual's response to the notification letter does not request a hearing before an Administrative Judge; or

    (3) The Administrative Judge refers the individual's case to the Manager in accordance with § 710.25(e) or § 710.26(b).

    (b) Unless an extension of time is granted by the Director, the Manager's initial decision as to the individual's access authorization eligibility shall be made within 15 calendar days of the date of receipt of the information in paragraph (a) of this section. The Manager shall either grant or deny, or reinstate or revoke, the individual's access authorization.

    (c) A letter reflecting the Manager's initial decision shall be signed by the Manager and delivered to the individual within 15 calendar days of the date of the Manager's decision unless an extension of time is granted by the Director. If the Manager's initial decision is unfavorable to the individual, the individual shall be advised:

    (1) Of the Manager's unfavorable decision and the reason(s) therefor;

    (2) That within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the letter, the individual may file a written request for a review of the Manager's initial decision, through the Director, to the DOE Headquarters Appeal Panel (Appeal Panel);

    (3) That the Director may, for good cause shown, at the written request of the individual, extend the time for filing a written request for a review of the case by the Appeal Panel; and

    (4) That if the written request for a review of the Manager's initial decision by the Appeal Panel is not filed within 30 calendar days of the individual's receipt of the Manager's letter, the Manager's initial decision in the case shall be final and not subject to further review or appeal.

    § 710.23 Extensions of time by the manager.

    The Manager may, for good cause shown, at the written request of the individual, extend the time for filing a written request for a hearing, and/or the time for filing a written answer to the matters contained in the notification letter. The Manager shall notify the Director, in writing, when such extensions have been approved.

    § 710.24 Appointment of DOE Counsel.

    (a) Upon receipt from the individual of a written request for a hearing, a DOE attorney shall forthwith be assigned by the Manager to act as DOE Counsel.

    (b) DOE Counsel is authorized to consult directly with the individual if he/she is not represented by counsel, or with the individual's counsel or other representative if so represented, to clarify issues and reach stipulations with respect to testimony and contents of documents and physical evidence. Such stipulations shall be binding upon the individual and the DOE Counsel for the purposes of this part.

    § 710.25 Appointment of Administrative Judge; prehearing conference; commencement of hearings.

    (a) Upon receipt of a request for a hearing, the Manager shall in a timely manner transmit that request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and identify the DOE Counsel. The Manager shall at the same time transmit a copy of the notification letter and the individual's response to the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

    (b) Upon receipt of the hearing request from the Manager, the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, shall appoint, as soon as practicable, an Administrative Judge.

    (c) Immediately upon appointment, the Administrative Judge shall notify the individual and DOE Counsel of his/her identity and the address to which all further correspondence should be sent.

    (d) The Administrative Judge shall have all powers necessary to regulate the conduct of proceedings under this part, including, but not limited to, establishing a list of persons to receive service of papers, issuing subpoenas for witnesses to attend the hearing or for the production of specific documents or physical evidence, administering oaths and affirmations, ruling upon motions, receiving evidence, regulating the course of the hearing, disposing of procedural requests or similar matters, and taking other actions consistent with the regulations in this part. Requests for subpoenas shall be liberally granted except where the Administrative Judge finds that the issuance of subpoenas would result in evidence or testimony that is repetitious, incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial to the issues in the case. The Administrative Judge may take sworn testimony, sequester witnesses, and control the dissemination or reproduction of any record or testimony taken pursuant to this part, including correspondence, or other relevant records or physical evidence including, but not limited to, information retained in computerized or other automated systems in possession of the subpoenaed person.

    (e) The Administrative Judge shall determine the day, time, and place for the hearing and shall decide whether the hearing will be conducted via video teleconferencing. Hearings will normally be held at or near the relevant DOE facility, unless the Administrative Judge determines that another location would be more appropriate. Normally the location for the hearing will be selected for the convenience of all participants. In the event the individual fails to appear at the time and place specified, without good cause shown, the record in the case shall be closed and returned to the Manager, who shall then make an initial determination regarding the eligibility of the individual for DOE access authorization in accordance with § 710.22(a)(3).

    (f) At least 7 calendar days prior to the date scheduled for the hearing, the Administrative Judge shall convene a prehearing conference for the purpose of discussing stipulations and exhibits, identifying witnesses, and disposing of other appropriate matters. The conference will usually be conducted by telephone.

    (g) Hearings shall commence within 60 calendar days from the date the individual's request for a hearing is received by the Office of Hearings and Appeals. Any extension of the hearing date past 60 calendar days from the date the request for a hearing is received by the Office of Hearings and Appeals shall be decided by the Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

    § 710.26 Conduct of hearings.

    (a) In all hearings conducted under this part, the individual shall have the right to be represented by a person of his/her own choosing, at the individual's own expense. The individual is responsible for producing witnesses in his/her own behalf, including requesting the issuance of subpoenas, if necessary, or presenting testimonial, documentary, or physical evidence before the Administrative Judge to support the individual's defense to the derogatory information contained in the notification letter. With the exception of procedural or scheduling matters, the Administrative Judge is prohibited from initiating or otherwise engaging in ex parte discussions about the case during the pendency of proceedings under this part.

    (b) Unless the Administrative Judge finds good cause for deferring issuance of a decision, in the event that the individual unduly delays the hearing, such as by failure to meet deadlines set by the Administrative Judge, the record shall be closed, and an initial decision shall be made by the Manager on the basis of the record in the case per § 710.22(a)(3).

    (c) Hearings shall be open only to DOE Counsel, duly authorized representatives of DOE, the individual and the individual's counsel or other representatives, and such other persons as may be authorized by the Administrative Judge. Unless otherwise ordered by the Administrative Judge, witnesses shall testify in the presence of the individual but not in the presence of other witnesses.

    (d) DOE Counsel shall assist the Administrative Judge in establishing a complete administrative hearing record in the proceeding and bringing out a full and true disclosure of all facts, both favorable and unfavorable, having a bearing on the issues before the Administrative Judge. The individual shall be afforded the opportunity of presenting testimonial, documentary, and physical evidence, including testimony by the individual in the individual's own behalf. The proponent of a witness shall conduct the direct examination of that witness. All witnesses shall be subject to cross-examination, except as provided in § 710.26(l). Whenever reasonably possible, testimony shall be given in person.

    (e) The Administrative Judge may ask the witnesses any questions which the Administrative Judge deems appropriate to assure the fullest possible disclosure of relevant and material facts.

    (f) During the course of the hearing, the Administrative Judge shall rule on all objections raised.

    (g) In the event it appears during the course of the hearing that classified matter may be disclosed, it shall be the duty of the Administrative Judge to assure that disclosure is not made to persons who are not authorized to receive it, and take other appropriate measures.

    (h) Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but the Federal Rules of Evidence may be used as a guide for procedures and principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence available. The Administrative Judge shall admit into evidence any matters, either oral or written, which are material, relevant, and competent in determining issues involved, including the testimony of responsible persons concerning the integrity of the individual. In making such determinations, the utmost latitude shall be permitted with respect to relevancy, materiality, and competency. The Administrative Judge may also exclude evidence which is incompetent, immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious. Every reasonable effort shall be made to obtain the best evidence available. Subject to §§ 710.26(l), 710.26(m), 710.26(n) and 710.26(o), hearsay evidence may, at the discretion of the Administrative Judge and for good cause show, be admitted without strict adherence to technical rules of admissibility and shall be accorded such weight as the Administrative Judge deems appropriate.

    (i) Testimony of the individual and witnesses shall be given under oath or affirmation. Attention of the individual and each witness shall be directed to 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 18 U.S.C. 1621.

    (j) The Administrative Judge shall endeavor to obtain all the facts that are reasonably available in order to arrive at a decision. If, prior to or during the proceedings, in the opinion of the Administrative Judge, the derogatory information in the notification letter is not sufficient to address all matters into which inquiry should be directed, the Administrative Judge may recommend to the Manager concerned that, in order to give more adequate notice to the individual, the notification letter should be amended. Any amendment shall be made with the concurrence of the local Office of Chief Counsel or the Office of the General Counsel in Headquarters cases. If, in the opinion of the Administrative Judge, the circumstances of such amendment may involve undue hardship to the individual because of limited time to respond to the new derogatory information in the notification letter, an appropriate adjournment shall be granted upon the request of the individual.

    (k) A written or oral statement of a person relating to the characterization in the notification letter of any organization or person other than the individual may be received and considered by the Administrative Judge without affording the individual an opportunity to cross-examine the person making the statement on matters relating to the characterization of such organization or person, provided the individual is given notice that such a statement has been received and may be considered by the Administrative Judge, and is informed of the contents of the statement, provided such notice is not prohibited by paragraph (g) of this section.

    (l) Any oral or written statement adverse to the individual relating to a controverted issue may be received and considered by the Administrative Judge without affording an opportunity for cross-examination in either of the following circumstances:

    (1) The head of the agency supplying the statement certifies that the person who furnished the information is a confidential informant who has been engaged in obtaining intelligence information for the Government and that disclosure of the informant's identity would be substantially harmful to the national interest;

    (2) The Secretary or the Secretary's special designee for that particular purpose has preliminarily determined, after considering information furnished by the investigative agency as to the reliability of the person and the accuracy of the statement concerned, that:

    (i) The statement concerned appears to be reliable and material; and

    (ii) Failure of the Administrative Judge to receive and consider such statement would, in view of the access sought to classified matter or special nuclear material, be substantially harmful to the national security and that the person who furnished the information cannot appear to testify:

    (A) Due to death, severe illness, or similar cause, in which case the identity of the person and the information to be considered shall be made available to the individual, or

    (B) Due to some other specified cause determined by the Secretary to be good and sufficient.

    (m) Whenever procedures under paragraph (l) of this section are used:

    (1) The individual shall be given a summary or description of the information which shall be as comprehensive and detailed as the national interest permits, and

    (2) Appropriate consideration shall be accorded to the fact that the individual did not have an opportunity to cross-examine such person(s).

    (n) Records compiled in the regular course of business, or other evidence other than investigative reports obtained by DOE, may be received and considered by the Administrative Judge subject to rebuttal without authenticating witnesses, provided that such information has been furnished to DOE by an investigative agency pursuant to its responsibilities in connection with assisting the Secretary to safeguard classified matter or special nuclear material.

    (o) Records compiled in the regular course of business, or other evidence other than investigative reports, relating to a controverted issue which, because they are classified, may not be inspected by the individual, may be received and considered by the Administrative Judge, provided that:

    (1) The Secretary or the Secretary's special designee for that particular purpose has made a preliminary determination that such evidence appears to be material;

    (2) The Secretary or the Secretary's special designee for that particular purpose has made a determination that failure to receive and consider such evidence would, in view of the access sought to classified matter or special nuclear material, be substantially harmful to the national security; and

    (3) To the extent that national security permits, a summary or description of such evidence is made available to the individual. In every such case, information as to the authenticity and accuracy of such evidence furnished by the investigative agency shall be considered.

    (p) The Administrative Judge may request the Local Director of Security to arrange for additional investigation on any points which are material to the deliberations of the Administrative Judge and which the Administrative Judge believes need further investigation or clarification. In this event, the Administrative Judge shall set forth in writing those issues upon which more evidence is requested, identifying where possible persons or sources from which the evidence should be sought. The Local Director of Security shall make every effort through appropriate sources to obtain additional information upon the matters indicated by the Administrative Judge.

    (q) A written transcript of the entire hearing shall be made and, except for portions containing classified matter, a copy of such transcript shall be furnished to the individual without cost.

    (r) Whenever information is made a part of the record under the exceptions authorized by paragraphs (l) or (o) of this section, the record shall contain certificates evidencing that the determinations required therein have been made.

    § 710.27 Administrative Judge's decision.

    (a) The Administrative Judge shall carefully consider the entire record of the proceeding and shall render a decision, within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the hearing transcript, as to whether granting or restoring the individual's access authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. In resolving a question concerning the eligibility of an individual for access authorization under these procedures, the Administrative Judge shall consider the factors stated in § 710.7(c) to determine whether the findings will be favorable or unfavorable.

    (b) In reaching the findings, the Administrative Judge shall consider the demeanor of the witnesses who have testified at the hearing, the probability or likelihood of the truth of their testimony, their credibility, and the authenticity and accuracy of documentary evidence, or lack of evidence on any material points in issue. If the individual is, or may be, handicapped by the non-disclosure to the individual of undisclosed information or by lack of opportunity to cross-examine confidential informants, the Administrative Judge shall take that fact into consideration. The possible adverse impact of the loss of the individual's access authorization upon the DOE program in which the individual works shall not be considered by the Administrative Judge.

    (c) The Administrative Judge shall make specific findings based upon the record as to the validity of each instance of derogatory information contained in the notification letter and the significance which the Administrative Judge attaches to it. These findings shall be supported fully by a statement of reasons which constitute the basis for such findings.

    (d) The Administrative Judge's decision shall be based on the Administrative Judge's findings of fact. If, after considering all of the factors set forth in § 710.7(c) in light of the Adjudicative Guidelines, the Administrative Judge is of the opinion that it will not endanger the common defense and security and will be clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or reinstate access authorization for the individual, the Administrative Judge shall render a favorable decision; otherwise, the Administrative Judge shall render an unfavorable decision. Within 15 calendar days of the Administrative Judge's written decision, the Administrative Judge shall provide copies of the decision and the administrative record to the Manager and the Director.

    § 710.28 Action on the Administrative Judge's decision.

    (a) Within 10 calendar days of receipt of the decision and the administrative record, unless an extension of time is granted by the Director, the Manager shall:

    (1) Notify the individual in writing of the Administrative Judge's decision;

    (2) Advise the individual in writing of the appeal procedures available to the individual in paragraph (b) of this section if the decision is unfavorable to the individual;

    (3) Advise the individual in writing of the appeal procedures available to the Manager and the Director in paragraph (c) of this section if the decision is favorable to the individual; and

    (4) Provide the individual and/or his/her counsel or other representative a copy of the Administrative Judge's decision and the administrative record.

    (b) If the Administrative Judge's decision is unfavorable to the individual:

    (1) The individual may file with the Director a written request for further review of the decision by the Appeal Panel along with a statement required by paragraph (e) of this section within 30 calendar days of the individual's receipt of the Manager's notice;

    (2) The Director may, for good cause shown, extend the time for filing a request for further review of the decision by the Appeal Panel at the written request of the individual, provided the request for an extension of time is filed by the individual within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Manager's notice;

    (3) The Administrative Judge's decision shall be final and not subject to review or appeal if the individual does not:

    (i) File a written request for a review of the decision by the Appeal Panel or for an extension of time to file a written request for review of the decision by the Appeal Panel in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, or

    (ii) File a written request for review of the decision by the Appeal Panel after having been granted an extension of time to do so.

    (c) If the Administrative Judge's decision is favorable to the individual:

    (1) The Manager, with the concurrence of the Director, shall grant or reinstate the individual's access authorization within 30 calendar days of the Administrative Judge's decision becoming final, or

    (2) The Manager or the Director may file a written request with the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security for review of the decision by the Appeal Panel, along with statement required by paragraph (e) of this section, within 30 calendar days of the individual's receipt of the Manager's notice.

    (3) The Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security may, for good cause shown, extend the time for filing a request for review of the decision by the Appeal Panel at the request of the Manager or Director, provided the request for an extension of time is filed by the Manager or Director within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the Manager's notice;

    (4) The Administrative Judge's decision shall constitute final action, and not be subject to review or appeal, if the Manager or Director does not:

    (i) File a written request for review of the decision by the Appeal Panel or for an extension of time to file a written request for review of the decision by the Appeal Panel in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section, or

    (ii) File a written request for a review of the decision by the Appeal Panel after having been granted an extension of time to do so.

    (d) A copy of any request for review of the individual's case by the Appeal Panel filed by the Manager or the Director shall be provided to the individual by the Manager.

    (e) The party filing a request for review by the Appeal Panel shall include with the request a statement identifying the issues upon which the appeal is based. A copy of the request and statement shall be served on the other party, who may file a response with the Appeal Panel within 20 calendar days of receipt of the statement.

    § 710.29 Final appeal process.

    (a) The Appeal Panel shall be convened by the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security to review and render a final decision in access authorization eligibility cases referred by the individual, the Manager, or the Director in accordance with §§ 710.22 or 710.28.

    (b) The Appeal Panel shall consist of three members, each of whom shall be a DOE Headquarters employee, a United States citizen, and hold a DOE Q access authorization. The Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security shall serve as a permanent member of the Appeal Panel and as the Appeal Panel Chair. The second member of the Appeal Panel shall be a DOE attorney designated by the General Counsel. The head of the DOE Headquarters element which has cognizance over the individual whose access authorization eligibility is being considered may designate an employee to act as the third member on the Appeal Panel; otherwise, the third member shall be designated by the Chair. Only one member of the Appeal Panel shall be from the security field.

    (c) In filing a written request for a review by the Appeal Panel in accordance with §§ 710.22 and 710.28, the individual, or his/her counsel or other representative, shall identify the issues upon which the appeal is based. The written request, and any response, shall be made a part of the administrative record. The Director shall provide staff support to the Appeal Panel as requested by the Chair.

    (d) Within 15 calendar days of the receipt of the request for review of a case by the Appeal Panel, the Chair shall arrange for the Appeal Panel members to convene and review the administrative record or provide a copy of the administrative record to the Appeal Panel members for their independent review.

    (e) The Appeal Panel shall consider only that evidence and information in the administrative record at the time of the Manager's or the Administrative Judge's initial decision.

    (f) Within 45 calendar days of receipt of the administrative record, the Appeal Panel shall render a final decision in the case. If a majority of the Appeal Panel members determine that it will not endanger the common defense and security and will be clearly consistent with the national interest, the Chair shall grant or reinstate the individual's access authorization; otherwise, the Chair shall deny or revoke the individual's access authorization. The Appeal Panel's written decision shall be made a part of the administrative record and is not subject to further review or appeal.

    (g) The Chair, through the Director, shall inform the individual in writing, as well as the individual's counsel or other representative, of the Appeal Panel's final decision. A copy of the correspondence shall also be provided to the other panel members and the Manager.

    § 710.30 Action by the Secretary.

    (a) Whenever an individual has not been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who have furnished information adverse to the individual under the provisions of §§ 710.26(l) or (o), the Secretary may issue a final decision to deny or revoke access authorization for the individual after personally reviewing the administrative record and any additional material provided by the Chair. The Secretary's authority may, in accordance with applicable provisions of Executive Order 12968, be delegated to the Deputy Secretary where the effected individual is a Federal employee. The Secretary's authority, in accordance with applicable provisions of Executive Order 10865, may not be delegated where the effected individual is a contractor employee. This authority may be exercised only when the Secretary determines that the circumstances described in § 710.26(l) or (o) are present, and such determination shall be final and not subject to review or appeal.

    (b) Whenever the Secretary issues a final decision as to an individual's access authorization eligibility, the individual and other concerned parties shall be notified in writing by the Chair of that decision and of the Secretary's findings with respect to each instance of derogatory information contained in the notification letter and each substantial issue identified in the statement in support of the request for review to the extent allowed by the national security.

    (c) Nothing contained in these procedures shall be deemed to limit or affect the responsibility and powers of the Secretary to issue subpoenas or to deny or revoke access to classified matter or special nuclear material.

    § 710.31 Reconsideration of access eligibility.

    (a) If, pursuant to the procedures set forth in §§ 710.20 through 710.30 the Manager, Administrative Judge, Appeal Panel, or the Secretary has made a decision granting or reinstating an individual's access authorization, eligibility shall be reconsidered as a new administrative review under the procedures set forth in this part when previously unconsidered derogatory information is identified, or the individual violates a commitment upon which the DOE previously relied to favorably resolve an issue of access authorization eligibility.

    (b) If, pursuant to the procedures set forth in §§ 710.20 through 710.31, the Manager, Administrative Judge, Appeal Panel, or the Secretary has made a decision denying or revoking the individual's access authorization, eligibility may be reconsidered only when the individual so requests in writing, when there is a bona fide offer of employment requiring access authorization, and when there is either material and relevant new evidence which the individual and the individual's representatives were without fault in failing to present earlier, or convincing evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.

    (1) A request for reconsideration shall be accepted when a minimum of one year has elapsed since the date of the Manager's, Administrative Judge's, Appeal Panel's or Secretary's final decision, or of a previous denial of reconsideration. Requests must be submitted in writing to the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, and must include an affidavit setting forth in detail the new evidence or evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.

    (2) If the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security approves the request for reconsideration of an individual's access authorization eligibility, he/she shall so notify the individual, and shall direct the Manager to take appropriate actions to determine whether the individual is eligible for access authorization.

    (3) If the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security denies the request for reconsideration of an individual's access authorization eligibility, he/she shall so notify the individual in writing. Such a denial is final and not subject to review or appeal.

    (4) If, pursuant to the provisions of § 710.31(2), the Manager determines the individual is eligible for access authorization, the Manager shall grant access authorization.

    (5) If, pursuant to the provisions of § 710.31(2), the Manager determines the individual remains ineligible for access authorization, the Manager shall so notify the Director in writing. If the Director concurs, the Director shall notify the individual in writing. This decision is final and not subject to review or appeal. If the Director does not concur, the Director shall confer with the Manager on further actions.

    (6) Determinations as to eligibility for access authorization pursuant to paragraphs (f) or (g) of this section may be based solely upon the mitigation of derogatory information which was relied upon in a final decision to deny or to revoke access authorization. If, pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph (d) of this section, previously unconsidered derogatory information is identified, a determination as to eligibility for access authorization must be subject to a new Administrative Review proceeding.

    Subpart D—Miscellaneous
    § 710.32 Terminations.

    (a) If the individual is no longer an applicant for access authorization or no longer requires access authorization, the procedures of this part shall be terminated without a final decision as to the individual's access authorization eligibility, unless a final decision has been rendered prior to the DOE being notified of the change in the individual's pending access authorization status. Where the procedures of this part have been terminated pursuant to this paragraph after an unfavorable initial agency decision as to the individual's access authorization eligibility has been rendered, any subsequent request for access authorization for the individual will be processed as a request for a review of the initial agency decision by the Appeal Panel and a final agency decision will be rendered pursuant to § 710.29, unless a minimum of one year has elapsed since the date of the initial agency decision.

    (b) With regard to applicants (individuals for whom DOE has not yet approved access authorization), DOE may administratively terminate processing an application for access authorization under the following circumstances:

    (1) If the applicant is currently the subject of criminal proceedings for a felony offense or an offense that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or longer, or is awaiting or serving a form of probation, suspended or deferred sentencing, or parole. Once all judicial proceedings on the criminal charges have been finally resolved, and the term (if any) of imprisonment, probation, or parole has been completed, DOE processing of a request for access authorization shall resume upon receipt by DOE of a written request therefor, provided that the individual has a bona fide offer of employment requiring access authorization.

    (2) If sufficient information about the individual's background cannot be obtained to meet the investigative scope and extent requirements for the access authorization requested.

    (c) If an individual believes that the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section have been inappropriately applied, a written appeal may be filed with the Director within 30 calendar days of the date the individual was notified of the action. The Director shall act on the written appeal as described in § 710.6(c).

    § 710.33 Time frames.

    Statements of time established for processing aspects of a case under this part are the agency's desired time frames in implementing the procedures set forth in this part. However, failure to meet the time frames shall have no impact upon the final disposition of an access authorization by a Manager, Administrative Judge, the Appeal Panel, or the Secretary, and shall confer no procedural or substantive rights upon an individual whose access authorization eligibility is being considered.

    § 710.34 Acting officials.

    Except for the Secretary, the responsibilities and authorities conferred in this part may be exercised by persons who have been designated in writing as acting for, or in the temporary capacity of, the following DOE positions: The Local Director of Security; the Manager; the Director, or the General Counsel. The responsibilities and authorities of the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security may be exercised by persons in senior security-related positions within the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security who have been designated in writing as acting for, or in the temporary capacity of, the Deputy Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, with the approval of the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.

    Appendix A—Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (December 30, 2005)

    1. Introduction. The following adjudicative guidelines are established for all U.S. government civilian and military personnel, consultants, contractors, employees of contractors, licensees, certificate holders or grantees and their employees and other individuals who require access to classified information. They apply to persons being considered for initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information, to include sensitive compartmented information and special access programs, and are to be used by government departments and agencies in all final clearance determinations. Government departments and agencies may also choose to apply these guidelines to analogous situations regarding persons being considered for access to other types of protected information.

    Decisions regarding eligibility for access to classified information take into account factors that could cause a conflict of interest and place a person in the position of having to choose between his or her commitment to the United States, including the commitment to protect classified information, and any other compelling loyalty. Access decisions also take into account a person's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. No coercive policing could replace the self-discipline and integrity of the person entrusted with the nation's secrets as the most effective means of protecting them. When a person's life history shows evidence of unreliability or untrustworthiness, questions arise whether the person can be relied on and trusted to exercise the responsibility necessary for working in a secure environment where protecting classified information is paramount.

    2. The Adjudicative Process.

    (a) The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudication process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the adjudicator should consider the following factors:

    (1) The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;

    (2) The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation;

    (3) The frequency and recency of the conduct;

    (4) The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct;

    (5) The extent to which participation is voluntary;

    (6) The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes;

    (7) The motivation for the conduct;

    (8) The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and

    (9) The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

    (b) Each case must be judged on its own merits, and final determination remains the responsibility of the specific department or agency. Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.

    (c) The ability to develop specific thresholds for action under these guidelines is limited by the nature and complexity of human behavior. The ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing of eligibility for a security clearance is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the following guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person.

    (1) GUIDELINE A: Allegiance to the United States;

    (2) GUIDELINE B: Foreign Influence;

    (3) GUIDELINE C: Foreign Preference;

    (4) GUIDELINE D: Sexual Behavior;

    (5) GUIDELINE E: Personal Conduct;

    (6) GUIDELINE F: Financial Considerations;

    (7) GUIDELINE G: Alcohol Consumption;

    (8) GUIDELINE H: Drug Involvement;

    (9) GUIDELINE I: Psychological Conditions;

    (10) GUIDELINE J: Criminal Conduct;

    (11) GUIDELINE K: Handling Protected Information;

    (12) GUIDELINE L: Outside Activities;

    (13) GUIDELINE M: Use of Information Technology Systems.

    (d) Although adverse information concerning a single criterion may not be sufficient for an unfavorable determination, the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or emotionally unstable behavior. Notwithstanding the whole-person concept, pursuit of further investigation may be terminated by an appropriate adjudicative agency in the face of reliable, significant, disqualifying, adverse information.

    (e) When information of security concern becomes known about an individual who is currently eligible for access to classified information, the adjudicator should consider whether the person:

    (1) Voluntarily reported the information;

    (2) Was truthful and complete in responding to questions;

    (3) Sought assistance and followed professional guidance, where appropriate;

    (4) Resolved or appears likely to favorably resolve the security concern:

    (5) Has demonstrated positive changes in behavior and employment;

    (6) Should have his or her access temporarily suspended pending final adjudication of the information.

    (f) If after evaluating information of security concern, the adjudicator decides that the information is not serious enough to warrant a recommendation of disapproval or revocation of the security clearance, it may be appropriate to recommend approval with a warning that future incidents of a similar nature may result in revocation of access.

    GUIDELINE A: ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES

    3. The Concern. An individual must be of unquestioned allegiance to the United States. The willingness to safeguard classified information is in doubt if there is any reason to suspect an individual's allegiance to the United States.

    4. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Involvement in, support of, training to commit, or advocacy of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, or sedition against the United States of America;

    (b) Association or sympathy with persons who are attempting to commit, or who are committing, any of the above acts;

    (c) Association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate, threaten, or use force or violence, or use any other illegal or unconstitutional means, in an effort to:

    (1) Overthrow or influence the government of the United States or any state or local government;

    (2) Prevent Federal, state, or local government personnel from performing their official duties;

    (3) Gain retribution for perceived wrongs caused by the Federal, state, or local government;

    (4) Prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state.

    5. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) The individual was unaware of the unlawful aims of the individual or organization and severed ties upon learning of these;

    (b) The individual's involvement was only with the lawful or humanitarian aspects of such an organization;

    (c) Involvement in the above activities occurred for only a short period of time and was attributable to curiosity or academic interest;

    (d) The involvement or association with such activities occurred under such unusual circumstances, or so much times has elapsed, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or loyalty.

    GUIDELINE B: FOREIGN INFLUENCE

    6. The Concern. Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercioon by any foreign interest. Adjudication under this Guideline can and should consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or financial interest is located, including, but not limited to, such considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target United States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a risk of terrorism.

    7. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Contact with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;

    (b) Connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual's obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual's desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information;

    (c) Counterintelligence information, that may be classified, indicates that the individual's access to protected information may involve unacceptable risk to national security;

    (d) Sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;

    (e) A substantial business, financial, or property interest in a foreign country, or in any foreign-owned or foreign-operated business, which could subject the individual to heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation;

    (f) Failure to report, when required, association with a foreign national;

    (g) Unauthorized association with a suspected or known agent, associate, or employee of a foreign intelligence service;

    (h) Indications that representatives or nationals from a foreign country are acting to increase the vulnerability of the individual to possible future exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;

    (i) Conduct, especially while traveling outside the U.S., which may make the individual vulnerable to exploitation, pressure, or coercion by a foreign person, group, government, or country.

    8. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) The nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the U.S.;

    (b) There is no conflict of interest, either because the individual's sense of loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, group, government, or country is so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest;

    (c) Contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign influence or exploitation;

    (d) The foreign contacts and activities are on U.S. Government business or are approved by the cognizant security authority;

    (e) The individual has promptly complied with existing agency requirements regarding the reporting of contacts, requests, or threats from persons, groups, or organizations from a foreign country;

    (f) The value or routine nature of the foreign business, financial, or property interests is such that they are unlikely to result in a conflict and could not be used effectively to influence, manipulate, or pressure the individual.

    GUIDELINE C: FOREIGN PREFERENCE

    9. The Concern. When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States, then he or she may be prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.

    10. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Exercise of any right, privilege or obligation of foreign citizenship after becoming a U.S. citizen or through the foreign citizenship of a family member. This includes but is not limited to:

    (1) Possession of a current foreign passport;

    (2) Military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country;

    (3) Accepting educational, medical, retirement, social welfare, or other such benefits from a foreign country;

    (4) Residence in a foreign country to meet citizenship requirements;

    (5) Using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country;

    (6) Seeking or holding political office in a foreign country;

    (7) Voting in a foreign election;

    (b) Action to acquire or obtain recognition of a foreign citizenship by an American citizen;

    (c) Performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of a foreign person, group, organization, or government in conflict with the national security interest;

    (d) Any statement or action that shows allegiance to a country other than the United States: For example, declaration of intent to renounce United States citizenship; renunciation of United States citizenship.

    11. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) Dual citizenship is based solely on parents' citizenship or birth in a foreign country;

    (b) The individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship;

    (c) Exercise of the rights, privileges, or obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual became a U.S. citizen or when the individual was a minor;

    (d) Use of a foreign passport is approved by the cognizant security authority;

    (e) The passport has been destroyed, surrendered to the cognizant security authority, or otherwise invalidated;

    (f) The vote in a foreign election was encouraged by the United States Government.

    GUIDELINE D: SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

    12. The Concern. Sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense, indicates a personality or emotional disorder, reflects lack of judgment or discretion, or which may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. No adverse inference concerning the standards in the Guideline may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.

    13. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted;

    (b) A pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual behavior that the person is unable to stop or that may be symptomatic of a personality disorder;

    (c) Sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress;

    (d) Sexual behavior of a public nature and/or that which reflects lack of discretion or judgment.

    14. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) The behavior occurred prior to or during adolescence and there is no evidence of subsequent conduct of a similar nature;

    (b) The sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

    (c) The behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress;

    (d) The sexual behavior is strictly private, consensual, and discreet.

    GUIDELINE E: PERSONAL CONDUCT

    15. The Concern. Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.

    The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility:

    (a) Refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, and cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation;

    (b) Refusal to provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.

    16. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying also include:

    (a) Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;

    (b) Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative;

    (c) Credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information;

    (d) Credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes but is not limited to consideration of:

    (1) Untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or other government protected information;

    (2) Disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior in the workplace;

    (3) A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations;

    (4) Evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer's time or resources;

    (e) Personal conduct or concealment of information about one's conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such as:

    (1) Engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's personal, professional, or community standing, or

    (2) While in another country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence service or other group;

    (f) Violation of a written or recorded commitment made by the individual to the employer as a condition of employment;

    (g) Association with persons involved in criminal activity.

    17. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;

    (b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;

    (c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

    (d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;

    (e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress;

    (f) Association with persons involved in criminal activities has ceased or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations.

    GUIDELINE F: FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

    18. The Concern. Failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.

    19. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;

    (b) Indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible spending and the absence of any evidence of willingness or intent to pay the debt or establish a realistic plan to pay the debt.

    (c) A history of not meeting financial obligations;

    (d) Deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement, employee theft, check fraud, income tax evasion, expense account fraud, filing deceptive loan statements, and other intentional financial breaches of trust;

    (e) Consistent spending beyond one's means, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio, and/or other financial analysis;

    (f) Financial problems that are linked to drug abuse, alcoholism, gambling problems, or other issues of security concern.

    (g) Failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as required or the fraudulent filing of the same;

    (h) Unexplained affluence, as shown by a lifestyle or standard of living, increase in net worth, or money transfers that cannot be explained by subject's known legal sources of income;

    (i) Compulsive or addictive gambling as indicated by an unsuccessful attempt to stop gambling, “chasing losses” (i.e. increasing the bets or returning another day in an effort to get even), concealment of gambling losses, borrowing money to fund gambling or pay gambling debts, family conflict or other problems caused by gambling.

    20. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

    (b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g. loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

    (c) The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

    (d) The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;

    (e) The individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue;

    (f) The affluence resulted from a legal source of income.

    GUIDELINE G: ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

    21. The Concern. Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness.

    22. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent;

    (b) Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent;

    (c) Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent;

    (d) Diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence;

    (e) Evaluation of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program;

    (f) Relapse after diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence and completion of an alcohol rehabilitation program;

    (g) Failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.

    23. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

    (b) The individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser);

    (c) The individual is a current employee who is participating in a counseling or treatment program, has no history of previous treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress;

    (d) The individual has successfully completed inpatient or outpatient counseling or rehabilitation along with any required aftercare, has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, such as participation in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar organization and has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.

    GUIDELINE H: DRUG INVOLVEMENT

    24. The Concern. Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.

    (a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and include:

    (1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and

    (2) Inhalants and other similar substances

    (b) Drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction.

    25. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Any drug abuse (see above definition);

    (b) Testing positive for illegal drug use;

    (c) Illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;

    (d) Diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence;

    (e) Evaluation of drug abuse or drug dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized drug treatment program;

    (f) Failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program prescribed by a duly qualified medical professional;

    (g) Any illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance;

    (h) Expressed intent to continue illegal drug use, or failure to clearly and convincingly commit to discontinue drug use.

    26. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

    (b) A demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as:

    (1) Dissociation from drug-using associates and contacts;

    (2) Changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used;

    (3) An appropriate period of abstinence;

    (4) A signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation;

    (c) Abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended;

    (d) Satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.

    GUIDELINE I: PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

    27. The Concern. Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline. A duly qualified mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist) employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government, should be consulted when evaluating potentially disqualifying and mitigating information under this guideline. No negative inference concerning the standards in this Guideline may be raised solely on the basis of seeking mental health counseling.

    28. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Behavior that casts doubt on an individual's judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness that is not covered under any other guideline, including but not limited to emotionally unstable, irresponsible, dysfunctional, violent, paranoid, or bizarre behavior;

    (b) An opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a condition not covered under any other guideline that may impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness;

    (c) The individual has failed to follow treatment advice related to a diagnosed emotional, mental, or personality condition, e.g. failure to take prescribed medication.

    29. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;

    (b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health professional;

    (c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or acceptable to and approved by the U.S. Government that an individual's previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation;

    (d) The past emotional instability was a temporary condition (e.g., one caused by a death, illness, or marital breakup), the situation has been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;

    (e) There is no indication of a current problem.

    GUIDELINE J: CRIMINAL CONDUCT

    30. The Concern. Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.

    31. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses;

    (b) Discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

    (c) Allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted;

    (d) Individual is currently on parole or probation;

    (e) Violation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-mandated rehabilitation program.

    32. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) So much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

    (b) The person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are no longer present in the person's life;

    (c) Evidence that the person did not commit the offense;

    (d) There is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement.

    GUIDELINE K: HANDLING PROTECTED INFORMATION

    33. The Concern. Deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for protecting classified or other sensitive information raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information, and is a serious security concern.

    34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences;

    (b) Collecting or storing classified or other protected information in any unauthorized location;

    (c) Loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling classified reports, data, or other information on any unapproved equipment including but not limited to any typewriter, word processor, or computer hardware, software, drive, system, gameboard, handheld, “palm” or pocket device or other adjunct equipment;

    (d) Inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one's need to know;

    (e) Copying classified or other protected information in a manner designed to conceal or remove classification or other document control markings;

    (f) Viewing or downloading information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual's need to know;

    (g) Any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or other sensitive information;

    (h) Negligence or lax security habits that persist despite counseling by management;

    (i) Failure to comply with rules or regulations that results in damage to the National Security, regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent.

    35. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) So much time has elapsed since the behavior, or it happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

    (b) The individual responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibilities;

    (c) The security violations were due to improper or inadequate training.

    GUIDELINE L: OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES

    36. The Concern. Involvement in certain types of outside employment or activities is of security concern if it poses a conflict of interest with an individual's security responsibilities and could create an increased risk of unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

    37. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Any employment or service, whether compensated or volunteer, with:

    (1) The government of a foreign country;

    (2) Any foreign national, organization, or other entity;

    (3) A representative of any foreign interest;

    (4) Any foreign, domestic, or international organization or person engaged in analysis, discussion, or publication of material on intelligence, defense, foreign affairs, or protected technology;

    (b) Failure to report or fully disclose an outside activity when this is required.

    38. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) Evaluation of the outside employment or activity by the appropriate security or counterintelligence office indicates that it does not pose a conflict with an individual's security responsibilities or with the national security interests of the United States;

    (b) The individual terminates the employment or discontinued the activity upon being notified that it was in conflict with his or her security responsibilities.

    GUIDELINE M: USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

    39. The Concern. Noncompliance with rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations pertaining to information technology systems may raise security concerns about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, calling into question the willingness or ability to properly protect sensitive systems, networks, and information. Information Technology Systems include all related computer hardware, software, firmware, and data used for the communication, transmission, processing, manipulation, storage, or protection of information.

    40. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

    (a) Illegal or unauthorized entry into any information technology system or component thereof;

    (b) Illegal or unauthorized modification, destruction, manipulation or denial of access to information, software, firmware, or hardware in an information technology system;

    (c) Use of any information technology system to gain unauthorized access to another system or to a compartmented area within the same system;

    (d) Downloading, storing, or transmitting classified information on or to any unauthorized software, hardware, or information technology system;

    (e) Unauthorized use of a government or other information technology system;

    (f) Introduction, removal, or duplication of hardware, firmware, software, or media to or from any information technology system without authorization, when prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations.

    (g) Negligence or lax security habits in handling information technology that persist despite counseling by management;

    (h) Any misuse of information technology, whether deliberate or negligent, that results in damage to the national security.

    41. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

    (a) So much time has elapsed since the behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

    (b) The misuse was minor and done only in the interest of organizational efficiency and effectiveness, such as letting another person use one's password or computer when no other timely alternative was readily available;

    (c) The conduct was unintentional or inadvertent and was followed by a prompt, good-faith effort to correct the situation and by notification of supervisor.

    [FR Doc. 2016-08885 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0048] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation, Jacksonville Grand Prix of the Seas; St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation on the waters of the St. Johns River near downtown Jacksonville, FL during the 3rd Annual Jacksonville Grand Prix of the Seas, a series of high-speed boat races. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during the event. This special local regulation will be enforced daily on June 3rd and 4th from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0048 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant, Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (904) 714-7616, email [email protected]

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

    On January 6, 2016, Powerboat P1-USA, LLC notified the Coast Guard that it will conduct a series of high speed boat races on the St. Johns River near downtown Jacksonville, FL on June 3rd and 4th, 2016. COTP Jacksonville determined that the potential hazards associated with high speed boat races necessitate the establishment of a special local regulation.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States by prohibiting all vessels and persons not participating in the event from entering the regulated area. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation for the 3rd Annual Jacksonville Grand Prix of the Seas, a series of high-speed boat races. The regulated area includes the waters of the St. Johns River near downtown Jacksonville, FL and it will be enforced daily 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 3rd and 4th, 2016. Approximately 10 high-speed race boats are anticipated to participate in the races. The regulated area would encompass an area, located just southeast of the Fuller-Warren Bridge that is approximately 2,730 yards long and approximately 1,215 yards wide. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    The Coast Guard has determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulation would be enforced for a total of only 16 hours over the course of two days; (2) although persons and vessels would not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels would still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated if authorized by the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene designated representative.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation that would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting through an approximated 2,730 yard by 1,215 yard regulated area during a two day racing event lasting eight hours daily. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.35T07-0048 to read as follows:
    § 100.35T07-0048 Special Local Regulation, Jacksonville Grand Prix of the Seas; St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FL.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following regulated area is a special local regulation located on the waters of the St. Johns River near downtown Jacksonville, FL. All waters of the St. Johns River encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 30°18.647′ N., 081°40.450′ W.; thence southeast to Point 2 in position 30°18.551′ N., 081°40.120′ W.; thence southwest to Point 3 in position 30°17.212′ N., 081°40.424′ W.; thence northwest to Point 4 in position 30°17.399′ N., 081°41.088′ W.; thence northeast to Point 5 in position 30°18.436′ N., 081°40.701′ W.; thence northeast back to origin. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983.

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

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP Jacksonville by telephone at 904-714-7557, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Jacksonville or designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area through Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16 or by on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced daily 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 3rd and 4th, 2016.

    Dated: April 12, 2016. J.F. Dixon, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08967 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1118] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is considering amending the regulations for Hampton Roads, VA and adjacent waters anchorages by establishing a new anchorage, near Cape Charles, VA on the Lower Chesapeake Bay. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) provides information relevant to, and solicits public comment on the possible creation of a Federal anchorage west of Cape Charles, VA on the Chesapeake Bay. Port of Virginia infrastructure improvements and growth in commercial vessel traffic entering the port, including large and deep-draft vessels have prompted this solicitation for comments on a potential proposed rulemaking. If the Coast Guard proceeds with a proposed rulemaking, the intended effect would be to ensure that the Hampton Roads Anchorage Grounds continue to safely support current and future maritime commerce and commercial vessel anchoring needs. We invite your comments on this ANPRM.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1118 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email Lieutenant Commander Barbara Wilk, Sector Hampton Roads Waterway Management Division, phone 757-668-5581, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NM Nautical Miles VA Virginia II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Recreational, public, and commercial vessels use the Hampton Roads Anchorage Grounds. General regulations covering the anchorage of vessels in the port are set out in 33 CFR 110.168. Coast Guard regulations covering the rulemaking process are set out in 33 CFR subpart 1.05.

    The Coast Guard held a meeting on February 20, 2015, with U.S. Navy and commercial maritime stakeholders to discuss solutions to enhance Port of Virginia waterway use. Attendance included Virginia Pilots Association, Virginia Maritime Association and local area pilots. Various courses of action were suggested by attendees as possible options to further enhance maritime commerce concurrently with U.S. Navy military requirements. This meeting provided valued insight toward developing a potential new anchorage ground that would facilitate the future growth of Port of Virginia.

    The purpose of this ANPRM is to solicit comments on potential proposed rulemaking to help accommodate increase in both the number of commercial vessels and traffic density and to enhance navigation safety for vessels transiting the Hampton Roads area by creating a Federal commercial anchorage west of Cape Charles, VA on the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Current trends indicate that shipping companies will call on the Port of Virginia using larger, deeper-draft vessels. Our intent for any proposed rulemaking would be to facilitate the safety of the port anchorages by providing an anchorage of adequate size, depth, and capacity to accommodate commercial vessels calling on the Port of Virginia.

    The legal basis and authorities for this advance notice of proposed rulemaking are found in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236; 33 CFR 1.05-1, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorages. The Coast Guard is now considering a proposed rulemaking to establish a new commercial anchorage area in the vicinity of the Port of Virginia, west of Cape Charles, VA.

    III. Discussion of Potential Proposed Rulemaking

    The Coast Guard is considering a new deep-water anchorage ground for commercial vessels and to support projected growth in maritime commerce vessel traffic throughout the Port of Virginia. We are considering locating an anchorage ground in the Lower Chesapeake Bay, between Cape Charles and York Spit Channel. The anchorage ground under consideration is triangular in shape with an eastern boundary 7 nautical miles (NM) in length along the descending bank off Cape Charles, VA. The western boundary of the anchorage ground runs parallel with and 500 yards east of York Spit Channel for 6.3 NM, from lighted buoy 38 thence south to lighted buoy 30. The southern boundary of the anchorage is 5.4 NM in length measured along a line commencing 500 yards east of York Spit lighted buoy 30 thence eastward to a position approximately 1.5 miles from Cape Charles shoreline. The anchorages coordinates includes all waters of the Lower Chesapeake Bay bounded by a line connecting the following points: Latitude 37°17′33″ N., longitude 076°06′22″ W., thence southeast to latitude 37°11′29″ N., longitude 076°01′57″ W., thence west to latitude 37°11′29″ N., longitude 076°08′43″ W., thence northeast to point of origin. The approximate depths of the proposed new anchorage would be located in naturally deep water with charted depths ranging from 30 feet to 130 feet and the majority of the eastern part of the triangular anchorage having depths in excess of 60 feet. Current trends indicate that shipping companies will call on the Port of Virginia using larger, deeper draft vessels.

    You may find a drawing with an illustration of the contemplated anchorage ground in the docket. Look for Illustration of Contemplated Anchorage “R.”

    IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    We plan to hold two public meetings to receive oral comments on this ANPRM and will announce the dates, times, and locations in a separate document published in the Federal Register. If you signed up for docket email alerts mentioned in the paragraph above, you will receive an email notice when the public meeting notice is published and placed in the docket.

    V. Information Requested

    Before the Coast Guard proposes specific regulations to amend and establish a new anchorage on the Lower Chesapeake Bay, the Coast Guard is requesting input from the public. The Coast Guard is particularly interested in receiving comments from all of those who have a stake in the viability of a Cape Charles alternative commercial deep-water anchorage ground for commercial vessels and all those port stake holders who contribute to the unique characteristics of the Port of Virginia. Please provide additional information not specifically solicited by this ANPRM if you believe it would be helpful in understanding the implications of creating a Federal anchorage west of Cape Charles. Please submit any comments or concerns you may have in accordance with the ADDRESSES section.

    Dated: March 25, 2016. Stephen P. Metruck, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09029 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0248] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend its safety zones regulations for annual events in the Captain of the Port Duluth Zone. This proposed rule would update the locations for two safety zones, add three safety zones, and modify the format of the regulations to list the annual events and corresponding safety zones in table form. These proposed amendments will protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with annual marine events and improve the clarity and readability of the regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0248 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade John Mack, Chief of Waterways Management, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (218) 725-3818 or by email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On May 31, 2013 the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal Register (78 FR 32608) entitled “Recurring Events in the Captain of the Port Duluth Zone.” The NPRM proposed to establish 8 permanent safety zones for annually recurring events in the Captain of the Port Duluth Zone under § 165.943. The NPRM was open for comment for 30 days.

    On August 12, 2013 the Coast Guard published the Final Rule in the Federal Register (78 FR 48802) after receiving no comments on the NPRM. Through this proposed rule, the Coast Guard seeks to update § 165.943.

    The legal basis for this proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    This proposed rule would update the locations of two safety zones (Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display & Superior Man Triathlon), add three new permanent safety zones (City of Bayfield 4th of July Fireworks Display, Two Harbors 4th of July Fireworks Display, & Power Boat Championship Presented by TCPBA) for recurring safety zones, and modify the format of § 165.943 to list annual events and corresponding safety zones in table form. These changes are necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with annual marine events, and to improve the overall clarity and readability of the rule. These hazards related to the annual events include obstructions to the waterway that may result in marine casualties; explosive danger and flaming debris falling into the water from fireworks; and large congregations of vessels and waterborne spectators in the vicinity of the annual events.

    This proposed rule will also arrange the safety zones listed in § 165.943 into a table sorted in ascending order of event date. This change in format is intended to improve clarity and readability and to reduce redundancy in the regulation.

    Finally, this proposed rule clarifies that the enforcement dates and times for each safety zone listed in Table 165.943 is subject to change. While the events are anticipated to annually recur on certain dates, factors, to include inclement weather, may result in postponement. In the event of a postponement, the Coast Guard will issue a Notice of Enforcement with updated enforcement dates and times, and corresponding Broadcast Notice to Mariners for on scene notice.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The amendments to this proposed rule are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual events taking place on or near federally maintained waterways in the Captain of the Port Duluth Zone. Although this proposed rule will be in effect year-round, the specific safety zones listed in Table 165.943 will only be enforced during a specified period of time when the event is on-going.

    When a Notice of Enforcement for a particular safety zone is published, entry into, transiting through, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth, or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port Duluth or his or her designated representative can be contacted via VHF Channel 16. All persons and vessels granted permission to enter the safety zone must comply with all instructions given by the Captain of the Port Duluth or his or her designated representative.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zones. The safety zones created by this proposed rule will be small and enforced for short periods of time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port Duluth. Before the enforcement of these safety zones, the Coast Guard will issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so that vessel owners and operators may plan accordingly.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 (NEPA) (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. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves the establishment of safety zones and is therefore categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. 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.

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR parts 165 as follows:

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

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

    2. Revise § 165.943 to read as follows:
    § 165.943 Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth Zone.

    (a) Regulations. The following regulations apply to the safety zones listed in Table 165.943 of this section:

    (1) The Coast Guard will provide advance notice of the enforcement date and time of the safety zone being enforced in Table 165.943, by issuing a Notice of Enforcement, as well as, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    (2) During the enforcement period, the general regulations found in § 165.23 shall apply.

    (b) Contacting the Captain of the Port. While a safety zone listed in this section is enforced, the Captain of the Port Duluth or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Duluth, or his or her on-scene representative.

    (c) Exemption. Public vessels, defined as any vessel owned or operated by the United States or by State or local governments, operating in an official capacity are exempted from the requirements of this section.

    Table 165.943 [Datum NAD 1983] Event Location Event date (1) Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks Display All waters of the Keweenaw Waterway in Hancock, MI within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 47°07′22″ N., 088°35′39″ W Mid June. (2) Ashland 4th of July Fireworks Display All waters of Chequamegon Bay in Ashland, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°35′50″ N., 090°52′59″ W On or around July 4th. (3) City of Bayfield 4th of July Fireworks Display All waters of the Lake Superior North Channel in Bayfield, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°48′39″ N., 090°48′35″ W On or around July 4th. (4) Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display All waters of Siskiwit Bay in Cornucopia, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°51′35″ N., 091°06′13″ W On or around July 4th. (5) Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display All waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin, Northern Section in Duluth, MN within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°46′14″ N., 092°06′16″ W On or around July 4th. (6) LaPointe 4th of July Fireworks Display All waters of Lake Superior in LaPointe, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°46′40″ N., 090°47′22″ W On or around July 4th. (7) Two Harbors 4th of July Fireworks Display All waters of Agate Bay in Two Harbors, MN within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 47°00′54″ N., 091°40′04″ W On or around July 4th. (8) Point to LaPointe Swim All waters of the Lake Superior North Channel between Bayfield and LaPointe, WI within an imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°48′50″ N., 090°48′44″ W., moving southeast to 46°46′44″ N., 090°47′33″ W., then moving northeast to 46°46′52″ N., 090°47′17″ W., then moving northwest to 46°49′03″ N., 090°48′25″ W., and finally returning to the starting position Early August. (9) Lake Superior Dragon Boat Festival Fireworks Display All waters of Superior Bay in Superior, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°43′23″ N., 092°03′45″ W Late August. (10) Superior Man Triathlon All waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin, Northern Section in Duluth, MN within an imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°46′36″ N., 092°06′06″ W., moving southeast to 46°46′32″ N., 092°06′01″ W., then moving northeast to 46°46′45″ N., 092°05′45″ W., then moving northwest to 46°46′49″ N., 092°05′49″ W., and finally returning to the starting position Late August. (11) Power Boat Championship Presented by TCPBA All waters of Superior Bay in Superior, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more than 1,000 feet from the position of 46°43′30″ N., 092°03′57″ W Late August.
    Dated: March 31, 2016. A.H. Moore, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Duluth.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09031 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-1127] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; 2016 Wings Over Vermont Air Show, Lake Champlain, Burlington, VT AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone for an aerobatic demonstration over the navigable waters of Lake Champlain along the shoreline in Burlington, VT. This temporary safety zone will be necessary to protect spectators and vessels from hazards associated with the air show. Entry into, transit through, mooring or anchoring within this regulated area will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Northern New England (SNNE). We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1127 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Marine Science Technician Chris Bains, Waterways Management Division at Coast Guard Sector Northern New England, telephone (207) 347-5003, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On December 24, 2015, the Vermont National Guard notified the Coast Guard that they will be holding the 2016 Wings over Vermont Air Show on Lake Champlain along the shoreline of Burlington, VT from August 12, 2016 through August 14, 2016. The aeronautical box designed for the performers will measure 12,000 feet long and 4,770 feet wide and will be approximately 1,100 feet from shoreline. On water viewing locations will be placed both east and west of the air show box to control vessel traffic during the demonstration. Lake Champlain Transportation Company will redirect the ferry route around the aeronautical box so not to disrupt the safety zone during the enforcement period.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of the spectator vessels and other traffic using the navigable waters near or around the designated aeronautical box. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone for the Wings over Vermont Air Show from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 12- 14, 2016 on Lake Champlain, along the shoreline of Burlington, VT. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within an aeronautical box extending to and including the breakwater bounded by the following coordinates: 44°29′24″ N./073°14′44″ W.; 44°29′24″ N./073°14′03″ W.; 44°28′56″ N./073°14′03″ W.; 44°28′50″ N./073°13′48″ W.; 44°28′12″ N./073°13′33″ W.; 44°27′47″ N./073°14′03″ W.; 44°27′25″ N./073°14′03″ W.; 44°27′25″ N./073°14′44″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. aerobatic displays. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    The Coast Guard has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The safety zone will be of limited duration and will only be in effect during a portion of three days, it will allow vessels to transit in waters directly adjacent to the safety zone, and coordinated efforts have been made to direct the ferry traffic around the safety zone so not to disrupt service on Lake Champlain. Additionally, maritime advisories will be posted in the Local Notice to Mariners and the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine Channel 16 prior to and during the entire duration of the enforcement period.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting a portion of three days and would prohibit entry into without permission from the COTP. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34 of figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T01-1127 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-1127 Safety Zone; 2016 Wings Over Vermont Air Show, Lake Champlain; Burlington, VT

    (a) Location. The following area is a Safety Zone: All navigable waters, from surface to bottom, of Lake Champlain, Burlington, VT, within an aeronautical box extending to and including the breakwater bounded by the following coordinates: 44°29′24″ N./073°14′44″ W.; 44°29′24″ N./073°14′03″ W.; 44°28′56″ N./073°14′03″ W.; 44°28′50″ N./073°13′48″ W.; 44°28′12″ N./073°13′33″ W.; 44°27′47″ N./073°14′03″ W.; 44°27′25″ N./073°14′03″ W.; 44°27′25″ N./073°14′44″ W.

    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This rule would be effective and would be enforced with actual notice from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. on August 12-14, 2016.

    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, mooring, anchoring or remaining within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives.

    (2) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives.

    (3) Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone by contacting the COTP or the COTP's designated representative on VHF-16 or via phone at 207-767-0303.

    (4) The “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, or onboard a local or state agency vessel that is authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard. Additionally, the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

    (5) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.

    Dated: March 16, 2016. M.A. Baroody, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Northern New England.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09033 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0154] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; San Francisco, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend several permanent safety zones located in the Captain of the Port San Francisco zone that are established to protect public safety during annual firework displays. These amendments will update listed events to accurately reflect the firework display locations. This proposed rulemaking would limit the movement of vessels within the established firework display areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0154 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone 415-399-3585, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking PATCOM Patrol Commander §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard is conducting this rulemaking under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231. Fireworks displays are held annually on a recurring basis on the navigable waters within the COTP San Francisco zone. Three of the annual fireworks events that require safety zones do not currently reflect the accurate location of the respective display sites. These safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, participants of the event, participating vessels, and other users and vessels of the waterway from the hazards associated with firework displays. The effect of these proposed safety zones will be to restrict general navigation in the vicinity of the events, from the start of each event until the conclusion of that event. Except for the persons or vessels authorized by the COTP San Francisco or a designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks displays to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard has reviewed 33 CFR 165.1191for accuracy. The Coast Guard is proposing to amend Table 1 in § 1191 to update three events to reflect the current event locations. These events are listed numerically in Table 1 of this section: (7), (8), (22). The display locations currently listed have been deemed undesirable or hazardous by the event sponsors. The COTP San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the current fireworks locations would be a safety concern for event crew, spectators, participants of the event, participating vessels, and other users and vessels of the waterway. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of each safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around each safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the COTP San Francisco zone for less than 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Local Notice to Mariner and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zones lasting less than 1 hour that would prohibit entry within 1,000 feet of a fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

    33 CFR PART 165—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    In § 165.1191, in Table 1 to § 165.1191, revise items 7, 8, and 22, to read as follows:

    § 165.1191 Northern California and Lake Tahoe Area Annual Fireworks Events. Table 1 to § 165.1191 * * * * * *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7. San Francisco Independence Day Fireworks Sponsor The City of San Francisco. Event Description Fireworks Display. Date July 4th. Location 1 A barge located approximately 1000 feet off San Francisco Pier 39 at approximately 37°48′49″ N., 122°24′46″ W. Location 2 A barge located at the end of the San Francisco Municipal Pier at Aquatic Park at approximately 37°48′39″ N., 122°25′37″ W. Regulated Area 1 1. 100-foot radius around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, setup, and until the commencement of the scheduled display. Increases to a 1,000-foot radius upon commencement of the fireworks display. Regulated Area 2 2. 100-foot radius around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, setup, and until the commencement of the scheduled display. Increases to a 1,000-foot radius upon commencement of the fireworks display. 8. Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina Sponsor Berkeley Marina. Event Description Fireworks Display. Date July 4th. Location A barge located near Berkeley Pier at approximately 37°51′40″ N., 122°19′19″ W. Regulated Area 100-foot radius around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, setup, and until the commencement of the scheduled display. Increases to a 1,000-foot radius upon commencement of the fireworks display. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 22. Monte Foundation Fireworks Sponsor Monte Foundation Fireworks. Event Description Fireworks Display. Date Second Saturday in October. Location Capitola Pier in Capitola, CA. Regulated Area 1,000-foot safety zone around the navigable waters of the Capitola Pier. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: March 11, 2016 Gregory G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09030 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0018; FRL-9945-04-Region 4] Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation of the Shelby County 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 19, 2016, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution Control Division, submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the portion of Tennessee that is within the Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas (Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area” or “Tennessee portion of the Area”) to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and an associated State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan and a base year emissions inventory for the Area. EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory for the Tennessee portion of the Area into the SIP; to determine that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; to approve the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the year 2027 for the Tennessee portion of the Area, into the SIP; and to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0018, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jane Spann, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Spann can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9029 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take? II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions? III. What are the criteria for redesignation? IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions? V. What is EPA's analysis of the redesignation request and January 19, 2016, SIP submission? VI. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the area? VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs the Tennessee portion of the area? VIII. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions? IX. Proposed Actions. X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to take the following four separate but related actions, one of which involves multiple elements: (1) To approve the base year emissions inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Tennessee portion of the Area into the Tennessee SIP; (2) to determine that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; 1 (3) to approve Tennessee's plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (maintenance plan), including the associated MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, into the SIP; and (4) to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. The Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area consists of all of Shelby County in Tennessee, all of Crittenden County in Arkansas, and a portion of DeSoto County in Mississippi. Today's proposed actions are summarized below and described in greater detail throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    1 On August 27, 2015, EPA published a proposed rulemaking entitled “Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date, Extensions of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of Several Areas Classified as Marginal for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” where the Agency has proposed to determine that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. See 80 FR 51992. Any final action on the August 27, 2015 proposed rule will occur in a separate rulemaking from today's proposed action.

    Based on the 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment designation for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, Tennessee was required to develop a nonattainment SIP revision addressing certain Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements. Specifically, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and section 182(a)(1), the state was required to submit a SIP revision addressing emissions statements and emissions inventory requirements, respectively, for its portion of the Area. EPA approved the emissions statements requirements for the Tennessee portion of the Area into the SIP in a separate action. See 80 FR 11974 (March 5, 2015). Today, EPA is proposing to determine that the base year emissions inventory, as submitted in the State's January 19, 2016, SIP revision, meets the requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the CAA and proposing to approve this emissions inventory into the SIP.

    EPA is making the preliminary determination that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on recent air quality data and proposing to approve Tennessee's maintenance plan for its portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area in attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2027. The maintenance plan includes 2027 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is proposing to approve these MVEBs and incorporate them into the Tennessee SIP.

    EPA also proposes to determine that the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, in this action, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of Shelby County, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy process for the 2027 NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. The Adequacy comment period began on January 27, 2016, with EPA's posting of the availability of Tennessee's submissions on EPA's Adequacy Web site (http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#shelby-cnty).

    The Adequacy comment period for these MVEBs closed on February 26, 2016. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received during the Adequacy comment period. Please see section VII of this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this process and for more details on the MVEBs.

    In summary, today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Tennessee's January 19, 2016, redesignation request and associated SIP submission that address the specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix P of part 50.

    The Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2008-2010 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088. At the time of designation, the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area was classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the final implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (SIP Implementation Rule),2 EPA established ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. This established an attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012, effective date for areas classified as marginal areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations. Therefore, the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area's attainment date is July 20, 2015.

    2 This rule, entitled Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements and published at 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015), addresses a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonably available control measures (RACM), major new source review (NSR), emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. This rule also addresses the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the anti-backsliding requirements that apply when the 1997 ozone NAAQS are revoked.

    III. What are the criteria for redesignation?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

    On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:

    1. “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,” Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, June 18, 1990;

    2. “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;

    3. “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;

    4. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memorandum”);

    5. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;

    6. “Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;

    7. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;

    8. “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;

    9. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and

    10. “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

    IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?

    On January 19, 2016, the State of Tennessee, through TDEC, requested that EPA redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and approve the associated SIP revision submitted on the same date. EPA's evaluation indicates that the entire Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area meets the requirements for redesignation as set forth in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance plan requirements under CAA section 175A and associated MVEBs. Also, based on Tennessee's January 19, 2016, submittal, EPA is proposing to determine that the base year emissions inventory, included in Tennessee's January 19, 2016, submittal, meets the requirements under CAA section 182(a)(1). Approval of the base year emissions inventory is a prerequisite to redesignating an ozone nonattainment area to attainment. As a result of these proposed findings, EPA is proposing to take the four related actions summarized in section I of this notice.

    V. What is EPA's analysis of the redesignation request and January 19, 2016, SIP submission?

    As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes in today's action to: (1) Approve the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS base year emissions inventory for the Tennessee portion of the Area into the Tennessee SIP; (2) determine that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (3) approve the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated MVEBs, into the Tennessee SIP; and (4) redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    A. Emission Inventory

    Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in each ozone nonattainment area. The section 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory is defined in the SIP Requirements Rule as “a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and NOX emitted within the boundaries of the nonattainment area as required by CAA section 182(a)(1).” See 40 CFR 51.1100(bb). The inventory year must be selected consistent with the baseline year for an RFP plan as required by 40 CFR 51.1110(b),3 and the inventory must include actual ozone season day emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.1100(cc) 4 and contain data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(a), (c), (e). In addition, the point source emissions included in the inventory must be reported according to the point source emissions thresholds of the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(d).

    3 40 CFR 51.1110(b) states that “at the time of designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS the baseline emissions inventory shall be the emissions inventory for the most recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory is required to be submitted to EPA under the provisions of subpart A of this part. States may use an alternative baseline emissions inventory provided the state demonstrates why it is appropriate to use the alternative baseline year, and provided that the year selected is between the years 2008 to 2012.”

    4 “Ozone season day emissions” is defined as “an average day's emissions for a typical ozone season work weekday. The state shall select, subject to EPA approval, the particular month(s) in the ozone season and the day(s) in the work week to be represented, considering the conditions assumed in the development of RFP plans and/or emissions budgets for transportation conformity.” See 40 CFR 51.1100(cc).

    Tennessee selected 2011 as the year for the CAA section 182(a)(1) emissions inventory which is the year corresponding with the first triennial inventory under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. The emissions inventory is based on data developed and submitted by TDEC and Shelby County Health Department to EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and it contains data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.5

    5 Data downloaded from the EPA EIS from the 2011 NEI was subjected to quality assurance procedures described under quality assurance details under 2011 NEI Version 1 Documentation located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html#inventorydoc. The quality assurance and quality control procedures and measures associated with this data are outlined in the State's EPA-approved Emission Inventory Quality Assurance Project Plan.

    Tennessee's emissions inventory for its portion of the Area provides 2011 emissions data for NOX and VOCs for the following general source categories: Point, area, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile. A detailed discussion of the inventory development is located in Attachment VII to Tennessee's January 19, 2016, SIP submittal which is provided in the docket for this action. Table 1, below, provides a summary of the emissions inventory.

    Table 1—2011 Point, Area, Non-Road Mobile, and On-Road Mobile Sources Emissions for the Tennessee Portion of the Memphis Area [Tons per typical summer day] County Point NOX VOC Area * NOX VOC Non-road mobile ** NOX VOC On-road mobile NOX VOC Shelby County 18.30 9.49 4.53 46.88 29.24 15.09 37.90 16.11 * Includes Prescribed Burning. ** Includes nonroad equipment, airports, Commercial Marine Vessels (CMVs), and locomotives.

    The emissions inventory includes all anthropogenic VOC and NOXsources for Shelby County, Tennessee. NOx and VOC emissions were calculated for a typical summer July day, taking into account the seasonal adjustment factor for summer operations. More detail on the inventory emissions for individual sources categories is provided below and in Attachment VII to Tennessee's January 19, 2016, SIP submittal.

    Point sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. The inventory contains point source emissions data for facilities located within Shelby County based on the Shelby County, Tennessee, Emissions Inventory Questionnaire (EIQ) which is an annual emissions inventory survey conducted by the Shelby County Health Department. Each facility was required to update the data through the EIQ with information for the requested year and return the updated data to Shelby County Health Department.

    Area sources are small emission stationary sources which, due to their large number, collectively have significant emissions (e.g., dry cleaners, service stations). Emissions for these sources were estimated by multiplying an emission factor by such indicators of collective emissions activity as production, number of employees, or population. These emissions were estimated at the county level. Tennessee submitted an inventory that it developed for the NEI in accordance with the AERR. Tennessee developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for area sources.6

    6 This guidance includes: Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories of Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Vol. 1, EPA-450/4-91-016 (May 1991) and Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Technical Report, Vol. 3, Area Sources (Revised January 2001, updated April 2001).

    On-road mobile sources include vehicles used on roads for transportation of passengers or freight. Tennessee developed its on-road emissions inventory using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model with input data from the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).7 County level on-road modeling was conducted using county-specific vehicle population and other local data. Tennessee developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for on-road mobile sources using MOVES version 2014.

    7 Tennessee used MOVES2014 technical guidance: Using MOVES to Prepare Emission Inventories in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity, EPA-420-b-15-007 (January 2015).

    Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment used for construction, agriculture, recreation, and other purposes that do not use roadways (e.g., lawn mowers, construction equipment, railroad locomotives, and aircraft). Tennessee calculated emissions for most of the non-road mobile sources using EPA's NONROAD2008a model 8 and developed its non-road mobile source inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for non-road mobile sources.9

    8 For consistency with the NEI, Tennessee included emissions data for aircraft, locomotive, and commercial marine vessels (CMV) by county. CMV emissions for 2011 were primarily based on EPA's 2011 NEI, U.S. Corps of Engineers' 2012 Waterborne Commerce, and 2012 survey of railroad companies operating in Shelby County.

    9 This guidance includes: Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (December 1992).

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA has preliminarily determined that Tennessee's emissions inventory meets the requirements under CAA section 182(a)(1) and the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of Tennessee's redesignation request is contingent upon EPA's final approval of the base year emissions inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    B. Redesignation Request and Maintenance Demonstration

    The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Area in the following paragraphs of this section.

    Criteria (1)—The Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area Has Attained the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS if it meets the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.15 and appendix P of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain the NAAQS, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. Based on the data handling and reporting convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix P, the NAAQS are attained if the design value is 0.075 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.

    In this action, EPA is preliminarily determining that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from monitoring stations in the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 2012-2014, and the design values for each monitor in the Area are less than 0.075 ppm. These data have been quality-assured, are recorded in AQS, and indicate that the Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone values at each monitor for 2012, 2013, 2014, and the 3-year averages of these values (i.e., design values), are summarized in Table 2, below.

    Table 2—2012-2014 Design Value Concentrations for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area [ppm] Location Site 4th Highest 8-hour ozone value
  • (ppm)
  • 2012 2013 2014 3-Year design values
  • (ppm)
  • 2012-2014
    Shelby, TN Frayser 0.083 0.069 0.067 0.073 Shelby, TN Orgill Park 0.084 0.063 0.065 0.070 Shelby, TN Shelby Farms 0.086 0.069 0.066 0.073 Crittenden, AR Marion 0.079 0.067 0.067 0.071 DeSoto, MS Hernando 0.075 0.065 0.067 0.069

    The 3-year design value for 2012-2014 for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is 0.073 ppm,10 which meets the NAAQS. EPA has reviewed 2015 preliminary monitoring data for the Area and the preliminary data does not indicate a violation of the NAAQS.11 In today's action, EPA is proposing to determine that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA will not take final action to approve the redesignation if the 3-year design value exceeds the NAAQS prior to EPA finalizing the redesignation. As discussed in more detail below, Tennessee has committed to continue monitoring in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

    10 The highest 3-year design value among the monitoring stations is the design value for the Area.

    11 This preliminary data is available at EPA's air data Web site: http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily.

    Criteria (2)—Tennessee Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for the Tennessee Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area; and Criteria (5)—Tennessee Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of Title I of the CAA

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Tennessee portion of the Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and proposes to determine that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) contingent upon approval of the 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Tenessee portion of the Area. In making these determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and, if applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to requirements that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request.

    a. The Tennessee Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA

    General SIP requirements. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D requirements (NSR permit programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

    In addition, EPA believes other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).

    Title I, part D, applicable SIP requirements. Section 172(c) of the CAA sets forth the basic requirements of attainment plans for nonattainment areas that are required to submit them pursuant to section 172(b). Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the area's nonattainment classification. As provided in subpart 2, a marginal ozone nonattainment area, such as the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, must submit an emissions inventory that complies with section 172(c)(3), but the specific requirements of section 182(a) apply in lieu of the demonstration of attainment (and contingency measures) required by section 172(c). See 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in sections 172(c) and 182 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498).

    Section 182(a) requirements. Section 182(a)(1) requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and NOx emitted within the boundaries of the ozone nonattainment area. Tennessee provided an emissions inventory for the Tennessee portion of the Area to EPA in a January 19, 2016, SIP submission. Specifically, Tennessee addressed this requirement by submitting a 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Tennessee portion of the Area. EPA is proposing approval of Tennessee's 2011 base year emissions inventory in this action (see Section V.A. above). Tennessee's section 182(a)(1) inventory must be approved before EPA can take final action to approve the State's redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of the Area.

    Under section 182(a)(2)(A), states with ozone nonattainment areas that were designated prior to the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments were required to submit, within six months of classification, all rules and corrections to existing VOC RACT rules that were required under section 172(b)(3) of the CAA (and related guidance) prior to the 1990 CAA amendments. The Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is not subject to the section 182(a)(2) RACT “fix up” because the Area was designated as nonattainment after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments.

    Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires each state with a marginal ozone nonattainment area that implemented, or was required to implement, an inspection and maintenance (I/M) program prior to the 1990 CAA amendments to submit a SIP revision providing for an I/M program no less stringent than that required prior to the 1990 amendments or already in the SIP at the time of the amendments, whichever is more stringent. The Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is not subject to the section 182(a)(2)(B) because it was designated as nonattainment after the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments and did not have an I/M program in place for ozone prior to those amendments.

    Regarding the permitting and offset requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) and section 182(a)(4), Tennessee currently has a fully approved part D NSR program in place. However, EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR, because PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Tennessee's PSD program will become applicable in the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area upon redesignation to attainment.

    Section 182(a)(3) requires states to submit periodic inventories and emissions statements. Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires states to submit a periodic inventory every three years. As discussed below in the section of this notice titled Verification of Continued Attainment, the State will continue to update its emissions inventory at least once every three years. Under section 182(a)(3)(B), each state with an ozone nonattainment area must submit a SIP revision requiring emissions statements to be submitted to the state by sources within that nonattainment area. Tennessee provided a SIP revision to EPA on January 5, 2015, addressing the section 182(a)(3)(B) emissions statements requirement, and on March 5, 2015, EPA published a direct final rule approving this SIP revision. See 80 FR 11974.

    Section 176 conformity requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA.

    EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements 12 as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida). Nonetheless, Tennessee has an approved conformity SIP for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. See 78 FR 29027 (May 17, 2013). Thus, EPA proposes that the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA contingent upon approval of the 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory.

    12 CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the MVEBs that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.

    b. The Tennessee Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    EPA has fully approved the applicable Tennessee SIP for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation except for the 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action (see 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein). Tennessee has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions addressing various SIP elements applicable for the ozone NAAQS. See 78 FR 14450 (March 6, 2013).

    As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. With the exception of the emissions inventory requirement, which is addressed in this action, EPA has approved all part D requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation. As noted above, EPA has approved Tennessee's emissions statements SIP revisions under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). See 80 FR 11974 (March 5, 2015).

    Criteria (3)—The Air Quality Improvement in the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily determined that Tennessee has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from federal measures and are not the result of weather conditions.13 EPA does not have any information to suggest that the decrease in ozone concentrations in the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is due to unusually favorable meteorological conditions.

    13 Tennessee compared ozone data on days with the highest 8-hour ozone maxima in 2005 and 2006 to ozone data on days of comparative weather conditions in 2012-2014. The weather parameters used in the comparison were maximum temperature, dew point depression, relative humidity, cloud cover, wind direction and wind speed. The ozone levels in 2005-2006 were considerably higher than the ozone levels during similar weather conditions in 2012-2014 indicating that emission reductions between 2006 and 2014 are the reason for the reduction in ozone levels. Details of the analysis are found in Attachment I to Tennessee's January 19, 2016, SIP submittal.

    Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in permanent emission reductions. The federal measures that have been implemented include the following:

    Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards. Implementation began in 2004 and requires all passenger vehicles in any manufacturer's fleet to meet an average standard of 0.07 grams of NOX per mile. Additionally, in January 2006, the sulfur content of gasoline was required to be on average 30 ppm which assists in lowering the NOX emissions. EPA expects that these standards will reduce NOX emissions from vehicles by approximately 74 percent by 2030, translating to nearly 3 million tons annually by 2030.14 15

    14 EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420-F-99-051 (December 1999), available at: http://www.epa.gov/tier2/documents/f99051.pdf.

    15 The Memphis Area MPO estimates for Shelby County alone emission reductions of 2.05 tons per day (tpd) for NOX (a 4.7 percent reduction) and 0.54 tpd for VOCs (3 percent reduction) from 2009 to 2012. TDEC notes that this occurred when the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased by 9.3 percent.

    Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards. EPA issued this rule in January 2001 (66 FR 5002). This rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007, which further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm, leading to additional reductions in combustion NOX and VOC emissions. EPA expects that this rule will achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions from diesel trucks and buses and will reduce NOX emissions by 2.6 million tons by 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards.16

    16 66 FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001).

    Large non-road diesel engines rule. This rule was promulgated in 2004 and was phased in between 2008 through 2014. This rule reduces the sulfur content in the nonroad diesel fuel and reduces NOX, VOC, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide emissions. These emission reductions are federally enforceable. EPA issued this rule in June 2004, which applies to diesel engines used in industries such as construction, agriculture, and mining. It is estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90 percent nationwide.

    Nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards. The nonroad spark-ignition and recreational engine standards, effective in July 2003, regulate NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide from groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engine standards apply to large spark-ignition engines (e.g., forklifts and airport ground service equipment), recreational vehicles (e.g., off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain-vehicles), and recreational marine diesel engines sold in the United States and imported after the effective date of these standards. When all of the nonroad spark-ignition and recreational engine standards are fully implemented, an overall 72 percent reduction in hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in NOX, and 56 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions are expected by 2020. These controls reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter.

    National program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel economy standards. The federal GHG and fuel economy standards apply to light-duty cars and trucks in model years 2012-2016 (phase 1) and 2017-2025 (phase 2). The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleet-wide level of 163 grams/mile of carbon dioxide which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements. The fuel economy standards result in less fuel being consumed, and therefore less NOX emissions released.

    EPA proposes to find that the improvements in air quality in the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area are due to real, permanent and enforceable reductions in NOX and VOC emissions resulting from the federal measures discussed above.

    Criteria (4)—The Tennessee Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this maintenance plan meets the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.

    a. What is required in a maintenance plan?

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the remainder of the 20-year period following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 2008 8-hour ozone violations. The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five requirements: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As is discussed more fully below, EPA has preliminarily determined that Tennessee's maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the Tennessee SIP.

    b. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    As discussed above, EPA is proposing to determine that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on quality-assured monitoring data for the 3-year period from 2012-2014, and is continuing to attain the standard based on preliminary 2015 data. Tennessee selected 2012 as the base year (i.e., attainment emissions inventory year) for developing a comprehensive emissions inventory for NOX and VOC, for which projected emissions could be developed for 2017, 2020, and 2027. The attainment inventory identifies a level of emissions in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Tennessee began development of the attainment inventory by first generating a baseline emissions inventory for the State's portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. The State projected summer day emission inventories using projected rates of growth in population, traffic, economic activity, and other parameters. In addition to comparing the final year of the plan (2027) to the base year (2012), Tennessee compared interim years to the baseline to demonstrate that these years are also expected to show continued maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

    The emissions inventory is composed of four major types of sources: Point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile. Complete descriptions of how the State developed these inventories are located in Attachment I of the January 19, 2016, SIP submittal.

    Point source emissions are tabulated from data collected by direct on-site measurements of emissions or from mass balance calculations utilizing approved emission factors. The 2012 base year inventory contains point source emissions data for facilities located within Shelby County. Each facility was required to update the data through the EIQ with information for the requested year and return the updated data to Shelby County Health Department. The point source emissions inventory for Shelby County is located in the docket for today's action. For each projected year's inventory for 2017, 2020, and 2027, the State projected point source emissions using growth factors developed from the United States Department of Energy's 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) projections and the University of Tennessee, Data Center 2014 Econometric Model Forecast. A conservative value of 1 was substituted for all negative growth factors. Growth factors used for this analysis include fuel consumption, employment, and population changes.

    Emissions for area sources were estimated by multiplying an emission factor by such indicators of collective emissions activity as production, number of employees, or population. These emissions were estimated at the county level. Tennessee used a similar method to that used to develop the 2011 emissions inventory. For each projected year's inventory, emission factors are used to determine area source emissions. Tennessee developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for area sources.17

    17 This guidance includes: Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories of Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Vol. 1, EPA-450/4-91-016 (May 1991) and Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Technical Report, Vol. 3, Area Sources (Revised January 2001, updated April 2001).

    Tennessee developed its 2012 on-road emissions inventory using EPA's MOVES2014 model with input data from the MPO.18 County level on-road modeling was conducted using county-specific vehicle population and other local data. Tennessee developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for on-road mobile sources using MOVES2014. The MOVES2014 model includes the VMT as an input file and can directly output the estimated emissions. For each projected year's inventory, Tennessee calculated the on-road mobile sources emissions by running the MOVES mobile model for the future year with the projected VMT to generate emissions that take into consideration expected federal tailpipe standards, fleet turnover, and new fuels.

    18 Tennessee used MOVES2014 technical guidance: Using MOVES to Prepare Emission Inventories in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity, EPA-420-b-15-007 (January 2015).

    Non-road mobile sources include non-road equipment, airport, commercial marine vessels, and locomotives. The majority of the non-road mobile emissions in the U.S. are from the non-road equipment segment (i.e., agricultural equipment, construction equipment, lawn and garden equipment, and recreational vehicles, such as boats and jet-skis). Tennessee calculated emissions for most of the non-road mobile sources using EPA's NONROAD2008a model within EPA's MOVES2014 model and developed its non-road mobile source inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for non-road mobile sources.19

    19 This guidance includes: Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (December 1992).

    c. Maintenance Demonstration

    The maintenance plan associated with the redesignation request includes a maintenance demonstration that:

    (i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by providing information to support the demonstration that current and future emissions of NOX and VOC remain at or below 2012 emissions levels.

    (ii) Uses 2012 as the attainment year and includes future emissions inventory projections for 2017, 2020, and 2027.

    (iii) Identifies an “out year” at least 10 years after the time necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, NOX and VOC MVEBs were established for the last year (2027) of the maintenance plan (see section VI below).

    (iv) Provides actual (2012) and projected emissions inventories, in tons per summer day (tpsd), for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, below.

    Table 3—Actual and Projected Average Summer Day NOX Emissions (tpd) for the Tennessee Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area Sector 2012 2017 2020 2027 Point 13.87 13.45 8.34 8.43 Area 4.11 4.18 4.24 4.33 Non-road 35.93 32.09 30.57 29.77 On-road 61.56 31.30 22.42 12.51 Total 115.47 81.01 65.56 55.05 Table 4—Actual and Projected Average Summer Day VOC Emissions (tpd) for the Tennessee Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area Sector 2012 2017 2020 2027 Point 9.30 6.64 6.22 6.24 Area 44.04 45.33 45.53 46.30 Non-road 28.44 21.32 19.76 19.33 On-road 19.01 11.22 8.75 5.81 Total 100.79 84.51 80.26 77.69

    Tables 3 and 4 summarize the 2012 and future projected emissions of NOX and VOC from the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to nonattainment, such as the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area if the future projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the related ambient air quality standard should not be exceeded in the future. Tennessee has projected emissions as described previously and determined that emissions in the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area will remain below those in the attainment year inventory for the duration of the maintenance plan.

    As discussed in section VI of this proposed rulemaking, a safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. Tennessee selected 2012 as the attainment emissions inventory year for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. Tennessee calculated safety margins in its submittal for 2027. The State has allocated a portion of the 2027 safety margin to the 2027 MVEBs for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area.

    Table 5—Safety Margins for the Tennessee Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area Year VOC
  • (tpd)
  • NOX
  • (tpd)
  • 2027 23.10 60.42

    The State has decided to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the 2027 MVEBs to allow for unanticipated growth in VMT, changes and uncertainty in vehicle mix assumptions, etc., that will influence the emission estimations. Tennessee has allocated 49.04 tpd of the NOX safety margin to the 2027 NOX MVEB and 13.19 tpd of the VOC safety margin to the 2027 VOC MVEB. After allocation of the available safety margin, the remaining safety margin is 11.38 tpd for NOX and 9.91 tpd for VOC. This allocation and the resulting available safety margin for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area are discussed further in section VI of this proposed rulemaking along with the MVEBs to be used for transportation conformity proposes.

    d. Monitoring Network

    There currently are five monitors measuring ozone in the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, of which three are in the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. Tennessee has committed to continue operation of the monitors in the Tennessee portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and has thus addressed the requirement for monitoring. Arkansas and Mississippi have made similar commitments in their maintenance plans. EPA approved Tennessee's monitoring plan on October 26, 2015. EPA approved Arkansas' monitoring plan on November 16, 2015, and approved Mississippi's monitoring plan on October 6, 2015.

    e. Verification of Continued Attainment

    TDEC has the legal authority to enforce and implement the maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems.

    Additionally, under the AERR, TDEC is required to develop a comprehensive, annual, statewide emissions inventory every three years that is due twelve to eighteen months after the completion of the inventory year. Tennessee will update the AERR inventory every three years beginning no later than the 2015 emission season and will use the updated emissions inventory to track progress of the maintenance plan.

    f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan

    Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).

    In the January 19, 2016, submittal, Tennesee commits to continuing existing programs and commits to implement programs and measures depending upon emission inventory and air quality monitoring results. The contingency plan included in the submittal includes a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and implementing appropriate control measures.

    The primary trigger is activated when emissions or ambient air monitoring data indicates possible future ozone levels violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS but an actual violation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS has not yet occurred. This will occur if the certified triennial emissions inventory of VOCs or NOX (summer season tons per day) exceeds the 2012 base year attainment inventory by ten percent or more and any area monitor has recorded at least one exceedance of the ozone NAAQS according to certified data during the most recent monitoring season. The Shelby County Health Department will then conduct an investigation lasting no longer than three months into the possible causes. The results will be reported to EPA and TDEC. If the data is valid and not due to unusual circumstances, the Shelby County Health Department will seek to expand voluntary programs 20 and develop regulations as appropriate following consultation with EPA and TDEC. Proof of regulation adoption will be sent to EPA within nine months and implementation of regulations will occur within 18 to 24 months after monitoring data is certified. Possible contingency measures include, but are not limited to:

    20 If the State adopts a voluntary emission reduction measure as a contingency measure necessary to attain or maintain the NAAQS, EPA will evaluate approvability in accordance with relevant Agency guidance regarding the incorporation of voluntary measures into SIPs. See, e.g., Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators re: Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) (October 24, 1997); EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP) (September 2004).

    ○ Programs or incentives to decrease motor vehicle use;

    ○ Programs to require additional emissions reductions on stationary sources;

    ○ Restrictions of certain roads or lanes for, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high-occupancy vehicles;

    ○ Employer-based transportation incentive plans; and

    ○ Additional programs for new construction of paths for use by pedestrian or non-motorized vehicles when economically feasible and in the public interest.

    The secondary trigger is a violation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e., when the three-year average of the 4th highest values is equal to or greater than 0.076 ppm at a monitor in the Area). The trigger date will be when a monitored violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS occurs in the nonattainment area according to certified data during the most recent monitoring season. The Shelby County Health Department will then conduct an investigation lasting no longer than three months into the possible causes. The results will be reported to TDEC and EPA. If the data is valid, further action is required, and the Shelby County Health Department will seek to expand voluntary programs and develop regulations for submission to the Shelby County Commission or Tennessee State Air Board. Proof of adoption of such regulations will be submitted to EPA within nine months after the end of the investigation. Control measures will be implemented within 18 to 24 months after verification of a monitored violation by certified data. In addition to the measures stated for the primary trigger, the following measures may also be implemented if there is a secondary trigger of a violation of the standard:

    ○ A RACT regulation for legacy major sources of NOX emissions in Shelby County; and

    ○ Adoption of all industrial and commercial VOC controls as provided in final EPA-approved Control Technology Guidelines through the date of the recorded violation.

    EPA preliminarily concludes that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Tennessee for the State's portion of the Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.

    VI. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the area?

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan for that NAAQS.

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration requirements) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the MVEB.

    After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for the Memphis TN-MS-AR Area, Tennessee has developed MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the Tennessee portion of the Area. Tennessee developed these MVEBs, as required, for the last year of its maintenance plan, 2027. The 2027 MVEBs reflect the total projected on-road emissions for 2027, plus an allocation from the available NOX and VOC safety margins. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to the transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain below the attainment level. The NOX and VOC MVEBs and allocation from the safety margin were developed in consultation with the transportation partners and were added to account for uncertainties in population growth, changes in model vehicle miles traveled, and new emission factor models. The NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Area are identified in Table 6, below.

    Table 6—Tennessee Portion of the Area NOX and VOC MVEBs (tpd)* 2027 NOX Base Emissions 12.51 NOX Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB 49.04 NOX MVEB 61.56 VOC Base Emissions 5.81 VOC Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB 13.19 VOC MVEB 19.01 * The MVEBs do not total the sum of the base emissions and safety margins due to rounding convention.

    As mentioned above, Tennessee has chosen to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Area. This allocation is 49.04 tpd and 13.19 tpd for NOX and VOC, respectively. Thus, the remaining safety margins for 2027 are 11.38 tpd and 9.91 tpd NOX and VOC, respectively.

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2027 for the Tennessee Portion of the Area because EPA has preliminarily determined that the Area maintains the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the emissions at the levels of the budgets. Once the MVEBs for the Tennessee Portion of the Area are approved or found adequate (whichever is completed first), they must be used for future conformity determinations.

    VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the area?

    When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy consists of three basic steps: Public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” EPA adopted regulations to codify the adequacy process in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change,” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). Additional information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity purposes is available in the proposed rule entitled, “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes,” 68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003).

    As discussed earlier, Tennessee's maintenance plan includes NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis TN-MS-AR Area for 2027, the last year of the maintenance plan. EPA reviewed the NOX and VOC MVEBs through the adequacy process. The NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the area were open for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on January 27, 2016, found at: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#shelby-cnty. The EPA public comment period on adequacy for the 2027 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Area closed on February 26, 2016, and no comments, adverse or otherwise, were received.

    EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2027 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Area for transportation conformity purposes in the near future by completing the adequacy process that was started on January 27, 2016. After EPA finds the 2027 MVEBs adequate or approves them, the new MVEBs for NOX and VOC must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. For required regional emissions analysis years for 2027 and beyond, the applicable budgets will be the new 2027 MVEBs established in the maintenance plan.

    VIII. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?

    EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval of Tennessee's redesignation request would change the legal designation of Shelby County, Tennessee, in the Memphis TN-MS-AR Area, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of Tennessee's associated SIP revision would also incorporate a plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Tennessee portion of the Area through 2027 and a section 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory into the Tennessee SIP for the Area. The maintenance plan establishes NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027 for the Tennessee portion of the Area and includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential violations. Additionally, EPA is notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the newly-established NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027 for the Tennessee portion of the Area.

    IX. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to take four separate but related actions regarding the redesignation request and associated SIP revision for the Tennessee portion of the Memphis TN-MS-AR Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's section 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for the Tennessee portion of the Area into the SIP.

    Second, EPA is proposing to determine that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. Preliminary 2015 data in AQS indicates that the Area is continuing to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    Third, EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Area, including the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027, into the Tennessee SIP (under CAA section 175A). The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's redesignation request for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Tennessee portion of the Area contingent upon approval of the 182(a)(1) base year emissions inventory for the Tennessee portion of the Area.

    As part of today's action, EPA is also describing the status of its adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027 in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months from the effective date of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the effective date for the final rule for this action, whichever is earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e)(3).

    If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of Shelby County, Tennessee in the Tennessee portion of the Memphis TN-MS-AR Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR part 81.

    X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these proposed actions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

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

    • Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 8, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08796 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 10 RIN 0906-AA89 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document reopens the comment period for the June 17, 2015, proposed rule entitled “340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation.” The comment period for the proposed rule, which ended on August 17, 2015, is reopened for 30 days.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34583), is reopened and ends on May 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, please refer to the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0906-AA89, by any of the following methods. Please submit your comments in only one of these ways to minimize the receipt of duplicate submissions. The first is the preferred method.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow instructions for submitting comments. This is the preferred method for the submission of comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include 0906-AA89 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Office of Pharmacy Affairs (OPA), Healthcare Systems Bureau (HSB), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08W05A, Rockville, MD 20857.

    All submitted comments will be available to the public in their entirety.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CAPT Krista Pedley, Director, OPA, HSB, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08W05A, Rockville, MD 20857, or by telephone at 301-594-4353.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 17, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (80 FR 34583) entitled, “340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation” that would set forth the calculation of the ceiling price and application of civil monetary penalties for section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), which is referred to as the “340B Drug Pricing Program” or the “340B Program.” In light of the comments received, HHS is reopening the comment period for 30 days for the purpose of inviting public comments on several specific areas, summarized below. Comments may be submitted on any aspect of the proposed rule, not just those areas specifically addressed below. Commenters do not need to resubmit comments previously submitted, as all previous comments are currently under review and will be considered prior to the finalization of the proposed rule.

    Ceiling Price for a Covered Outpatient Drug Exception

    In the June 17, 2015, notice of proposed rulemaking (80 FR 34583), HHS proposed that when the calculation of the 340B ceiling price resulted in an amount less than $0.01, the ceiling price would be $0.01 per unit of measure (hereinafter, penny pricing). In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), we recognized that it was not reasonable for a manufacturer to set the ceiling price at $0.00 per unit of measure. HHS received a number of comments supporting and opposing the penny pricing proposal.

    Commenters suggested a number of alternatives to penny pricing, including: The federal ceiling price, the most recent positive ceiling price from previous quarters, and nominal sales price. Some commenters stated that the federal ceiling price, which is the basis for prices paid by certain federal government programs, would be a viable alternative. Other commenters suggested that charging a ceiling price from previous quarters in which the ceiling price was greater than $0.00 would be reasonable. Finally, several commenters suggested that nominal pricing, which is a term used in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, would be more appropriate. Other commenters suggested that manufacturers should be able to utilize any other reasonable alternative.

    Given these comments, HHS is considering whether any of these alternatives or other alternatives not raised by the commenters, alone or in combination, would be more appropriate than the penny pricing proposal and whether to revise the proposed regulatory text in 42 CFR 10.10(b). As the NPRM did not indicate that alternatives to the penny pricing proposal would be considered, and given the number of comments on this issue, HHS is reopening the comment period specifically to invite comments on whether we should adopt an alternative policy to penny pricing. By reopening the comment period as to this specific issue, all parties will have an opportunity to express their views on penny pricing and other alternatives prior to finalization of the proposed rule.

    New Drug Price Estimation

    In the NPRM, HHS proposed that manufacturers estimate the ceiling price for a new covered outpatient drug as of the date the drug is first available for sale, and provide HRSA an estimated ceiling price for each of the first three quarters the drug is available for sale. HHS also proposed that, beginning with the fourth quarter the drug is available for sale, the manufacturer must calculate the ceiling price as described in proposed 42 CFR 10.10(a). Under the proposed rule, the actual ceiling price for the first three quarters must also be calculated and manufacturers would be required to provide a refund or credit to any covered entity which purchased the covered outpatient drug at a price greater than the calculated ceiling price. HHS proposed that any refunds or credits owed to a covered entity must be provided by the end of the fourth quarter. HHS received numerous comments supporting and opposing the various components of its proposal on new drug price estimation.

    Several commenters supported a specific methodology for calculating new drug prices, which included setting the price of the new covered outpatient drug as wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) minus the applicable rebate percentage (i.e., 23.1 percent for most single-source and innovator drugs, 17.1 percent for clotting factors and drugs approved exclusively for pediatric indications, and 13 percent for generics and OTCs). Commenters argued that this price would eliminate the need to estimate the price for the first three quarters and would result in a reasonable ceiling price. We are seeking comment on this specific methodology for the estimation of a new covered outpatient drug pricing and at which quarter a manufacturer should refund or credit a covered entity if there is an overcharge.

    Definition of “Knowing and Intentional”

    Under section 340B(d)(1)(B)(vi) of the Public Health Service Act, the Secretary is charged with issuing civil monetary penalties for manufacturers who have “knowingly and intentionally” charged a covered entity a price that exceeds the 340B ceiling price. Although the knowing and intentional standard was included in the NPRM issued on June 17, 2015, “knowing and intentional” was not specifically defined. HHS received a number of comments urging HHS to further define these terms. Through this reopening of the NPRM comment period, we are seeking comment on the definition of the knowing and intentional standard for purposes of this civil monetary penalty authority. We believe that, by reopening the comment period as to this issue, all parties will have an opportunity to express their views on this definitional standard prior to finalization of the rule.

    HHS is considering whether “knowing and intentional” should be further defined. If the terms are defined, possible definitions could be: (1) Actual knowledge by the manufacturer, its employees, or its agents of the instance of overcharge; (2) willful or purposeful acts by, or on behalf of, the manufacturer that lead to the instance of overcharge; (3) acting consciously and with awareness of the acts leading to the instance of overcharge; and/or (4) acting with a conscious desire or purpose to cause an overcharge or acting in a way practically certain to result in an overcharge. Manufacturers do not need to intend specifically to violate the 340B statute; but rather to have knowingly and intentionally overcharged the 340B covered entity.

    HHS understands that this is difficult to demonstrate. As such, HHS is soliciting input on circumstances in which the requisite intent should and should not be inferred. In particular, HHS would like to solicit comment on the concept that manufacturers would not be considered to have the requisite intent in the following circumstances:

    • The manufacturer made an inadvertent, unintentional, or unrecognized error in calculating the ceiling price;

    • A manufacturer acted on a reasonable interpretation of agency guidance; or

    • When a manufacturer has established alternative allocation procedures where there is an inadequate supply of product to meet market demand, as long as covered entities are able to purchase on the same terms as all other similarly-situated providers.

    HHS welcomes comments regarding other situations where the requisite intent may or may not be demonstrated.

    Because of the scope of the proposed rule, and since we have specifically requested the public's comments on various aspects of the rule, we believe that it is important to allow ample time for the public to consider these approaches to these specific policies in the proposed rule. Therefore, we have decided to reopen the comment period for an additional 30 days. HHS believes that a 30-day period is sufficient and balances the interests of encouraging public participation in the rulemaking process with the desire to not unnecessarily delay key decisions about rulemaking. This document announces the reopening of the comment period to end May 19, 2016.

    Dated: April 6, 2016. James Macrae, Acting Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. Approved: April 12, 2016. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09017 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097; 4500030114] RIN 1018-AZ74 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing of the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our May 8, 2014, proposed rule to amend the listing of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) by defining the Southern Mountain Caribou distinct population segment (DPS) and listing it as threatened. In the May 8, 2014, proposed rule, we also proposed to reaffirm our November 28, 2012, final designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou as critical habitat for the proposed Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. On March 23, 2015, the U.S. District Court of Idaho remanded our November 28, 2012, final critical habitat rule to the Service to correct a procedural error by providing another opportunity for public comment. This reopening of the comment period will provide all interested parties with the opportunity to provide comment on our November 28, 2012, final critical habitat designation, in light of the court's ruling.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26504), is reopened. We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before May 19, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

    ADDRESSES:

    Document availability: You may obtain information and documents associated with the opening of this comment period, a copy of the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat designation (77 FR 71042), as well as information relating to the proposed reaffirmation of critical habitat in the proposed amended listing rule (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014) and any comments received on that rule at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, or by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Information we relied upon for making our November 28, 2012, final critical habitat designation (77 FR 71042) can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096 and Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, or by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Comment submission: You may submit written information by one of the following methods:

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click the Search button. In the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the box next to “Proposed Rule” to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.

    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested section below, for more information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis Mackey, Acting State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, Idaho (telephone 208-378-5243; facsimile 208-378-5262). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On November 30, 2011, we proposed to designate approximately 375,562 acres (ac) (151,985 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) (76 FR 74018). On November 28, 2012, after considering comments we received from peer reviewers as well as from Federal agencies, State agencies, Tribes, and the general public on the proposed designation, we designated approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (77 FR 71042).

    On May 8, 2014, we proposed to amend the current listing of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou by defining the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS, which includes the currently listed southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, as well as populations of mountain caribou in British Columbia (79 FR 26504), and listing the DPS as threatened. In the May 8, 2014, rule, we also proposed to reaffirm the approximately 30,010 ac (12,145 ha) designated as critical habitat on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042), for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou as critical habitat for the proposed Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. As we stated in our May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26532), our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) allow us to designate critical habitat only in the United States. Of the 15 populations of mountain caribou that make up the Southern Mountain caribou DPS, the southern Selkirk Mountains woodland caribou population is the only population that moves freely between the coterminous United States and Canada. We determined that critical habitat for the Southern Mountain caribou DPS corresponded exactly to the critical habitat identified for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou in our final rule published on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042). Further we determined that the specific area identified in the November 28, 2012, final rule met the definition of critical habitat for the Southern Mountain caribou DPS, and that there are no additional areas that meet the definition of critical habitat.

    The May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504) had a 60-day public comment period, ending July 7, 2014. On June 10, 2014, we extended the public comment period an additional 30 days, ending on August 6, 2014, and announced the scheduling of two public hearings, which were held on June 25, 2014, and June 26, 2014 (79 FR 33169). On March 24, 2015, we reopened the public comment period for an additional 30 days, ending on April 23, 2015, to allow the public time to review new information received after the previous public comment period (80 FR 15545).

    On March 23, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho ruled in Center for Biological Diversity v. Kelly, 93 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (D. Idaho, 2015), that we made a procedural error in not providing for public review and comment on certain aspects of the reasoning that we relied upon in making our November 28, 2012, final designation of critical habitat (77 FR 71042). The reopening of this comment period will provide all interested parties an opportunity to provide comment on the November 28, 2012, final designation of critical habitat, which we proposed to reaffirm in the May 8, 2014, proposed rule as the critical habitat for the Southern Mountain caribou DPS.

    The primary factors that we considered in making changes from the November 30, 2011, proposed critical habitat designation (76 FR 74018) to the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat designation (77 FR 71042), which we proposed to reaffirm in the May 8, 2014, proposed rule include:

    (1) A revised determination of the geographical area occupied by the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou at the time of listing, based on comments we received, including those from peer reviewers, which caused us to reevaluate surveys conducted by Scott and Servheen (1984, 1985).

    (2) Census monitoring that documented low numbers of individual caribou observed in the United States during those annual surveys.

    (3) Caribou observations within the United States for several years that have consistently been limited to areas close to the United States-Canada border.

    (4) Peer review comments received leading to a reanalysis of the appropriate elevational limit of critical habitat (see Kinley and Apps (2007)).

    (5) Information and literature reporting the overall decline of the subspecies mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) across its range, and in particular the decline of woodland caribou populations in the southern extent of their range, including the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou.

    (6) The applicability as well as the status of the recovery objectives identified in the 1994 Selkirk Mountains Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994).

    (7) Information on areas currently conserved and managed for the conservation of woodland caribou in the Selkirk Mountains in British Columbia, Canada, as described in The Nature Conservancy (2011) and the 2009 update on the Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan provided to the Mountain Caribou Progress Board (DeGroot 2012, pers comm.) (see also MCRIP 2009). All documents cited above can be viewed on www.regulations.gov in the supplemental materials for Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097.

    Information Requested

    We intend that any final action will be based on the best scientific data available, and be as accurate and complete as possible. Therefore, we are seeking written comments and information from appropriate Federal and State agencies, the scientific community, and any other interested party during this reopened comment period on our proposed rule that was published in the May 8, 2014, Federal Register (79 FR 26504). We are particularly interested in comments and information related to our November 28, 2012, final critical habitat designation, which we have proposed to reaffirm as critical habitat for the Southern Mountain caribou DPS. This information will be used to finalize the critical habitat designation for the Southern Mountain caribou DPS.

    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed reaffirmation of the November 28, 2012, designation of critical habitat in the proposed amended listing rule (79 FR 26504, Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097) during the initial comment period from May 8, 2014, to July 6, 2014, the extended comment period (79 FR 33169) from July 6, 2014, to August 6, 2014, or the additional comment period (80 FR 15545) from March 24, 2015, to April 23, 2015, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in our final determination.

    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs that critical habitat determinations must be made “on the basis of the best scientific data available.”

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the May 8, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 26504) by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as some supporting documentation we used in preparing the November 28, 2012, final critical habitat rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: April 5, 2016. Noah Matson, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08617 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    81 75 Tuesday, April 19, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of Advocacy and Outreach Minority Farmers and Ranchers Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of Advocacy and Outreach, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO) is announcing a meeting of the Minority Farmers and Ranchers Advisory Committee's (MFAC). The committee is being convened to consider issues involving minorities. The members will deliberate on recommendations to be prepared for USDA Secretarial consideration.

    DATES:

    The committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 10, 2016, at 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. CST; and Wednesday, May 11, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. CST; and, Thursday, May 12, 2016, from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. CST. The meeting will be open to the public. All persons wishing to make comments during this meeting must check in between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. CST each day at the registration table. All public commenters will be allowed a maximum of five minutes. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than what can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public meeting timeframe, speakers will be scheduled on a first-come basis. Public written comments for the committee's consideration may be submitted by close of business on May 6, 2016, to Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Official, USDA OAO, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 520-A, Washington, DC 20250-0170, Phone (202) 720-6350, Fax (202) 720-7704, Email: [email protected] A listen-only line will be available during the entire meeting for all who wish to listen to the meeting or make public comments through the following telephone number: (888) 455-1685 and enter passcode 4225205. Members of the public may also submit written comments for consideration to the committee.

    ADDRESSES:

    This public advisory committee meeting will be held at the Renaissance New Orleans Arts Hotel, 700 Tchoupitoulas Street, New Orleans, LA, 70130-3612, (504) 613-2330. There will also be signs directing attendees to the USDA meeting rooms.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions should be directed to Phyllis Morgan, Executive Assistant, OAO, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Whitten Bldg., 520-A, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 720-6350, Fax: (202) 720-7136, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Secretary tasked the MFAC with providing recommendations on access to USDA programs and services by minority farmers and ranchers. Please visit our Web site at: http://www.outreach.usda.gov/sdfr/FAC.htm for additional information on the MFAC.

    The public is asked to pre-register for the meeting by midnight May 4, 2016. You may pre-register for the public meeting by submitting an email to [email protected] with your name, organization or affiliation, or any comments for the committee's consideration. You may also fax this information to (202) 720-7704. Members of the public who wish to make comments during the committee meeting must register at the check-in table.

    The agenda is as follows: Day 1: Committee discussions (International Trade Opportunities and Sustainability of Renewable Energy), USDA presentations and public comments;

    Day 2: Committee discussions, public comments. Day 3: Committee deliberations and public comment. Please visit the Minority Farmers and Ranchers Advisory Committee Web site for the full agenda. All agenda topics and documents will be made available to the public prior to the meeting at: http://www.outreach.usda.gov/sdfr/FAC.htm. Copies of the agenda will also be distributed at the meeting.

    Meeting Accommodations: USDA is committed to ensuring that everyone is accommodated in our work environment, programs, and events. If you are a person with a disability and request reasonable accommodations to participate in this meeting, please note the request in your registration and you may contact Mrs. Kenya Nicholas in advance of the meeting by or before close of business on May 4, 2016, by phone at (202) 720-6350, fax (202) 720-7704, or email: [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 13th day of April 2016. Christian Obineme, Associate Director, Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08932 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3412-89-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Reinstate an Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to seek reinstatement of an information collection, the 2017 Census of Agriculture.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by June 20, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0226, by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include docket number above in the subject line of the message.

    E-fax: (855) 838-6382.

    Mail: Mail any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Hand deliver to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-2707. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: The 2017 Census of Agriculture.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0226.

    Expiration Date of Previous Approval: October 31, 2014.

    Type of Request: Intent to Seek Reinstatement of an Information Collection.

    Abstract: The census of agriculture is the primary source of statistics concerning the nation's agricultural industry. It provides the only basis of consistent, comparable data for each county, county equivalent, and state in the United States and its outlying insular areas. The census is conducted every 5 years, the last one being for the reference year of 2012. The 2017 Census of Agriculture will again cover all agricultural operations in the 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and American Samoa which meet the census definition for a farm. For the 50 states, Guam, and CNMI, a farm is any place that produced and sold, or normally would produce and sell, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during the census reference year. For Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands it is any place with $500 in production and sales. American Samoa is not limited by a threshold for production or sales and includes items grown for home consumption.

    Data collection for the censuses of agriculture for the 50 states and Puerto Rico will be conducted primarily by mail-out/mail-back procedures (US Postal Service), internet, and with phone and field enumeration for targeted non-respondents. Data collection for Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, CNMI, and American Samoa will be conducted using direct enumeration methods only. For the 50 states, respondents will be contacted up to 5 times by mail (postcard announcement, 3 mailings of the questionnaire and internet access instruction, and a postcard reminder) and additional telephone or personal interview follow-up for mail and internet non-respondents. Questionnaires returned by the Post Office as non-deliverable will be removed from the target population and subsequent mailings. Respondents who contact one of our phone centers to notify NASS of their farming status or to complete a questionnaire will also be removed from any subsequent mailings. In the summer of 2015, NASS conducted cognitive interviews of proposed changes to the 2017 Census of Agriculture using the Generic Testing docket (0535-0248). In December 2015 NASS began testing the 2017 Census of Agriculture and will continue testing through September 2017, using the Census Content Testing docket (0535-0243).

    Two census of agriculture questionnaire versions will be used for the 50 states. One version will be shorter and will be sent to farm operations known to not have certain commodities or farming practices. A longer form will be used for the remaining farming operations. NASS is working to increase the speed and ease at which any respondent may fill out the form by incorporating improved screening questions in the internet version of the questionnaire that automatically skips questions that do not apply to a particular respondent. This reduces overall respondent burden, particularly for small operations and operations specializing in only a few commodities. A screening survey, conducted prior to the census, will enable NASS to eliminate non-farm operations from the census mail list and determine respondent eligibility for receiving the appropriate census mail package.

    The census of agriculture is required by law under the “Census of Agriculture Act of 1997,” Public Law 105-113, 7 U.S.C. 2204(g). Response to the screening form, the census of agriculture and the census special study surveys are mandatory. The census special study surveys will be included under different OMB approvals. Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33362. The law guarantees farm operators that their individual information will be kept confidential. NASS uses the information only for statistical purposes and publishes only tabulated total data. These data are used by Congress when developing or changing farm programs. Many national and state programs are designed or allocated based on census data, i.e., soil conservation projects, funds for cooperative extension programs, and research funding. Private industry uses the data to provide more effective production and distribution systems for the agricultural community.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information will average about 50 minutes per census long form, 45 minutes per census short form, 15 minutes per screening form, and 2 minutes per refusal from all sources.

    Respondents: Farm and ranch operators.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,950,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,900,000 hours.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological or other forms of information technology collection methods.

    All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, April 6, 2016. R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08950 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Thursday May 19, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Thursday, May 19, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Charleston Marriott Hotel, 170 Lockwood Blvd. Charleston, SC 29403. Please note admittance instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Zara Brunner, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, telephone number (301) 975-2001, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The MEP Advisory Board (Board) is authorized under Section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69); codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(e), as amended, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Board is composed of 10 members, appointed by the Director of NIST. Hollings MEP is a unique program, consisting of centers across the United States and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. The Board provides a forum for input and guidance from Hollings MEP program stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of tools and services focused on supporting and growing the U.S. manufacturing industry, provides advice on MEP programs, plans, and policies, assesses the soundness of MEP plans and strategies, and assesses current performance against MEP program plans. Background information on the Board is available at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm.

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the MEP Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Thursday, May 19, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. This meeting will focus on several topics. The Board will receive an update on NIST MEP programmatic operations, as well as provide guidance and advice to MEP senior management for the drafting of the 2017-2022 Strategic Plan. The Board will also provide input on developing protocols to connect user facilities, research, and technologies at NIST and other federal laboratories with small and mid-size manufacturers, and make recommendations on the establishment of an MEP Learning Organization, an effort to strengthen connections by sharing best practices and building Working Groups and Communities of Practice for furtherance of the MEP Program's mission. The final agenda will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm. This is meeting is being held in conjunction with the MEP Update Meeting that will be held May 17-18, 2016 also at the Charleston Marriott.

    Admittance Instructions: Anyone wishing to attend the MEP Advisory Board meeting should submit their name, email address and phone number to Monica Claussen ([email protected] or 301-975-4852) no later than Monday, May 9, 2016, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

    Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the MEP Advisory Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments at the end of the meeting. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be no more than three to five minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site as http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the MEP Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, or via fax at (301) 963-6556, or electronically by email to [email protected]

    Phillip Singerman, Associate Director for Innovations and Industry Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08933 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE572 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Advisory Panel (AP) will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 7491-A New Ridge Road, Hanover, MD, (410) 878-7200.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their Web site at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The MAFMC's Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Advisory Panel (AP) will meet to provide input to the Council on the development of written Council policy on fishing activities that may impact fish habitat. The development of written policy on these activities are intended to enable the Council to work more effectively to address fish habitat and ecosystem issues in our region.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08971 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Patent Cooperation Treaty ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Act of 1996, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-021 comment” in the subject line of the message.

    Federal Register Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer; United States Patent and Trademark Office; P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Rafael Bacares, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-3276; or by email at [email protected] with “Paperwork” in the subject line. Additional information about this collection is also available at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This collection of information is required by the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which became operational in June 1978 and is administered by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland. The provisions of the PCT have been implemented by the United States in part IV of title 35 of the U.S. Code (chapters 35-37) and subpart C of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 CFR 1.401-1.499). The purpose of the PCT is to provide a standardized filing format and procedure that allows an applicant to seek protection for an invention in several countries by filing one international application in one location, in one language, and paying one initial set of fees.

    The information in this collection is used by the public to submit a patent application under the PCT and by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to fulfill its obligation to process, search, and examine the application as directed by the treaty. The USPTO acts as the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) for international applications filed by residents and nationals of the United States. These applicants send most of the correspondence directly to the USPTO, but they may also file certain documents directly with the IB. The USPTO serves as an International Searching Authority (ISA) to perform searches and issue international search reports (ISR) and the written opinions on international applications. The USPTO also issues international preliminary reports on patentability (IPRP Chapter II) when acting as an International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA).

    II. Method of Collection

    By mail, hand delivery, or electronic submission to the USPTO.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0651-0021.

    IC Instruments and Forms: The individual instruments in this collection, as well as their associated forms, are listed in the table below.

    Type of Review: Revision of a Previously Existing Information Collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 423,970 responses per year.

    Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public between 0.25 hours (15 minutes) and 8 hours to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or documents, and submit the information to the USPTO.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 364,830 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $149,380,300. The USPTO expects that attorneys will complete these applications. The current professional hourly rate for attorneys is $410.00. Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $149,380,300 per year.

    IC No. Item Estimated time
  • for response
  • (hr)
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • burden hours
  • Rate
  • ($/hr)
  • Total cost burden
  • ($/hr)
  • (a) (b) (a) × (b) = (c) (d) (c) × (d) = (e) 1 Request and Fee Calculation Sheet (Annex and Notes) (PCT/RO/101) 1 56,480 56,480 $410.00 $23,156,800.00 2 Description/claims/drawings/abstracts 3 56,480 169,480 410.00 69,470,400.00 3 Application Data Sheet (35 U.S.C. 371 applications) 0.38 (23 minutes) 91,477 34,761 410.00 14,252,010.00 4 Transmittal Letter to the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) (PTO-1382) 0.25 (15 minutes) 50,832 12,708 410.00 5,210,280.00 5 Transmittal Letter to the United States Designated/Elected Office (DO/EO/US) Concerning a Submission Under 35 U.S.C. 371 (PTO-1390) 0.25 (15 minutes) 85,387 21,347 410.00 8,752,270.00 6 PCT/Model of Power of Attorney 0.25 (15 minutes) 2,824 706 410.00 289,460.00 7 PCT/Model of General Power of Attorney 0.25 (15 minutes) 282 71 410.00 29,110.00 8 Indications Relating to a Deposited Microorganism (PCT/RO/134) 0.25 15 minutes) 1 0 410.00 0.00 9 Response to invitation to correct defects 2 15,117 30,234 410.00 12,395,940.00 10 Request for rectification of obvious errors 0.50 (30 minutes) 867 434 410.00 177,940.00 11 Demand and Fee Calculation Sheet (Annex and Notes) (PCT/IPEA/401) 1 1,406 1,406 410.00 576,460.00 12 Amendments (Article 34) 1 1,406 1,406 410.00 576,460.00 13 Fee Authorization 0.25 (15 minutes) 50,832 12,708 410.00 5,210,280.00 14 Requests to transmit copies of international application 0.25 (15 minutes) 1,081 270 410.00 110,700.00 15 Withdrawal of international application (PCT/IB/372) 0.25 (15 minutes) 1,580 395 410.00 161,950.00 16 Translations 2 2,298 4,596 410.00 1,884,360.00 17 Petition for Revival of an International Application for Patent Designating the U.S. Abandoned Unintentionally Under 37 CFR 1.137(a) (PTO/SB/64/PCT) 1 887 887 410.00 363,670.00 18 Petitions to the Commissioner for international applications 4 133 532 410.00 218,120.00 19 Petitions to the Commissioner in national stage examination 4 3,191 12,764 410.00 5,233,240.00 20 Acceptance of an unintentionally delayed claim for priority (37 CFR 1.78(a)(3)) 2 542 1,084 410.00 444,440.00 21 Request for the restoration of the right of priority 3 867 2,601 410.00 1,066,410.00 Totals 423,970 364,830 149,580,300.00

    Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $305,509,626.10. This collection has annual (non-hour) costs in the form of translations, drawings, filing fees, and postage costs.

    Translations and Drawings

    Under the terms of the PCT, the USPTO may require documents submitted for a PCT application to be translated into English when necessary. This requirement may carry additional costs for the applicant to contract for a translation of the documents in questions. The USPTO believes that the average length of the document to be translated will be 10 pages and that it will cost approximately $150 per page for the translation, for an average translation cost of $1,500 per document. The USPTO estimates that it receives approximately 21,180 English translations annually, for a total of $31,770,000 per year for English translations of non-English language documents for PCT applications.

    Applicants may also incur costs for drawings that are submitted as part of PCT applications. Some applicants may produce their own drawings, while others may contract out the work to various patent illustration firms. For the purpose of estimating burden for this collection, the USPTO will consider all applicants to have their drawings prepared by these firms. The USPTO estimates that drawings may cost an average of $58 per sheet to produce and that on average 11 sheets of drawings are submitted per application, for an average total cost of $638 to produce a set of drawings for an application. The USPTO expects that approximately 91% of the estimated 48,285 applications per year will have drawings filed with them, for a total of 43,939 sets of drawings with a total cost of $28,033,082 per year.

    Filing Fee

    The estimated filing fees for this collection are calculated in the accompanying table.

    IC No. Item Responses Fees Total fee
  • amount
  • (a) (b) (a) × (b) = (c) Request and Fee Calculation Sheet (Annex and Notes) (PCT/RO/101) 56,480 $1,254.00 $70,825,920.00 Demand and Fee Calculation Sheet (Annex and Notes) (PCT/IPEA/401) 1,406 213.00 299,478.00 Acceptance of an unintentionally delayed claim for priority, or for filing a request for the restoration of the right of priority 1,409 2,000.00 2,818,000.00 Basic National Stage Fee (Large entity) 65,948 300.00 19,784,400.00 Basic National Stage Fee (Small entity) 19,893 150.00 2,983,950.00 Basic National Stage Fee (Micro entity) 1,197 75.00 89,775.00 National Stage Search Fee—U.S. was the ISA or IPEA and all claims satisfy PCT Article 33(1)-(4) 452 0 0.00 National Stage Search Fee—U.S. was the ISA (Large entity) 2,728 140.00 381,920.00 National Stage Search Fee—U.S. was the ISA (Small entity) 2,918 70.00 204,260.00 National Stage Search Fee—U.S. was the ISA (Micro entity) 206 35.00 7,210.00 National Stage Search Fee—search report prepared and provided to USPTO (Large entity) 60,196 520.00 31,301,920.00 National Stage Search Fee—search report prepared and provided to USPTO (Small entity) 15,917 260.00 4,138,420.00 National Stage Search Fee—search report prepared and provided to USPTO (Micro entity) 866 130.00 112,580.00 National Stage Examination Fee—U.S. was the ISA or IPEA and all claims satisfy PCT Article 33(1)-(4) 452 0 0.00 Transmitting application to Intl. Bureau to act as receiving office (Large entity) 313 240.00 75,120.00 Transmitting application to Intl. Bureau to act as receiving office (Small entity) 191 120.00 22,920.00 Transmitting application to Intl. Bureau to act as receiving office (Micro entity) 21 60.00 1,260.00 National Stage Search Fee—all other situations (Large entity) 2,864 660.00 1,890,240.00 National Stage Search Fee—all other situations (Small entity) 908 330.00 299,640.00 National Stage Search Fee—all other situations (Micro entity) 118 165.00 19,470 National Stage Examination Fee—all other situations (Large entity) 65,701 760.00 49,932,760.00 National Stage Examination Fee—all other situations (Small entity) 19,653 380.00 7,468,140.00 National Stage Examination Fee—all other situations (Micro entity) 1,171 190.00 222,490.00 Search fee, examination fee or oath of declaration after thirty months from priority date (Large entity) 23,193 140.00 3,247,020.00 Search fee, examination fee or oath of declaration after thirty months from priority date (Small entity) 10,149 70.00 710,430.00 Search fee, examination fee or oath of declaration after thirty months from priority date (Micro entity) 304 35.00 10,640.00 English translation after thirty months from priority date (Large entity) 1,467 140.00 205,380.00 English translation after thirty months from priority date (Small entity) 782 70.00 54,740.00 English translation after thirty months from priority date (Micro entity) 49 35.00 1,715.00 Transmittal fee (Large entity) 39,370 240.00 9,448,800.00 Transmittal fee (Small entity) 16,017 120.00 1,922,040.00 Transmittal fee (Micro entity) 1,240 60.00 74,400.00 Search fee—regardless of whether there is a corresponding application (see 35 U.S.C. 361(d) and PCT Rule 16) (Large entity) 8,227 2,080.00 17,112,160.00 Search fee—regardless of whether there is a corresponding application (see 35 U.S.C. 361(d) and PCT Rule 16) (Small entity) 10,929 1,040.00 11,366,160.00 Search fee—regardless of whether there is a corresponding application (see 35 U.S.C. 361(d) and PCT Rule 16) (Micro entity) 1,129 520.00 587,080.00 Supplemental search fee when required, per additional invention 1 2,080.00 2,080.00 Preliminary examination fee—U.S. was the ISA (Large entity) 346 600.00 207,600.00 Preliminary examination fee—U.S. was the ISA (Small entity) 257 300.00 77,100.00 Preliminary examination fee—U.S. was the ISA (Micro entity) 54 150.00 8,100.00 Preliminary examination fee—U.S. was not the ISA (Large entity) 143 760.00 108,680.00 Preliminary examination fee—U.S. was not the ISA (Small entity) 31 380.00 11,780.00 Preliminary examination fee—U.S. was not the ISA (Micro entity) 1 190.00 190.00 Supplemental examination fee per additional invention (Large entity) 0 600.00 0.00 Supplemental examination fee per additional invention (Small entity) 4 300.00 1,200.00 Supplemental examination fee per additional invention (Micro entity) 0 150.00 0.00 National Stage Application Size Fee—for each additional 50 sheets that exceed 100 sheets (Large entity) 2,325 400.00 930,000.00 National Stage Application Size Fee—for each additional 50 sheets that exceed 100 sheets (Small entity) 1,181 200.00 236,200.00 National Stage Application Size Fee—for each additional 50 sheets that exceed 100 sheets (Micro entity) 36 100.00 3,600.00 [PCT National Stage] Claims—extra independent (over three) (Large entity) 7,565 460.00 3,479,900.00 [PCT National Stage] Claims—extra independent (over three) (Small entity) 2,650 230.00 609,500.00 [PCT National Stage] Claims—extra independent (over three) (Micro entity) 122 115.00 14,030.00 [PCT National Stage] Claims—extra total (over 20) (Large entity) 10,797 100.00 1,079,700.00 [PCT National Stage] Claims—extra total (over 20) (Small entity) 5,574 50.00 278,700.00 [PCT National Stage] Claims—extra total (over 20) (Micro entity) 241 25.00 60,250.00 [PCT National Stage] Claim—multiple dependent (Large entity) 986 820.00 808,520.00 [PCT National Stage] Claim—multiple dependent (Small entity) 522 410.00 214,020.00 [PCT National Stage] Claim—multiple dependent (Large entity) 42 205.00 8,610.00 Totals 466,522 245,700,473.00
    Postage Costs

    Customers may incur postage costs when submitting the information in this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 49 cents and that up to 12,390 submissions (approximately 2% of responses) will be mailed to the USPTO per year, for a total estimated postage cost of $6,071.10 per year.

    The total annual (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection associated with translations, drawings, fees, and postage is estimated to be $310,789,891.10 per year.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 13, 2016. Joseph Rivera, Office of Information Management Services Deputy Director, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09037 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive Patent License; CelerAscent, LLC AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to CelerAscent, LLC, a revocable, nonassignable, partially exclusive license to practice in the United States, the Government-owned invention described below:

    U.S. Patent Application 62/156,092 (Navy Case 200115): Filed May 1, 2015, entitled “PHOTONIC HYBRID RECEIVE ANTENNA.”

    DATES:

    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has fifteen days from the date of this notice to file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written objections are to be filed with Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div., Code OOL, Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div., Code OOL, Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404

    Dated: April 13, 2016. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09009 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the Board of Visitors of Marine Corps University AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) will meet to review, develop and provide recommendations on all aspects of the academic and administrative policies of the University; examine all aspects of professional military education operations; and provide such oversight and advice, as is necessary, to facilitate high educational standards and cost effective operations. The Board will be focusing primarily on the internal procedures of Marine Corps University. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 12, 2016, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday, May 13, 2016, from 8:00 a.m. to 1130 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia. The address is: 2076 South St, Quantico, VA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Kim Florich, Director of Faculty Development and Outreach, Marine Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076 South Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134, telephone number 703-432-4682.

    Dated: April 13, 2016. N. A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09011 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics AGENCY:

    White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, U.S. Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and agenda of the eleventh meeting of the President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics (Commission). The notice also describes the functions of the Commission. Notice of the meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend. In order to accommodate additional members of the public, the meeting venue was changed and therefore this notice is being posted in the Federal Register less than 15 days from the meeting date.

    DATES:

    The President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics meeting will be held on Thursday, April 28, 2016 from 8:30 a.m.-2:45 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    California State University, Fullerton, Titan Student Union, Pavilion A, 800 N State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92831, 213-804-6185.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emmanuel Caudillo, Senior Advisor, White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 4W108, Washington, DC 20202; telephone: 202-401-1411.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics Statutory Authority: The President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics (the Commission) is established by Executive Order 13555 (Oct. 19, 2010; continued on September 30, 2015 by Executive Order 13708). The Commission is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), (Pub. L. 92-463; as amended, 5 U.S.C.A., Appendix 2) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The purpose of the Commission is to advise the President and the Secretary of Education on all matters pertaining to the education attainment of the Hispanic community.

    The Commission shall advise the President and the Secretary in the following areas: (i) Developing, implementing, and coordinating educational programs and initiatives at the Department and other agencies to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for Hispanics of all ages; (ii) increasing the participation of the Hispanic community and Hispanic-Serving Institutions in the Department's programs and in education programs at other agencies; (iii) engaging the philanthropic, business, nonprofit, and education communities in a national dialogue regarding the mission and objectives of this order; (iv) establishing partnerships with public, private, philanthropic, and nonprofit stakeholders to meet the mission and policy objectives of this order.

    Individuals who wish to attend the Commission meeting must RSVP by 12 noon EDT, Friday, April 22nd, 2016, to [email protected]

    An opportunity for public comment will be available on Thursday, April 28, 2016, from 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., PDT. Individuals who wish to provide comments will be allowed three minutes to speak. Members of the public can sign up to provide comments at the meeting via email at [email protected] and also the day-of the meeting. It is first come, first serve. Those members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so by submitting them to the attention of Emmanuel Caudillo, White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 4W108, Washington, DC 20202, by Friday, April 22, 2016 or via email at [email protected]

    Meeting Agenda

    The open meeting will facilitate a discussion on the Commission's 2016 activities, including updates on the Administration's education priorities and proposed outreach and engagement efforts.

    Detailed Meeting Agenda Full Board Meeting: Session: 8:30 a.m.-10:40 a.m.; Open Session 11:30 a.m.-2:45 p.m. Breakout Sessions: Early Learning: Open Session 10:50 a.m.-11:20 a.m. K-12 Education: Open Session: 10:50 a.m.-11:20 a.m. Postsecondary Education: Open Session: 10:50 a.m.-11:20 a.m.

    Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the Commission's Web site 90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to the FACA, the public may also inspect the materials at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 401-1411 to schedule an appointment.

    Reasonable Accommodations: Individuals who will need accommodations in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or material in alternative format) should notify Emmanuel Caudillo, Senior Advisor, White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics at 202-401-1411, no later than Friday, April 22nd, 2016. We will attempt to meet requests for such accommodations after this date, but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

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

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

    Authority:

    Executive Order 13555; continued by Executive Order 13708.

    Ted Mitchell, Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08997 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-828-000.

    Applicants: SG Resources Mississippi, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: SG Resources Mississippi, L.L.C.—Filing of Housekeeping Tariff Changes to be effective 5/7/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/7/16.

    Accession Number: 20160407-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-829-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Revised Hourly Nomination Deadline to be effective 5/7/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/7/16.

    Accession Number: 20160407-5169.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-830-000.

    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing to Amend LER 5680's Attachment A_4_7_16 to be effective 4/7/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/7/16.

    Accession Number: 20160407-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-567-001.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing NAESB Version 3.0 Compliance to Order No. 587-W—Revised Sheet 313A to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/7/16.

    Accession Number: 20160407-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-413-001.

    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance filing for March 29th Order to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160408-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-439-001.

    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing NAESB 3.0 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160408-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-489-001.

    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing ETNG RP16-489-000 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160408-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-490-001.

    Applicants: Egan Hub Storage, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Egan RP16-490-000 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160408-5119.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-491-001.

    Applicants: Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing OGT RP16-491-000 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160408-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-493-001.

    Applicants: Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing SGSC RP16-493-000 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160408-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-505-002.

    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing NAESB V3 Standards Compliance Final Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160408-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 11, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08924 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-831-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Daily Service Apr 9-30 2016 to be effective 4/9/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160411-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-832-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: Compliance filing NAESB 3.0 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160411-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-833-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: Section4(d) Rate Filing: Correct Sheet No. 18 to be effective 2/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160411-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-412-001.

    Applicants: Golden Triangle Storage, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing GTS. Compliance Filing Pursuant to Order in Dkt. No. RP16-412-000 to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160411-5245.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-476-001.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: Compliance filing 20160411. Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160411-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-509-001.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing Texas Eastern RP16-509. Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160411-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-513-001.

    Applicants: Steckman Ridge, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing Steckman Ridge RP16-513. Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160411-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-514-001.

    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Big Sandy RP16-514. Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160411-5090.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 12, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08925 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ID-7891-000] Gross, Scott I.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 13, 2016, Scott I. Gross submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 825d(b), Part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45, and Order No. 664.1

    1Commission Authorization to Hold Interlocking Positions, 112 FERC ¶ 61,298 (2005) (Order No. 664); order on reh'g, 114 FERC ¶ 61,142 (2006) (Order No. 664-A).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 4, 2016.

    Dated: April 13, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08965 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-100-000.

    Applicants: Citigroup Renewable Investments 1, LLC, San Juan Mesa Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Section 203 Application of Citigroup Renewable Investments 1, LLC and San Juan Mesa Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5181.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2400-006.

    Applicants: Blue Canyon Windpower LLC.

    Description: Supplement to December 31, 2015 Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southwest Power Pool Region of Blue Canyon Windpower LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-572-005.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: NY Transco compliance formula rate protocols/template, TOTS cost allocation to be effective 4/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5274.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 12, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08923 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-82-000.

    Applicants: Lakewood Cogeneration, LP, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, Essential Power OPP, LLC, Essential Power Newington, LLC, Essential Power Massachusetts, LLC, Essential Power, LLC, Nautilus Generation, LLC.

    Description: Supplement (updated Exhibit JRS-8) to February 25, 2016 Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities of Essential Power, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5334.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3576-013; ER11-3401-012.

    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., Golden Spread Panhandle Wind Ranch, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-material Change in Status of Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2453-001; ER13-1489-008; ER13-1488-006.

    Applicants: Passadumkeag Windpark, LLC, Quantum Lake Power, LP, Quantum Pasco Power, LP.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Quantum Entities.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5153.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2568-003.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Name Change Filing Compliance Filing to be effective 11/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5068.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-40-002.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Supplement to Attachment O with 792 additions and EIM to be effective 11/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-139-002.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing in ER16-139—Revisions to Attachment W to Update GFAs to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-521-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-04-12_Attachment Y align to PRA Compliance Filing to be effective 2/12/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5293.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1387-000.

    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Winnsboro PSA FERC Filing to be effective 4/11/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5277.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1388-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Revised Added Facilities Rate under WDAT 1 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5281.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1389-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4446; Queue AB1-095 (WMPA) to be effective 3/23/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1390-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Generator Interconnection Agreement of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1391-000.

    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Tariff 2016 Normal to be effective 6/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1392-000.

    Applicants: Duquesne Power, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Tariff 2016 Normal to be effective 6/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1393-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing to Modify Retail Standby Rate Design in SCE's Formula Transmission Rate to be effective 6/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1394-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Revised Added Facilities Rate under WDAT—Filing No. 3 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5174.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1395-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of Pavant Solar III E&P Agreement to be effective 6/20/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5190.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1396-000.

    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Dominion submits revisions to Att H-16C re: Other Post-Employment Benefits to be effective 6/12/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5213.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1397-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Revised Added Facilities Rate under WDAT—Filing No. 2 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5224.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1398-000.

    Applicants: Provision Power & Gas, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rates Tariff to be effective 5/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5237.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1399-000.

    Applicants: Solar Star California XLI, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement, FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1 to be effective 4/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES16-27-000.

    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

    Description: Application of Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. under ES16-27 for an order pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act authorizing the issue of short-term debt.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA07-19-012; OA07-43-013; ER07-1171-013.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits its annual compliance report on penalty assessments and distributions in OA07-19, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF16-716-000.

    Applicants: NRG HQ DG LLC.

    Description: Form 556 of NRG HQ DG LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20160413-5121.

    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 13, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08964 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-99-000.

    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Consolidation of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action and Certain Waivers of Westar Energy, Inc.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1379-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-04-11_SA 2914 Northern States Power-Ashtabula Wind IV FCA (C019) to be effective 4/12/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160411-5260.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1380-000.

    Applicants: Rocky Mountain Reserve Group.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: RMRG Cancellation 20160411 to be effective 4/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160411-5279.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1381-000.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Rate Schedule No. 152 NPC and MGM EPC Agreement to be effective 4/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5005.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1382-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-04-12_SA 2916 Prairie Power-Prairie Power GIA (J291) to be effective 4/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1383-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 3193 Rush County Wind Farm GIA to be effective 3/22/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1384-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA and Distribution Service Agmt EUI Wind Park I Project to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1385-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA and Distribution Service Agmt EUI Wind Park II Project to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5119.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1386-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA No. 3324, Queue No. V1-028 per an Assignment to DIV—AR to be effective 5/2/2012.

    Filed Date: 4/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160412-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 12, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08922 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures Docket No. RM16-12-000. American Wind Energy Association Docket No. RM15-21-000.

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on March 29, 2016 in the above-captioned proceedings,1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will hold a technical conference on May 13, 2016 to discuss select issues related to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the American Wind Energy Association (Docket No. RM15-21-000).2 In addition, the conference will explore other generator interconnection issues, including interconnection of electric storage resources. The conference will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EDT) in the Commission Meeting Room at Commission headquarters, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Members of the Commission may attend the conference, which will also be open for the public to attend. Advance registration is not required, but is encouraged. Attendees may register at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/05-13-16-form.asp.

    1 Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Docket Nos. RM16-12-000 and American Wind Energy Association, Docket No. RM15-21-000 (Mar. 29, 2016) (Notice of Technical Conference).

    2 The comments filed in Docket No. RM15-21-000 will be incorporated into Docket No. RM16-12-000.

    1.

    Attached to this supplemental notice is a list of interconnection queue topics considered for discussion at the technical conference. Questions that speakers should be prepared to discuss are grouped by topic below. Please note that this organization does not necessarily reflect the individual panels that will take place at the technical conference. A final agenda will be provided in a subsequent supplemental notice of technical conference. Those interested in speaking at the technical conference should notify the Commission by April 20, 2016, by completing the online form at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/05-13-16-speaker-form.asp. On this form, speakers can provide biographical information and indicate preferred topics to address. Due to time constraints, it may not be possible to accommodate all those interested in speaking. Selected speakers will be notified as soon as possible.

    Discussions at the conference may involve issues raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. These proceedings include, but are not limited to:

    E.ON Climate & Renewables North America LLC, Pioneer Trail Wind Farm, LLC, Settlers Trail Wind Farm, LLC v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Docket No. EL14-66-002;

    Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Docket No. ER14-671-000;

    Internal MISO Generators v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. EL15-99-000;

    Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-675-000;

    California Independent System Operator Corporation, Docket No. ER16-693-000;

    ISO New England, Inc., Docket No. ER16-946-000;

    Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-1120-000; and

    Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-1211-000.

    The conference will be transcribed and webcast. A link to the webcast of this event will be available in the Commission Calendar of Events at http://www.ferc.gov. Transcripts of the technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Reporting (202-347-3700). The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the webcasts and offers the option of listening to the conferences via phone-bridge for a fee. For additional information, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call (703) 993-3100.

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For more information about the technical conference, please contact Tony Dobbins ([email protected]; 202-502-6630) or Adam Pan ([email protected]; 202-502-6023). For information related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley ([email protected]; 202-502-8368).

    Dated: April 13, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08966 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9945-20-OA] Notification of Public Teleconference of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Community Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice of a teleconference of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). This teleconference is open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by the FRRCC.

    DATES:

    The public teleconference will be held from noon to 2:00 p.m. (Eastern Time); 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (Central Time); 10:00 a.m. to noon (Mountain Time); 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) on April 28, 2016.

    Location: The presentation will be available through adobe connect and audio will be available through a teleconference number that will be available to public participants by contacting Donna Perla.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public who wants further information concerning this public teleconference may contact Donna Perla, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator (MC1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via email at [email protected], or via telephone at 202-564-0184. General information concerning the EPA FRRCC can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/frrcc.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: EPA established the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC) in 2008 to provide independent policy advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.

    The purpose of this teleconference is to provide a briefing from two North Dakotan agricultural producers, (Mr. Mark Jennings and Mr. Rocklin Bateman, Supervisor of Morton County Soil Conservation District), on their adoption of soil health practices and their perspectives on resulting challenges and benefits.

    Meeting Access: For information on access to this teleconference or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Donna Perla at 202-564-0184 or [email protected] If special accommodations are needed, please request them at least four working days prior to the teleconference, to allow sufficient time to process your request.

    Dated: April 11, 2016. Ron Carleton, Counselor to the Administrator for Agricultural Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08914 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9945-25-OW] Notice of Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will be renewed for an additional two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The purpose of EFAB is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on issues associated with environmental financing. It is determined that EFAB is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law.

    Inquiries may be directed to Vanessa Bowie, Center for Environmental Finance, U.S. EPA, William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 (Mailcode 4201T), Telephone (202) 564-5186, or [email protected]

    Andrew D. Sawyers, Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09023 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0072; FRL-9944-25-OAR] Release of the Draft Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability and public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability for public review of the draft document titled Draft Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (draft IRP). The draft IRP contains the current plans for the review of the air quality criteria for particulate matter (PM) and the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM. The primary PM NAAQS are set to protect the public health and the secondary PM NAAQS are set to protect the public welfare from exposures to PM in ambient air.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before June 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The draft IRP will be available primarily via the Internet at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_index.html. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0072, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Scott Jenkins, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (mail code C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-1167; fax number: 919-541-5315; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through http://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 submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by reference a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternative and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumption and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. Information Specific to This Document

    Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is to list those air pollutants that in his or her “judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;” “the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources;” and “for which . . . [the Administrator] plans to issue air quality criteria. . . .” Air quality criteria are intended to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air. . . .” (42 U.S.C. 7408(b)). Under section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. Revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS based on the revised criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an independent scientific review committee “shall complete a review of the criteria . . . and the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards . . . and shall recommend to the Administrator any new . . . standards and revisions of the existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate. . . .” Since the early 1980s, this independent review function has been performed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).

    Presently, the EPA is reviewing the criteria and the primary and secondary NAAQS for PM.1 The draft IRP being announced today has been developed as part of the planning phase for the review. This phase began with a science policy workshop to identify issues and questions to frame the review.2 Drawing from the workshop discussions, the draft IRP was prepared jointly by the EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, within the Office of Research and Development, and the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, within the Office of Air and Radiation. The draft IRP presents the current plan and specifies the anticipated schedule for the entire review, the process for conducting the review, and the key policy-relevant science issues that will guide the review. The draft IRP will be reviewed by CASAC at a teleconference on May 23, 2016.3 The final IRP will include consideration of CASAC advice and public comments received on the draft IRP.

    1 The EPA's call for information for this review was issued on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71764).

    2 The EPA held a workshop titled “Workshop to Discuss Policy-Relevant Science to Inform EPA's Review of the Primary and Secondary NAAQS for PM” on February 9-11, 2015 (79 FR 71764).

    3 81 FR 13362, March 14, 2016.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Stephen Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09036 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [AU Docket No. 14-252; GN Docket No. 12-268; WT Docket No. 12-269; DA 15-1488; DA 16-124; DA 16-241; DA 16-306 ; DA 16-224] Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases File Formats and Corrects Technical Appendices Related to the Broadcast Incentive Auction AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notices; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    In these documents, the Commission announces the release of specifications for data file formats and sample data files for the broadcast incentive auction's reverse auction (Auction 1001) and forward auction (Auction 1002). The Commission also announces the availability of updated file formats, a bid upload feature, and additional information related to impairment data downloads for Auction 1002. Finally, the Commission makes technical corrections to Appendix C and Appendix G of the Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice (Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division: For file format and impairment data download questions, contact Melissa Dunford at (202) 418-0617, Sasha Javid at (202) 418-2392, or Craig Bomberger at (202) 418-2953. For questions regarding corrections to Appendix C and Appendix G of the Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice, contact Melissa Dunford at (202) 418-0617 or Martha Stancill at (202) 418-7015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the following documents:

    File Formats for Reverse Auction Public Notice, AU Docket No. 14-252, GN Docket No. 12-268, WT Docket No. 12-269, DA 16-241, released March 3, 2016;

    File Formats for Forward Auction Clock Phase Public Notice, AU Docket No. 14-252, GN Docket No. 12-268, WT Docket No. 12-269, DA 15-1488, released December 23, 2015;

    File Formats for Forward Auction Assignment Phase Public Notice, AU Docket No. 14-252, GN Docket No. 12-268, WT Docket No. 12-269, DA 16-124, released February 4, 2016;

    Updated File Formats for Forward Auction Clock Phase and Additional Impairment Data Downloads Public Notice, AU Docket No. 14-252, GN Docket No. 12-268, WT Docket No. 12-269, DA 16-306, released March 24, 2016; and

    Erratum, AU Docket No. 14-252, GN Docket No. 12-268, WT Docket No. 12-269, DA 16-224, released on March 4, 2016, to correct Appendix C and Appendix G of the Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice, AU Docket No. 14-252, GN Docket No. 12-268, WT Docket No. 12-269, DA 15-1183, released October 15, 2015.

    The complete texts of the Public Notices and Erratum are available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete texts are also available on the Commission's Web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov, the Auction 1000 Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/auctions/1000, or by using the search function on the ECFS Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    The File Formats for Reverse Auction Public Notice announces the release of specifications for the data file formats in which information related to the results of bidding in Auction 1001 will be made available to qualified bidders via the Auction System. The Public Notice also announces the release of sample data files pertaining to a hypothetical reverse auction bidder's stations, bids, and the results of its bidding. The specifications and sample data files, which are for illustrative purposes only, are available on the Auction 1001 Web site (www.fcc.gov/auctions/1001) in the Data section.

    The File Formats for Forward Auction Clock Phase Public Notice provides specifications for the data file formats in which information related to the results of bidding in the clock phase of Auction 1002 will be made available to qualified bidders via the Auction System. Sample data files, which are for illustrative purposes only, are available on the Auction 1002 Web site (www.fcc.gov/auctions/1002) in the Data section.

    The File Formats for Forward Auction Assignment Phase Public Notice announces the release of specifications for the data file formats in which information related to the results of bidding in the assignment phase of Auction 1002 will be made available to qualified bidders via the Auction System. Both the specifications and sample data files, which are for illustrative purposes only, are available on the Auction 1002 Web site (www.fcc.gov/auctions/1002) in the Data section.

    The Updated File Formats for Forward Auction Clock Phase and Additional Impairment Data Downloads Public Notice announces the availability of updated data file formats and sample data files for the clock phase of Auction 1002. For those data files that are populated on a round-to-round basis, there will be a separate download file for each round of the auction rather than a file containing cumulative data for all rounds. The Public Notice also announces that a bid upload feature will be available to forward auction bidders in all rounds of the auction rather than just the initial round of the auction. Finally, the Public Notice announces the availability of additional information related to the impairment data downloads for the forward auction. The updated specifications, sample data files, and reference files are available on the Auction 1002 Web site (www.fcc.gov/auctions/1002) in the Data section.

    The Erratum corrects Section 2.7 of Appendix C to the Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice regarding the constraints used in the quaternary clearing target optimization and Sections 4 and 9 of Appendix G to the Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice regarding when a bidder may submit switch bids and how next round bidder eligibility is calculated after an extended round. Updated versions of Appendix C and Appendix G are available in the Documents section of the Auction 1001 Web site (www.fcc.gov/auctions/1001) and in the Documents section of the Auction 1002 Web site (www.fcc.gov/auctions/1002).

    Federal Communications Commission. William Huber, Associate Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, WTB.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09026 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 16-336] Final Notice of Intent To Terminate Authorization of JuBe, Communications, LLC AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the International Bureau affords JuBe Communications, LLC (JuBe) final notice and opportunity to respond to the December 23, 2015 letter submitted by the Department of Justice, with the concurrence of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (collectively the “Executive Branch agencies”) requesting that the FCC terminate, and declare null and void and no longer in effect and/or revoke the international section 214 authorization issued to JuBe under file number ITC-214-20070607-00218.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before May 4, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Bureau is serving a copy on JuBe by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the last address of record appearing in Commission records. JuBe should send its response to Denise Coca, Chief, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau via email at [email protected] and to Cara Grayer, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau at [email protected] and file it in File No. ITC-214-20070607-00218 via IBFS at http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/pleading.do.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cara Grayer, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau, at (202) 418-2960 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Executive Branch Dec. 23, 2015 Letter, the Executive Branch agencies state that they have reason to believe that JuBe may be dissolved and no longer providing service. As a result, the Executive Branch agencies indicate that JuBe is unable to comply with the commitments and undertakings contained in the July 12, 2007 Letter that JuBe entered into with the Executive Branch agencies to address national security and law enforcement concerns. Compliance with these commitments is a condition to the international Section 214 authorization the Commission issued to JuBe on July 27, 2007, and by this notice the Bureau provides final notice to JuBe that it intends to take action to declare JuBe's international 214 authorization terminated for failure to comply with conditions of its authorization, and further advises that it may refer the matter for enforcement action for non-compliance with the applicable regulatory provisions. On January 19, 2016, the Bureau's Telecommunications and Analysis Division sent a letter to JuBe at the last known addresses on record via certified, return receipt mail, asking JuBe to respond to the Executive Branch agencies' allegations by February 18, 2016. The January 19, 2016 letter stated that failure to respond would result in the issuance of an order to terminate JuBe's international Section 214 authorization. JuBe did not respond to the request.

    In addition, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's rules require authorization holders to comply with certain requirements that enable the Commission to contact and communicate with the authorization holder and verify whether the authorization holder is still providing service. JuBe appears to have failed to comply with those requirements. For example, every carrier must designate an agent for service and keep that information current. See 47 U.S.C. 413; 47 CFR 1.47(h), 64.1195. See also 47 CFR 63.19, 63.21(a), and 63.21(d).

    JuBe's failure to respond to this Public Notice will be deemed as an admission of the facts alleged by the Executive Branch agencies and of the violation of the statutory and rule provisions set out above. The Bureau hereby provides final notice to JuBe that it intends to take action to declare JuBe's international 214 authorization terminated for failure to comply with conditions of its authorization, and further advises that it may refer the matter for enforcement action for non-compliance with the applicable regulatory provisions. JuBe must respond to this Public Notice no later than 15 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    The proceeding in this Notice shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Denise Coca, Chief, Telecommunications & Analysis Division, International Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09006 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10439 Security Bank, National Association, North Lauderdale, Florida

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10439 Security Bank, National Association, North Lauderdale, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Security Bank, National Association (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective April 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: April 14, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08972 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2016-08461) published on page 21870 of the issue for Wednesday, April 13, 2016.

    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis heading, the entry for Jeffery F. Teague and Sarah Shell Teague, as co-trustees of the Jeffrey F. Teague and Sarah Shell Teague Joint Revocable Trust; Susan Shell Allison, individually, and as trustee of the Susan Allison Testamentary Trust, with power to vote shares owned by her two minor children, all of Benton, Arkansas; Joseph Shell, individually, and as trustee of the Joe Shell Testamentary Trust, with power to vote shares owned by the Hanna Shell Irrevocable Trust, and by his minor child, all of Batesville, Arkansas; Jay Shell, with power to vote shares held by Carolyn Southerland Shell Testamentary Trust and by High Point Farms; Jayme Shell; Jessica Shell; Mary K. Shell, all of Batesville, Arkansas; and John Allison, and Anna Allison, both of Benton, Arkansas; all as members of the Allison-Shell-Teague family control group is revised to read as follows:

    1. Jeffery F. Teague and Sarah Shell Teague, as co-trustees of the Jeffery F. Teague and Sarah Shell Teague Joint Revocable Trust, all of El Dorado, Arkansas; Susan Shell Allison, individually, and as trustee of the Susan Allison Testamentary Trust and with power to vote shares owned by her two minor children, all of Benton, Arkansas; Joseph Shell, individually, and as trustee of the Joe Shell Testamentary Trust and with power to vote shares owned by the Hanna Shell Irrevocable Trust, by the Hunter Shell Irrevocable Trust, and by his minor child, all of Batesville, Arkansas; Jay Shell with power to vote shares held by Carolyn Southerland Shell Testamentary Trust and by High Point Farms, Jayme Shell, Jessica Shell, Mary K. Shell, all of Batesville, Arkansas; and John Allison and Anna Allison, both of Benton, Arkansas, all as members of the Allison-Shell-Teague Family Control Group; to retain voting shares of Citizens Bancshares of Batesville, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of The Citizens Bank, both in Batesville, Arkansas.

    Comments on this application must be received by April 28, 2016.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 14, 2016. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08982 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 4, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. The Smith family, as a group, consisting of Francis C. Smith, Dublin, Ohio; George E. Smith, Longwood, Florida; Gretchen D. Smith, Longwood, Florida; Rita Jane Smith, Dublin, Ohio; Jamie B. Peterson, Dallas, Texas; Jacob F. Peterson, Dallas, Texas; Frederic J. Smith, Dublin, Ohio; Susan G. Smith, Dublin, Ohio; Emily M. Smith, Dublin, Ohio; Lucy E. Smith, Dublin, Ohio; Rita J. Smith, Waverley, California; Elizabeth M. Franco, Waverley, California, and John A. Franco, Waverley, California; to retain voting shares of FNB Shares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of The First National Bank of McConnelsville, both in McConnelsville, Ohio.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 14, 2016. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08983 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the notices must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 4, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. BankGuam Holding Company, Hagatna, Guam; to acquire 25 percent of the voting shares of ASC Trust Company, Hagatna, Guam, and thereby engage in employee benefits consulting services, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(9)(ii).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 14, 2016. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08980 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 13, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Sunshine Financial, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of voting shares of Sunshine Community Bank (Sunshine Savings Bank), Tallahassee, Florida, upon its conversion from a savings bank to a state chartered bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 14, 2016.

    Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08984 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2016-08204) published on page 21346 of the issue for Monday, April 11, 2016.

    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis heading, the entry for Jeffery F. Teague and Sarah Shell Teague, as co-trustees of the Jeffery F. Teague and Sarah Shell Teague Joint Revocable Trust, all of El Dorado, Arkansas; Susan Shell Allison, individually, and as trustee of the Susan Allison Testamentary Trust with power to vote shares owned by her two minor children, all of Benton, Arkansas; Joseph Shell, individually, and as trustee of the Joe Shell Testamentary Trust with power to vote shares owned by the Hanna Shell Irrevocable Trust, and by his minor child, all of Batesville, Arkansas; Jay Shell with power to vote shares held by Carolyn Southerland Shell Testamentary Trust and by High Point Farms, Jayme Shell, Jessica Shell, Mary K. Shell, all of Batesville, Arkansas; and John Allison, and Anna Allison, both of Benton, Arkansas, all as members of the Allison-Shell-Teague family control group, is revised to read as follows:

    1. Jeffery F. Teague and Sarah Shell Teague, as co-trustees of the Jeffery F. Teague and Sarah Shell Teague Joint Revocable Trust, all of El Dorado, Arkansas; Susan Shell Allison, individually, and as trustee of the Susan Allison Testamentary Trust and with power to vote shares owned by her two minor children, all of Benton, Arkansas; Joseph Shell, individually, and as trustee of the Joe Shell Testamentary Trust and with power to vote shares owned by the Hanna Shell Irrevocable Trust, by the Hunter Shell Irrevocable Trust, and by his minor child, all of Batesville, Arkansas; Jay Shell with power to vote shares held by Carolyn Southerland Shell Testamentary Trust and by High Point Farms, Jayme Shell, Jessica Shell, Mary K. Shell, all of Batesville, Arkansas; and John Allison and Anna Allison, both of Benton, Arkansas; to acquire and retain voting shares of Citizens Bancshares of Batesville, and thereby indirectly acquire and retain voting shares of The Citizens Bank, both in Batesville, Arkansas.

    Comments on this application must be received by April 26, 2016.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 14, 2016. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08981 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED)

    OMB No.: 0970-439.

    Description: The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) within the Administration for Child and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeks an extension without change for an existing data collection called the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) through September 30, 2018 (OMB no. 0970-439; expiration date September 30, 2016). Under CSPED, OCSE has issued grants to eight state child support agencies to provide employment, parenting, and child support services to parents who are having difficulty meeting their child support obligations. The overall objective of the CSPED evaluation is to document and evaluate the effectiveness of the approaches taken by these eight CSPED grantees. This evaluation will yield information about effective strategies for improving child support payments by providing non-custodial parents employment and other services through child support programs. It will generate extensive information on how these programs operated, what they cost, the effects the programs had, and whether the benefits of the programs exceed their costs. The information gathered will be critical to informing decisions related to future investments in child support-led employment-focused programs for non-custodial parents who have difficulty meeting their child support obligations.

    The CSPED evaluation consists of the following two interconnected components or “studies”:

    1. Implementation and Cost Study. The goal of the implementation and cost study is to provide a detailed description of the programs—how they are implemented, their participants, the contexts in which they are operated, their promising practices, and their costs. The detailed descriptions will assist in interpreting program impacts, identifying program features and conditions necessary for effective program replication or improvement, and carefully documenting the costs of delivering these services. Key data collection activities of the implementation and cost study include: (1) Conducting semi-structured interviews with program staff and selected community partner organizations to gather information on program implementation and costs; (2) conducting focus groups with program participants to elicit participation experiences; (3) administering a web-based survey to program staff and community partners to capture broader staff program experiences; and (4) collecting data on study participant service use, dosage, and duration of enrollment throughout the demonstration using a web-based Management Information System (MIS). Two of these collection activities will be completed before the requested extension period begins. They include the focus groups and the web-based survey of program staff and community partners.

    2. Impact Study. The goal of the impact study is to provide rigorous estimates of the effectiveness of the eight programs using an experimental research design. Program applicants who are eligible for CSPED services are randomly assigned to either a program group that is offered program services or a control group. The study MIS that documents service use for the implementation study is also being used by grantee staff to conduct random assignment for the impact study. The impact study relies on data from surveys of participants, as well as administrative records from state and county data systems. Survey data are collected twice from program applicants. Baseline information is collected from all noncustodial parents who apply for the program prior to random assignment. A follow-up survey is collected from sample members twelve months after random assignment. A wide range of measures are collected through surveys, including measures of employment stability and quality, barriers to employment, parenting and co-parenting, and demographic and socio-economic characteristics. In addition, data on child support obligations and payments, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, Medicaid receipt, involvement with the criminal justice system, and earnings and benefit data collected through the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system are obtained from state and county databases.

    Respondents: Respondents to these activities include study participants, grantee staff and community partners, as well as state and county staff responsible for extracting data from government databases for the evaluation. Specific respondents per instrument are noted in the burden table below.

    Annual Burden Estimates

    The following table provides the burden estimates for the implementation and cost study and the impact study components of the current request. The requested extension period is estimated to be two years and three months, from July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018. Thus, burden hours for all components are annualized over two years and three months.

    Implementation and Cost Study Instrument Total
  • number of
  • respondents
  • remaining
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • remaining
  • Average burden hours per response remaining Estimated total burden hours
  • remaining
  • Total annual burden hours
  • remaining
  • Staff interview topic guide with program staff and community partners 120 1 1 120 53 Study MIS for grantee and partner staff to track program participation 200 468.75 0.0333 3,125 1,390
    Impact Study Instrument Total
  • number of
  • respondents
  • remaining
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • remaining
  • Average burden hours per response remaining Estimated total burden hours
  • remaining
  • Total annual burden hours
  • remaining
  • Introductory Script for Program Staff 120 9 .1667 180 80 Introductory Script for Program Participants 1,050 1 .1667 175 78 Baseline Survey 1,000 1 .5833 583 259 Study MIS to Conduct Random Assignment 120 9 .1667 180 80 Protocol for collecting administrative records 32 1 8 256 114 12-month follow-up survey 1,476 1 0.75 1,107 492

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,546.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration of Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08979 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) Client Contact Form, Public and Media Activity Report Form, and Resource Report Form AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Phillip Mckoy at 202.795.7397 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Grantees are required by Congress to provide information for use in program monitoring and for Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) purposes. This information collection reports Client Contact Form, Public and Media Activity Report Form, and Resource Report Form, which have been used to collect data to evaluate program effectiveness and improvement. This information is used as the primary method for monitoring the SHIP Projects. ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: Respondents: 54 SHIP grantees at 18 hours per month (216 hours per year, per grantee). Total Estimated Burden Hours: 11,664 hours per year.

    Dated: April 12, 2016. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08958 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0990-New-60D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-6162.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-0990-New-60D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Teen Pregnancy Prevention Tier 1B Design and Implementation Study

    Abstract: For the TPP Tier 1B Design and Implementation Study, we will document how each of the 50 grantees funded under this grant program are scaling-up efforts to strengthen and expand the reach of evidence-based TPP programs in their respective communities. OAH anticipates that grantees will employ diverse strategies in working within their communities to scale up their initiatives. Because this information collection will contribute to the emerging knowledge base about community-wide efforts to scale up evidence-based programs (EBPs), mobilize community support, and establish linkages to youth-friendly health services at the community level, it will be important to document the variety of grantee approaches and challenges they have encountered as a result of local conditions and strategies. To document these features and experiences, a lead staff member in each grantee organization will be interviewed by phone as well as up to two key grantee partners. Partners to be interviewed will be selected based on the prominence and variety of their roles within each initiative in order to provide multiple perspectives on implementation. To obtain more detail on implementation than can be gathered in a telephone interview, site visits with up to 15 grantees will be conducted to collect data that will illustrate in detail a variety of approaches and strategies for scaling up to the community level evidence-based approaches to teen pregnancy prevention.

    Likely Respondents: Respondents for telephone interviews will include 50 TPP Tier 1B grantee project directors and 100 implementation partner project directors. Site visit interview participants will include 120 grantee and partner staff members, and 40 Community Advisory Group members. Eighty Youth Leadership Council members will be recruited to participate in 10 focus groups.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Type of
  • respondent
  • Form
  • name
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Grantee director (telephone) Attachment B 50 1 90/60 75 Other grantee staff Attachment A 60 1 1 60 Partner director (telephone) Attachment B 100 1 90/60 150 Other partner directors Attachment A 60 1 1 60 Youth Leadership Council members Attachment A 80 1 1 80 Community Advisory Group Members Attachment A 40 1 1 40 Total 390 465

    OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Darius Taylor, Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08975 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4168-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting; Privacy, Security & Confidentiality Subcommittee

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.

    Name: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), Subcommittee on Privacy, Confidentiality & Security.

    Time and Date: May 24, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. EST; May 25, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:15 p.m. EST.

    Place: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, Room 705A, Washington, DC 20201, (202) 690-7100.

    Status: Open.

    Purpose: HIPAA sets forth methodologies for de-identifying protected health information (PHI). Once PHI is de-identified, it is no longer subject to the HIPAA rules and can be used for any purpose. The U.S. Department of Health and Human (HHS) Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance in 2012, specifying two ways through which a covered entity can determine that health information is de-identified: (1) The Expert Determination Method and (2) the Safe Harbor Method. Much has changed in the health care landscape since that time, including greater availability and use of “big data.” Concerns have been raised about the sufficiency of the HIPAA de-identification methodologies, the lack of oversight for unauthorized re-identification of de-identified data, and the absence of public transparency about the uses of de-identified data. The purpose of this hearing is to gather industry input on existing guidance and possible limitations of the de-identification methodologies for making recommendations to the Secretary of HHS.

    The objectives of this meeting are as follows:

    • Increase awareness of current and anticipated practices involving protected health information, such as the sale of information to data brokers and other data-mining companies for marketing and/or risk mitigation activities;

    • Understand HIPAA's de-identification requirements in light of these practices, and

    • Identify areas where outreach, education, technical assistance, a policy change, or guidance may be useful.

    Contact Person for More Information: Rebecca Hines, Executive Secretary, NCVHS, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4715 or Rachel Seeger, OS/OCR, Room 443D, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201, Phone: (202) 260-7106. Program information as well as summaries of meetings and a roster of committee members are available on the NCVHS home page of the HHS Web site: http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/, where further information including an agenda will be posted when available.

    Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on 770-488-3204 as soon as possible.

    Dated: April 12, 2016. James Scanlon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Data Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09075 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4151-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: OMB # 0990-0424-60D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Adolescent Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR is for revision of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0990-0424, which expires on January 31, 2019. Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR. Prior to submitting that ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-6162.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier OMB # 0990-0424-60D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Positive Adolescent Futures (PAF) Study

    Abstract: The Office of Adolescent Health (OAH), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting approval by OMB on a revised data collection. The Positive Adolescent Futures (PAF) Study will provide information about program design, implementation, and impacts through a rigorous assessment of program impacts and implementation of two programs designed to support expectant and parenting teens. These programs are located in Houston, Texas and throughout the state of California. This revised information collection request includes the 24-month follow-up survey instrument related to the impact study. The data collected from this instrument in the two study sites will provide a detailed understanding of program impacts about two years after youth are enrolled in the study and first have access to the programming offered by each site.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The data will serve two main purposes. First, the data will be used to determine program effectiveness by comparing outcomes on repeat pregnancies, sexual risk behaviors, health and well-being, and parenting behaviors between treatment (program) and control youth. Second, the data will be used to understand whether the programs are more effective for some youth than others. The findings from these analyses of program impacts will be of interest to the general public, to policymakers, and to organizations interested in supporting expectant and parenting teens.

    Likely Respondents: The 24-month follow-up survey data will be collected through a web-based survey or through telephone interviews with study participants; i.e. adolescents randomly assigned to a program for expectant and parenting teens being tested for program effectiveness, or to a control group. The mode of survey administration will primarily be based on the preference of the study participants. The survey will be completed by 1,515 respondents across the two study sites. Clearance is requested for three years.

    The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    24-month follow-up survey of impact study participants 505 1 .5 252.5 Total 252.5

    OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Darius Taylor, Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08974 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4168-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention; Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes and Urban Indian Communities Announcement Type: Competing Continuation Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2016-IHS-EPI-0001 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.231 Key Dates Application Deadline Date: June 21, 2016 Review Date: July 11-15, 2016 Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 15, 2016 Signed Tribal Resolutions Due Date: June 21, 2016 Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date: June 21, 2016 I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive cooperative agreement applications for Tribal Epidemiology Centers serving American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Tribes and urban Indian communities. This program is managed by the IHS Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention (DEDP). This program is authorized by the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA), as amended, 25 U.S.C. 1621m, the Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. 13, and described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.231.

    Background

    The Tribal Epidemiology Center (TEC) program was authorized by Congress in 1998 as a way to provide public health support to multiple Tribes and urban Indian communities in each of the IHS Areas. The funding opportunity announcement is open to eligible Tribes, Tribal organizations, Indian organizations, intertribal consortia, and urban Indian organizations, including currently funded TECs.

    TECs are uniquely positioned within Tribes, Tribal and urban Indian organizations to conduct disease surveillance, research, prevention and control of disease, injury, or disability, and to assess the effectiveness of AI/AN public health programs. In addition, they can fill gaps in data needed for Government Performance and Results Act and Healthy People 2020 measures. Some of the existing TECs have already developed innovative strategies to monitor the health status of Tribes and urban Indian communities, including development of Tribal health registries and use of sophisticated record linkage computer software to correct existing state data sets for racial misclassification. TECs work in partnership with IHS DEDP to provide a more accurate national picture of Indian health status.

    TECs provide critical support for activities that promote Tribal self-governance and effective management of Tribal and urban Indian health programs. Data generated locally and analyzed by TECs enable Tribes and urban Indian communities to effectively plan and make decisions that best meet the needs of their communities. In addition, TECs can immediately provide feedback to local data systems which will lead to improvements in Indian health data overall.

    As more Tribes choose to operate health programs in their communities, TECs ultimately will provide additional public health services such as disease control and prevention programs. Some existing centers provide assistance to Tribal and urban Indian communities in such areas as sexually transmitted disease control and cancer prevention. They also assist Tribes and urban Indian communities to establish baseline data for successfully evaluating intervention and prevention activities through activities such as conducting Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance (BRFS).

    The TEC program will continue to enhance the ability of the Indian health system to collect and manage data more effectively and to better understand and develop the link between public health problems and behavior, socioeconomic conditions, and geography. The TEC program will also support Tribal and urban Indian communities by providing technical training in public health practice and prevention-oriented research and by promoting public health career pathways.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to strengthen public health capacity and to fund Tribes, Tribal and urban Indian organizations, and intertribal consortia in identifying relevant health status indicators and priorities using sound epidemiologic principles. Work-plans submitted in response to this announcement must incorporate the grantee's desired objectives and demonstrate at minimum, four of the seven TEC core functional areas as outlined in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) at 25 U.S.C. 1621m(b). Below is a list of the seven core functions of the TECs:

    (1) Collect data relating to, and monitor progress made toward meeting, each of the health status objectives of the Service, the Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations in the service area;

    (2) Evaluate existing delivery systems, data systems, and other systems that impact the improvement of Indian health;

    (3) Assist Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations in identifying highest-priority health status objectives and the services needed to achieve those objectives, based on epidemiological data;

    (4) Make recommendations for the targeting of services needed by the populations served;

    (5) Make recommendations to improve health care delivery systems for Indians and urban Indians;

    (6) Provide requested technical assistance to Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations in the development of local health service priorities and incidence and prevalence rates of disease and other illness in the community; and

    (7) Provide disease surveillance and assist Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian communities to promote public health.

    As grantees develop their desired objectives addressing a minimum of four of the core functions as outlined in IHCIA, grantees may include but are not limited to the following activities: Research, prevention and control of disease, injury, or disability; assessment of the effectiveness of AI/AN public health programs; epidemiologic analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of surveillance data; investigation of disease outbreaks; development and implementation of epidemiologic studies; development and implementation of disease control and prevention programs; and coordination of activities of other public health authorities in the region. It is the intent of IHS to fund sufficient TECs to serve Tribes and urban Indian communities in all 12 IHS administrative areas.

    Each TEC selected for funding will act under a cooperative agreement with the IHS. During funded activities, the TECs may receive Protected Health Information (PHI) for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability, including, but not limited to, reporting of disease, injury, vital events, such as birth or death, and the conduct of public health surveillance, public health investigation, and public health interventions for the Tribal and urban Indian communities that they serve. TECs acting under a cooperative agreement with IHS are public health authorities for which the disclosure of PHI by covered entities is authorized by the Privacy Rule, 45 CFR 164.512(b). To achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under letter B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities. Program Office will be responsible for activities under letter A. IHS Programmatic Involvement.

    Pre-Conference Grant Requirements

    The awardee is required to comply with the “HHS Policy on Promoting Efficient Spending: Use of Appropriated Funds for Conferences and Meeting Space, Food, Promotional Items, and Printing and Publications,” dated December 16, 2013 (“Policy”), as applicable to conferences funded by grants and cooperative agreements. The Policy is available at http://www.hhs.gov/grants/contracts/contract-policies-regulations/conference-spending/.

    The awardee is required to:

    Provide a separate detailed budget justification and narrative for each conference anticipated. The cost categories to be addressed are as follows: (1) Contract/Planner, (2) Meeting Space/Venue, (3) Registration Web site, (4) Audio Visual, (5) Speakers Fees, (6) Non-Federal Attendee Travel, (7) Registration Fees, (8) Other (explain in detail and cost breakdown). For additional questions, please contact Selina Keryte, Program Officer at 301-443-7064 or email her at [email protected]

    II. Award Information Type of Award

    Cooperative Agreement.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2016 is approximately $4.4 million. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $350,000 and $1,000,000 annually. The amount of funding available for the competing continuation awards issued under this announcement are subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    Approximately 12 awards will be issued under this program announcement.

    Project Period

    The project period is for five years and will run consecutively from September 30, 2016 to September 29, 2021.

    Cooperative Agreement

    Cooperative agreements awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are administered under the same policies as a grant. The funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and each grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:

    Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement A. IHS Programmatic Involvement

    (1) Provide funded TECs with ongoing consultation and technical assistance to plan, implement, and evaluate each component as described under Recipient Activities. Consultation and technical assistance may include, but not be limited to, the following areas:

    (a) Interpretation of current scientific literature related to epidemiology, statistics, surveillance, Healthy People 2020 and 2030 objectives, and other public health issues;

    (b) Design and implementation of each program component such as surveillance, epidemiologic analysis, outbreak investigation, development of epidemiologic studies, development of disease control programs, and coordination of activities; and

    (c) Overall operational planning and program management.

    (2) Coordinate all IHS epidemiologic activities on a national scope including development and management of disease surveillance systems, generation of related reports, and investigation of disease outbreaks.

    (3) Conduct annual site visits to TECs and/or coordinate TEC visits to IHS to assess work plans and ensure data security; confirm compliance with applicable laws and regulations; assess program activities; and to mutually resolve problems, as needed.

    (4) Participate in annual TEC meeting for information sharing, problem solving, or training.

    (5) Provide training in the use of data from the Epidemiology Data Mart (EDM) for purposes of creating reports for disease surveillance, epidemiologic analysis, and epidemiologic studies. Training can be provided online, or at the request of the grantee onsite.

    (6) Coordinate opportunities for training of TEC staff where applicable. Examples include IHS Outbreak Response Review course, webinars on the Epi Data Mart and data use, technical assistance, use of statistical software, and fellowship opportunities.

    B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities

    (1) Collect data relating to, and monitor progress made toward meeting, each of the health status objectives of the service, the Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations in the Service area.

    (a) Establish culturally appropriate community health assessments to allow Tribal and urban Indian leaders to make informed decisions, prioritize health problems, and develop, implement, and evaluate community health improvement plans. Examples of the health reports could include stakeholder health assessments, profile data or any other data reports.

    (b) Establish a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) with the IHS Area Office to facilitate access to IHS electronic health record data that facilitates:

    1. “Routine” activities for which the TEC will have access to de-identified data from IHS EDM.

    2. Activities for which TECs will need additional permission for access and use of IHS data, such as special studies or research involving personal identifiers.

    3. Complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and the Privacy Act, and related practices to ensure sufficient stewardship of shared data.

    4. Training requirements that must be met for initial and continued data access, such as periodic privacy and security procedures training.

    5. For TECs that receive EDM data, annual reporting on data use, number and types of data products produced (e.g., reports, publications, presentations), and impacts of EDM data use and products on established health status objectives is required.

    (2) Evaluate existing delivery systems, data systems, and other systems that impact the improvement of Indian health.

    (a) Evaluations can address but are not limited to availability of health care resources, impacts of the Affordable Care Act, access to care, quality of care, health impact assessment, patient satisfaction, and the availability and capacity of providers.

    (3) Assist Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations in identifying highest-priority health status objectives and the services needed to achieve those objectives, based on epidemiological data.

    (9a) Develop relevant Community Health Profiles (CHPs) for Tribal and urban Indian communities served by the TEC within the geographical area of responsibility.

    1. Establish CHPs specific for each Tribal or urban Indian community entirely served by the TECs.

    2. Establish a regional CHP encompassing all the Tribal, and/or urban Indian communities served by the TEC.

    3. Provide a plan that includes a project overview, specific health indicators, and means of dissemination for both Tribe-specific and regional CHPs.

    (b) Participate in local, regional and national committees that address public health priorities and, as appropriate, with other Federal agencies.

    (c) Establish and maintain an advisory council that can provide overall program direction and guidance. The advisory council should include some members with technical expertise in epidemiology and public health (e.g., from state health departments or county health departments) and representation from the Tribal health and urban Indian health programs within the TECs regional area.

    (4) Make recommendations for the targeting of services needed by the populations served.

    (a) Translate available data and/or results of analyses on disease incidence/prevalence and determined risk factors into useful products, messaging, and outreach to effectively guide stakeholders' interventions addressing public health priorities.

    (5) Make recommendations to improve health care delivery systems for Indians and urban Indians.

    (6) Provide technical assistance to Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations in the development of local health service priorities and incidence and prevalence rates of disease and other illness in the community.

    (a) Provide culturally appropriate training based on the needs of Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian organization served. Topics may include but are not limited to program evaluation, data analysis, data quality, survey design and administration, program planning, community health assessment, and outbreak response.

    (b) Establish an outbreak response capacity.

    1. Explain how the TEC will establish and maintain relationships with other public health authorities (e.g., Tribal, county, state) in order to facilitate collaborative outbreak response activities at the local or on a national or regional level.

    2. Obligate a minimum of one program staff per year to attend the training in either the “Outbreak Response Review” or “Epidemiology Ready Course”.

    3. Explain how the TEC will collaborate and assist in public health emergencies with the IHS, DEDP, State, local, county, Tribal and other Federal authorities.

    (7) Provide disease surveillance and assist Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations to promote public health.

    (a) Enhance or develop disease surveillance systems. Surveillance systems can address infectious and chronic diseases, record linkage studies to improve existing surveillance systems, suicide data tracking, regional health registries, influenza surveillance, among others.

    (b) Develop and implement at least one Tribal and/or urban Indian BRFS survey to evaluate health risk behaviors of AI/AN populations served by the TECs, to include at minimum:

    1. Protocol development that includes interview trainings, sampling method and recruitment strategy;

    2. Database development to house data collected from the BRFS;

    3. A dissemination plan that includes a project overview, dissemination goals, targeted audiences, key messages, and project evaluation;

    4. Collaboration with the Tribal health director, health board, and/or the Tribal council, as appropriate, for review and approval of the BRFS project;

    5. Obtain institutional review board (IRB) review(s) and approval(s) as needed to facilitate implementation.

    In addition to the seven TEC core functional areas as outlined in the IHCIA, the grantee must also address the following activities in the work plan.

    (1) Describe existing TEC staff capabilities or hiring plans for the key personnel with appropriate expertise in epidemiology, health sciences, and program management. The TEC must also demonstrate access to specialized expertise such as a doctoral level epidemiologist and/or a biostatistician.

    (2) Explain how recipient will support the Agency's priorities:

    (a) To renew and strengthen our partnerships with Tribes and urban Indians;

    (b) To improve IHS;

    (c) To improve the quality of and access to care; and

    (d) To make all work accountable, transparent, fair and inclusive.

    You may access information of IHS priorities via the Internet at the following https://www.ihs.gov/aboutihs/index.cfm/overview/.

    III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligibility

    To be eligible for this competing continuation announcement an applicant must be one of the following:

    Definitions

    Indian Tribe—Indian Tribe means any Indian Tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or group or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) [43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.], which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians. 25 U.S.C. 1603(14).

    Tribal Organization—Tribal organization means the elected governing body of any Indian Tribe or any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian community to be served by such organization and which includes the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities. 25 U.S.C. 1603(26), 25 U.S.C. 450b(1).

    Urban Indian organization—Urban Indian organization means a non-profit corporate body situated in an urban center, governed by an urban Indian controlled board of directors, and providing for the maximum participation of all interested Indian groups and individuals, which body is capable of legally cooperating with other public and private entities for the purpose of performing the activities described in section 1653(a) of the IHCIA. 25 U.S.C. 1603(29).

    Intertribal consortium—An intertribal consortium or AI/AN organization is eligible to receive a cooperative agreement if it is incorporated for the primary purpose of improving AI/AN health and representative of the Indian Tribes or urban Indian communities residing in the area in which the intertribal consortium is located. 25 U.S.C. 1621m (d)(2).

    Current Tribal Epidemiology Center grantees are eligible to apply for competing continuation funding under this announcement and must demonstrate that they have complied with previous terms and conditions of the Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes and Urban Indian Communities grant in order to receive funding under this announcement.

    All applicants must represent or serve a population of at least 60,000 AI/AN to be eligible, as demonstrated by Tribal resolutions, blanket Tribal resolutions or Letter of Support (LoS) from urban Indian clinic directors and/or Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). Applicants must describe the population of AI/ANs and Tribes that will be represented. The number of AI/ANs served must be substantiated by documentation describing IHS user populations, United States Census Bureau data, clinical catchment data, or any method that is scientifically and epidemiologically valid. Resolutions from each Tribe, AN village and LoS from each urban Indian community represented must be included in the application package. Collaborations with IHS Areas, Federal agencies such as the CDC, State, academic institutions or other organizations are encouraged (letters of support and collaboration should be included in the application).

    Note:

    Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount ($1,000,000) outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.

    Tribal Resolution

    An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization that is proposing a project affecting another Indian Tribe must include Tribal resolutions from all affected Tribes to be served. Applications by Tribal organizations will not require a specific Tribal resolution if the current Tribal resolution(s) under which they operate would encompass the proposed grant activities. TECs that have an existing resolution(s) or blanket resolution in place that supports authority to apply for funding opportunity announcement on behalf of the members will not be required to submit a new resolution(s), if the resolution(s) from the prior cycle is still active.

    Urban Indian organization(s) that is proposing a project affecting another urban Indian organizations or urban Indian clinics must include LoS signed by the Urban Indian clinic director and/or CEO. An urban epidemiology center that has existing LoS documents from the Urban Indian clinic director and/or CEO in place granting authority to apply for the funding opportunity announcement on behalf of the urban Tribal members will not be required obtain additional LoS documents.

    Please include a copy of the new or active Tribal resolution(s), blanket resolutions, or LoS in the application. The applicant must demonstrate how these documents meet the minimum requirement of 60,000 AI/AN population to be eligible for the cooperative agreement.

    An official signed Tribal resolution, Tribal blanket resolution, or LoS for the urban Indian organization must be received by the DGM prior to a Notice of Award being issued to any applicant selected for funding. However, if an official signed Tribal resolution, Tribal blanket resolution, or LoS cannot be submitted with the electronic application submission prior to the official application deadline date, a draft Tribal resolution, Tribal blanket resolution, or LoS for urban Indian organization must be submitted by the deadline in order for the application to be considered complete and eligible for review. The draft Tribal resolution, Tribal blanket resolution, or LoS is not in lieu of the required signed resolution, but is acceptable until a signed resolution or LoS is received. If an official signed Tribal resolution, Tribal blanket resolution, or LoS is not received by DGM when funding decisions are made, then a Notice of Award will not be issued to that applicant and they will not receive any IHS funds until such time as they have submitted a signed resolution to the grants management specialist listed in this funding announcement.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status

    Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (i.e., FedEx tracking, postal return receipt, etc.).

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/funding/.

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).

    • Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed 10 pages).

    ○ Background information on the organization.

    ○ Proposed scope of work that includes grantees' desired objectives, a minimum of four of the seven core functions of the TEC as outlined in the IHCIA, and provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.

    • Tribal resolution, Tribal blanket resolution, or LoS from urban Indian clinic directors/CEOs.

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Position descriptions and biographical sketches for all key personnel.

    • Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required) in order to receive IDC.

    • Organizational Chart.

    • Map of the areas to benefit from the program.

    • Data Sharing Agreements (if applicable).

    • Letters of support from collaborating agencies.

    • Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Audit as required by 45 CFR part 75, subpart F or other required Financial Audit (if applicable).

    Acceptable forms of documentation include:

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site: http://harvester.census.gov/sac/dissem/accessoptions.html?submit=Go+To+Database.

    Public Policy Requirements

    All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives

    A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than 10 pages and must: Be single-spaced, be typewritten, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 characters per one inch, and be printed on one side only of standard size 81/2″ x 11″ paper.

    Be sure to succinctly address and answer all questions listed under the narrative and place them under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they shall not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 10 pages will be reviewed. The 10 page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, and/or other appendix items.

    There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.

    Part A: Program Information (3 Pages) Section 1: Introduction and Need for Assistance

    Must include the applicant's background information, a description of epidemiological service, epidemiologic capacity and history of support for such activities. Applicants need to include current public health activities, what program services are currently being provided, and interactions with other public health authorities in the region (State, local, or Tribal).

    Section 2: Organizational Capabilities

    The applicant must describe staff capabilities or hiring plans for the key personnel with appropriate expertise in epidemiology, health sciences, and program management. The applicant must also demonstrate access to specialized expertise such as a doctoral level epidemiologist and/or a biostatistician. Applicants must include an organizational chart, and provide position descriptions and biographical sketches of key personnel including consultants or contractors. The position description should clearly describe each position and its duties. Resume should indicate that proposed staff is qualified to carry out the project activities.

    Section 3: User Population

    The number of AI/ANs served must be substantiated by documentation describing IHS user populations, United States Census Bureau data, clinical catchment data, or any method that is scientifically and epidemiologically valid.

    Part B: Program Planning and Evaluation (5 Pages) Section 1: Program Plans

    Applicant must include a work-plan that describes program goals, objectives, activities, timeline, and responsible person for carrying out the objectives/activities. The applicant must include at least a minimum of four of the seven core functions of the IHCIA and other activities listed under the Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities.

    Section 2: Program Evaluation

    Applicant must define the criteria to be used to evaluate activities listed in the work-plan under the Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities. They must explain the methodology that will be used to determine if the needs identified for the objectives are being met and if the outcomes identified are being achieved and describe how evaluation findings will be disseminated to stakeholders.

    Part C: Program Report (2 Pages)

    Section 1: Describe major accomplishments over the last 24 months.

    Sample: Please identify and describe significant program achievements associated with the delivery of quality health services. Provide a comparison of the actual accomplishments to the goals established for the project period, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.

    Section 2: Describe major activities over the last 24 months.

    Sample: Please identify and summarize recent major health related project activities of the work done during the project period.

    B. Budget Narrative: This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals, objectives, and activities as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The page limitation should not exceed five pages.

    3. Submission Dates and Times

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Paul Gettys ([email protected]), DGM Grant Systems Coordinator, by telephone at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204. Please be sure to contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Mr. Robert Tarwater, Director, DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process. A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov Web site to submit an application electronically and select the “Find Grant Opportunities” link on the homepage. Download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit the completed application via the http://www.Grants.gov Web site. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    If the applicant receives a waiver to submit paper application documents, they must follow the rules and timelines that are noted below. The applicant must seek assistance at least ten days prior to the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • If it is determined that a waiver is needed, the applicant must submit a request in writing (emails are acceptable) to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Please include a clear justification for the need to deviate from the standard electronic submission process.

    • If the waiver is approved, the application should be sent directly to the DGM by the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the DEDP will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, please access it through http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform, or to expedite the process, call (866) 705-5711.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 10 page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 65 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Criteria A. Introduction and Need for Assistance (25 Points)

    a. Describe the applicant's current public health activities including programs or services currently provided, interactions with other public health authorities in the regions (State, local, or Tribal) and how long it has been operating. Specifically describe current epidemiologic capacity and history of support for such activities.

    b. Provide a physical location of the TEC and area to be served by the proposed program including a map (include the map in the attachments), and specifically describe the office space and how it is going to be paid for.

    c. Describe the applicant's user population. The applicant must demonstrate AI/ANs will be served and must be substantiated by documentation describing IHS user populations, United States Census Bureau data, clinical catchment data, or any method that is scientifically and epidemiologically valid data.

    B. Project Objectives, Work Plan, and Approach (45 Points)

    a. State in measurable and realistic terms the objectives and appropriate activities to achieve each objective for the projects as listed in the Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement, B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities. The work-plan needs to include the grantees desired objectives and must demonstrate a minimum of four of the seven TEC core functional areas as outlined IHCIA.

    b. Identify the expected results, benefits, and outcomes or products to be derived from each objective of the project.

    c. Include a work-plan for each objective that indicates when the objectives and major activities will be accomplished and who will conduct the activities.

    C. Program Evaluation (10 Points)

    a. Define the criteria to be used to evaluate activities listed in the work-plan under the Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement, B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities.

    b. Explain the methodology that will be used to determine if the needs identified for the objectives are being met and if the outcomes identified are being achieved.

    c. Describe how evaluation findings will be disseminated to stakeholders.

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (15 Points)

    a. Explain both the management and administrative structure of the organization including documentation of current certified financial management systems from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, IHS, or a Certified Public Accountant and an updated organizational chart (include in appendix).

    b. Describe the ability of the organization to manage a program of the proposed scope.

    c. Provide position descriptions and biographical sketches of key personnel, including those of consultants or contractors in the Appendix. Position descriptions should very clearly describe each position and its duties, indicating desired qualification and experience requirements related to the project. Resumes should indicate that the proposed staff is qualified to carry out the project activities. Applicants with expertise in epidemiology will receive priority.

    d. Applicant must at least have two epidemiologists as part of the proposal.

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (5 Points)

    a. The five points for Categorical Budget only applies to Year 1. Provide a line item budget and budget narrative for Year 1.

    b. Provide a justification by line item in the budget including sufficient cost and other details to facilitate the determination of cost allowance and relevance of these costs to the proposed project. The funds requested should be appropriate and necessary for the scope of the project.

    c. If use of consultants or contractors are proposed or anticipated, provide a detailed budget and scope of work that clearly defines the deliverables or outcomes anticipated.

    d. If applicable, if the applicant will be hosting a conference, the applicant must include a separate detailed budget justification and narrative for the conference. The cost categories to be addressed are as follows: (1) Contract/Planner, (2) Meeting Space/Venue, (3) Registration Web site, (4) Audio Visual, (5) Speakers Fees, (6) Non-Federal Attendee Travel, (7) Registration Fees, (8) Other (explain in detail and cost breakdown).

    e. Applicant is encouraged to submit a line item budget and budget narrative by category for years 2-5 as an appendix to show the five-year plan of the proposal.

    Multi-Year Project Requirements

    Projects requiring a second, third, fourth, and/or fifth year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.

    Additional Documents Can Be Uploaded as Appendix Items in Grants.gov

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Map of area identifying project location(s).

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e., data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS Program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget/project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 65 and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application submitted. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved But Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved”, but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2016 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note:

    Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations, policies, and OMB cost principles:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this Program Announcement.

    B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) https://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/finance/indirect-Cost-Services/indian-Tribes. For questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please call the grants management specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required annually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, a summary of progress to date or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period. For TECs that receive EDM data, annual reporting on data use, number and types of products produced (e.g., reports, publications, presentations), and impacts of EDM data use and products on established health status objectives is required.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at: http://www.dpm.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the grants management specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: the Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Post Conference Grant Reporting

    The following requirements were enacted in Section 3003 of the Consolidated Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, and Section 119 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014; Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-12-12: All HHS/IHS awards containing grants funds allocated for conferences will be required to complete a mandatory post award report for all conferences. Specifically: The total amount of funds provided in this award/cooperative agreement that were spent for “Conference X”, must be reported in final detailed actual costs within 15 days of the completion of the conference. Cost categories to address should be: (1) Contract/Planner, (2) Meeting Space/Venue, (3) Registration Web site, (4) Audio Visual, (5) Speakers Fees, (6) Non-Federal Attendee Travel, (7) Registration Fees, (8) Other.

    D. Federal Sub-Award Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting. For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    E. Compliance With Executive Order 13166 Implementation of Services Accessibility Provisions for All Grant Application Packages and Funding Opportunity Announcements

    Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/guidance-federal-financial-assistance-recipients-title-VI/.

    The HHS Office for Civil Rights also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under Federal civil rights laws at http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

    Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his/her exclusion from benefits limited by federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the Indian Health Service.

    Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/forms/hhs-690.pdf, and send it directly to the: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    F. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

    The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.

    As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.

    Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

    As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-federal entity or an applicant for a federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award.

    Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) all information related to violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. 45 CFR 75.113.

    Disclosures must be sent in writing to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 09E70, Rockville, Maryland 20857 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line). Ofc: (301) 443-5204; Fax: (301) 594-0899; Email: [email protected] AND U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201. URL: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/index.asp(Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line). Fax: (202) 205-0604 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line) or Email: [email protected]

    Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 & 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).

    VII. Agency Contacts

    1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Selina T. Keryte, MPH, Project Officer, Office of Public Health Support, Division of Epidemiology & Disease Prevention, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 09E10D, Rockville, MD 20857. Phone: (301) 443-7064 or [email protected]

    2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: John Hoffman, Senior Grants Management Specialist, IHS Division of Grants Management, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857. Phone: (301) 443-2116; Email: [email protected]

    3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, IHS Division of Grants Management, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857. Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line 301-443-5204; Fax: (301) 594-0899; E-Mail: [email protected]

    VIII. Other Information

    The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: April 8, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09012 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Development of the CB1/iNOS Series of Compounds as a Therapeutic To Treat System Sclerosis, Scleroderma, and Other Skin Fibrotic Diseases in Humans AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Public Health Service, PHS, National Institutes of Health.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR part 404.7, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to practice the following inventions embodied in the following patent applications, entitled “CB1 receptor mediating compounds”:

    1. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.: 61/991,333, HHS Ref. No.: E-140-2014/0-US-01, Filed: May 09, 2014 2. PCT Application No.: PCT/US2015/029946, HHS Ref. No.: E-140-2014/0-PCT-02, Filed: May 08, 2015 3. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.: 61/725,949, HHS Ref. No.: E-282 -2012/0-US-01, Filed: November 13, 2012 4. PCT Application No.: PCT/US2013/069686, HHS Ref. No.: E-282 -2012/0-PCT-02, Filed: November 12, 2013 5. U.S. Patent Application No.: 14/442,383, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-US-03, Filed: May 12, 2015 6. Canadian Patent Application No.: 2889697, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-CA-04, Filed: April 27, 2015 7. European Patent Application No.: 13802153.0, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-EP-05, Filed: June 01, 2015 8. Indian Patent Application No.: 3733/DELNP/2015, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-IN-06, Filed: May 01, 2015 9. Japanese Patent Application No.: 2015-542015, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-JP-07, Filed: May 11, 2015 10. Chinese Patent Application No.: 201380069389.9, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-CN-08, Filed: July 3, 2015 11. US Provisional Application No.: 62/171,179, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/1-US-01, Filed: June 04, 2015
    to Vital Spark Inc., (“Vital Spark”), a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware and having an office in Jerusalem, Israel. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America. This license may be worldwide. The field of use may be limited to the use of the Licensed Patent Rights to “develop the CB1/iNOS series of compounds as a therapeutic to treat systemic sclerosis, scleroderma, and other skin fibrotic diseases.” DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the Technology Advancement Office, The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases on or before May 4, 2016 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, patents, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Betty Tong, Ph.D., Sr. Licensing and Patenting Manager, Technology Advancement Office, The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 12A South Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, Email: [email protected] A signed confidentiality non-disclosure agreement will be required to receive copies of any patent applications that have not been published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the World Intellectual Property Organization.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This technology, and its corresponding patent applications, is directed to methods of treating fibrosis, obesity and associated diseases such as type 2 diabetes by administering an agent that reduces appetite, body weight, hepatic steatosis, and insulin resistance. This technology may be useful as a means for treating various fibrotic diseases and metabolic syndromes without serious adverse neuropsychiatric side effects.

    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 fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the Technology Advancement Office receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Properly filed competing applications for a license in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: April 13, 2016. Anna Amar, Acting Deputy Director, Technology Advancement Office, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08985 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 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 Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-13-228: Biomarkers for Diabetes and Kidney Diseases using Biosamples from the NIDDK Repository (R01).

    Date: June 1, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contaact Person: Najma Begum, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, ROOM 7349, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8894, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK-KUH Fellowship Review.

    Date: June 3, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Xiaodu Guo, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7023, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-4719, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Member Conflict SEP.

    Date: June 3, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Xiaodu Guo, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7023, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-4719, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-DK-15-027: Human Pancreas Procurement and Analysis Program (HPPAP) (UC4].

    Date: June 6, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Najma Begum, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7349, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, BETHESDA, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8894, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; RFA DK-15-025: Mechanisms Underlying the Contribution of Type 1 Diabetes Risk-Associated Variants (DP3).

    Date: June 23, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Najma Begum, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7349, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8894, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; George M. O'Brien Urology Cooperative Research Centers Program (U54).

    Date: July 12, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Capital View, 2850 South Potomac Avenue, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Jason D. Hoffert, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7343, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-496-9010, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 13, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08995 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Open Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (http://videocast.nih.gov/).

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee.

    Date: July 13, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Strategic Discussion of NCI's Clinical and Translational Research Programs.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Room 9 and 10, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Sheila A. Prindiville, MD, MPH Director, Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 6W136, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-6173, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ctac/ctac.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 13, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08949 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NEW NIDDK PARs on Pragmatic Research and Natural Experiments.

    Date: May 13, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7353, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 13, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08996 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Great Challenge Synthetic Biology Program Project.

    Date: May 19-20, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Sergei Ruvinov, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4158, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1180, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: High Throughput Screening.

    Date: May 19, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: David Filpula, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6181, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2902, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 13, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08991 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; “NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01)”

    Date: May 12, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 3F100, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jay R. Radke, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3G11B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane MSC-9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5046, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 14, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08993 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; NIBIB P41 Site Visit (2016/10).

    Date: May 1-3, 2016.

    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Dallas Marriott Suites Medical/Market Center, 2493 North Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, TX 75207.

    Contact Person: Ruixia Zhou, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Democracy Two Building, Suite 967, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-4773, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Dated: April 13, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08994 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: The Development of MRI-1569, MRI-2213 and MRI-2214 as a Therapeutic To Treat Obesity, Diabetes, Fatty Liver Disease and Liver Fibrosis AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Public Health Service, PHS, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR part 404.7, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to practice the following inventions embodied in the following patent applications, entitled “CB1 receptor mediating compounds”:

    1. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.: 61/991,333, HHS Ref. No.: E-140-2014/0-US-01, Filed: May 09, 2014. 2. PCT Application No.: PCT/US2015/029946, HHS Ref. No.: E-140-2014/0-PCT-02, Filed: May 08, 2015. 3. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.: 61/725,949, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-US-01, Filed: November 13, 2012. 4. PCT Application No.: PCT/US2013/069686, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-PCT-02, Filed: November 12, 2013. 5. U.S. Patent Application No.: 14/442,383, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-US-03, Filed: May 12, 2015. 6. Canadian Patent Application No.: 2889697, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-CA-04, Filed: April 27, 2015. 7. European Patent Application No.: 13802153.0, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-EP-05, Filed: June 01, 2015. 8. Indian Patent Application No.: 3733/DELNP/2015, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-IN-06, Filed: May 01, 2015. 9. Japanese Patent Application No.: 2015-542015, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-JP-07, Filed: May 11, 2015. 10. Chinese Patent Application No.: 201380069389.9, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/0-CN-08, Filed: July 3, 2015. 11. US Provisional Application No.: 62/171,179, HHS Ref. No.: E-282-2012/1-US-01, Filed: June 04, 2015. to Kalytera Therapeutics Inc., (“Kalytera”), a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware and having an office in Hermosa Beach, California. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America. This license may be worldwide. The field of use may be limited to the use of the Licensed Patent Rights to the development of select compounds from the patents listed above. DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the Technology Advancement Office, The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases on or before May 4, 2016 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, patents, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Betty Tong, Ph.D., Sr. Licensing and Patenting Manager, Technology Advancement Office, The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 12A South Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892; Email: [email protected] A signed confidentiality non-disclosure agreement will be required to receive copies of any patent applications that have not been published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the World Intellectual Property Organization.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This technology, and its corresponding patent applications, is directed to methods of treating fibrosis, obesity and associated diseases such as type 2 diabetes by administering an agent that reduces appetite, body weight, hepatic steatosis, and insulin resistance. This technology may be useful as a means for treating various fibrotic diseases and metabolic syndromes without serious adverse neuropsychiatric side effects.

    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 part 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the Technology Advancement Office receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.7.

    Properly filed competing applications for a license in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: April 13, 2016. Anna Amar, Acting Deputy Director, Technology Advancement Office, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08986 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

    The meetings will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    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: Cures Acceleration Network Review Board.

    Date: May 12, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.

    Agenda: Report from the Institute Director.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Conference Room 10, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Anna L. Ramsey-Ewing, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1072, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0809, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council.

    Date: May 12, 2016.

    Open: 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.

    Agenda: Report from the Institute Director and other staff.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Conference Room 10, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Conference Room 10, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Anna L. Ramsey-Ewing, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1072, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0809, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 13, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08992 Filed 4-18-16; 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: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 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.

    Proposed Project: Opioid Drugs in Maintenance and Detoxification Treatment of Opioid Dependence—42 CFR part 8 (OMB No. 0930-0206) and Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs)—Revision

    42 CFR part 8 establishes a certification program managed by SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). The regulation requires that Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) be certified. “Certification” is the process by which SAMHSA determines that an OTP is qualified to provide opioid treatment under the Federal opioid treatment standards established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. To become certified, an OTP must be accredited by a SAMHSA-approved accreditation body. The regulation also provides standards for such services as individualized treatment planning, increased medical supervision, and assessment of patient outcomes. This submission seeks continued approval of the information collection requirements in the regulation and of the forms used in implementing the regulation.

    SAMHSA currently has approval for the Application for Certification to Use Opioid Drugs in a Treatment Program Under 42 CFR 8.11 (Form SMA-162); the Application for Approval as Accreditation Body Under 42 CFR 8.3(b) (Form SMA-163); and the Exception Request and Record of Justification Under 42 CFR 8.12 (Form SMA-168), which may be used by physicians when there is a patient care situation in which the physician must make a treatment decision that differs from the treatment regimen required by the regulation. Form SMA-168 is a simplified, standardized form to facilitate the documentation, request, and approval process for exceptions.

    SAMHSA believes that the recordkeeping requirements in the regulation are customary and usual practices within the medical and rehabilitative communities and has not calculated a response burden for them. The recordkeeping requirements set forth in 42 CFR 8.4, 8.11, and 8.12 include maintenance of the following: 5-year retention by accreditation bodies of certain records pertaining to accreditation, and documentation by an OTP of the following: A patient's medical examination when admitted to treatment, a patient's history, a treatment plan, any prenatal support provided to the patient, justification of unusually large initial doses, changes in a patient's dosage schedule, justification of unusually large daily doses, the rationale for decreasing a patient's clinic attendance, and documentation of physiologic dependence.

    The rule also includes requirements that OTPs and accreditation organizations disclose information. For example, 42 CFR 8.12(e)(1) requires that a physician explain the facts concerning the use of opioid drug treatment to each patient. This type of disclosure is considered to be consistent with the common medical practice and is not considered an additional burden. Further, the rule requires, under Sec. 8.4(i)(1) that accreditation organizations shall make public their fee structure; this type of disclosure is standard business practice and is not considered a burden.

    A number of changes have been made to the forms. Forms have been reworded for clarification, updated with current SAMHSA mailing and web-submission information, and a few additional fields have been provided for clarity and for providers to best explain their services (e.g., expanding the former global patient census in the SMA-162 to request patient census by drug type—methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, or other) and the needs of their patients (e.g., including urinalysis results on the SMA-168 and adding “weather crisis” as a standard option for physician justification of the requested exception). Amendments also include the removal of information pertaining to faxing the forms to SAMHSA, as this is no longer an acceptable form of submission. The burden hours have increased slightly (by 28% or approximately 639 hours) due to an increase in the number of facilities accredited and certified by SAMHSA since the previous submissions of these forms. The forms are available online with a unique feature for both the SMA-162 and SMA-168 that pre-populates certain information within the form. This in turn reduces the program's time spent filling out the forms as well as the staff time spent on processing it.

    The tables that follow summarize the annual reporting burden associated with the regulation, including burden associated with the forms.

    Estimated Annual Reporting Requirement Burden for Accreditation Bodies 42 CFR citation Purpose Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses/
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours/
  • response
  • Total
  • hours
  • 8.3(b)(1-11) Initial approval (SMA-163) 1 1 1 6.00 6.00 8.3(c) Renewal of approval (SMA-163) 2 1 2 1.00 2.00 8.3(e) Relinquishment notification 1 1 1 0.50 0.50 8.3(f)(2) Non-renewal notification to accredited OTPs 1 90 90 0.10 9.00 8.4(b)(1)(ii) Notification to SAMHSA for seriously noncompliant OTPs 2 2 4 1.00 4.00 8.4(b)(1)(iii) Notification to OTP for serious noncompliance 2 10 20 1.00 20.00 8.4(d)(1) General documents and information to SAMHSA upon request 6 5 30 0.50 15.00 8.4(d)(2) Accreditation survey to SAMHSA upon request 6 75 450 0.02 9.00 8.4(d)(3) List of surveys, surveyors to SAMHSA upon request 6 6 36 0.20 7.20 8.4(d)(4) Report of less than full accreditation to SAMHSA 6 5 30 0.50 15.00 8.4(d)(5) Summaries of Inspections 6 50 300 0.50 150.00 8.4(e) Notifications of Complaints 12 6 72 0.50 36.00 8.6(a)(2) and (b)(3) Revocation notification to Accredited OTPs 1 185 185 0.30 55.50 8.6(b) Submission of 90-day corrective plan to SAMHSA 1 1 1 10.00 10.00 8.6(b)(1) Notification to accredited OTPs of Probationary Status 1 185 185 0.30 55.50 Sub Total 54 1,407 394.70
    Estimated Annual Reporting Requirement Burden for Opioid Treatment Programs 42 CFR citation Purpose Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses/
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours/
  • response
  • Total
  • hours
  • 8.11(b) Renewal of approval (SMA-162) 386 1 386 0.15 57.90 8.11(b) Relocation of Program (SMA-162) 35 1 35 1.17 40.95 8.11(e)(1) Application for provisional certification 42 1 42 1.00 42.00 8.11(e)(2) Application for extension of provisional certification 30 1 30 0.25 7.50 8.11(f)(5) Notification of sponsor or medical director change (SMA-162) 60 1 60 0.10 6.00 8.11(g)(2) Documentation to SAMHSA for interim maintenance 1 1 1 1.00 1.00 8.11(h) Request to SAMHSA for Exemption from 8.11 and 8.12 (including SMA-168) 1,325 25 33,125 0.07 2,318.75 8.11(i)(1) Notification to SAMHSA Before Establishing Medication Units (SMA-162) 10 1 10 0.25 2.50 8.12(j)(2) Notification to State Health Officer When Patient Begins Interim Maintenance 1 20 20 0.33 6.60 8.24 Contents of Appellant Request for Review of Suspension 2 1 2 0.25 .50 8.25(a) Informal Review Request 2 1 2 1.00 2.00 8.26(a) Appellant's Review File and Written Statement 2 1 2 5.00 10.00 8.28(a) Appellant's Request for Expedited Review 2 1 2 1.00 2.00 8.28(c) Appellant Review File and Written Statement 2 1 2 5.00 10.00 Sub Total 1,900 33,719 2,507.70 Total 1,954 35,126 2,902.40

    Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57B, Rockville, MD 20857 or email a copy at [email protected] Written comments should be received by June 20, 2016.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09020 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2016-0104] Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 02-16; Inspection Guidance for Sail Rigging and Masts on Inspected Sailing Vessels AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces the availability of NVIC 02-16. This Circular provides guidance to vessel owners, riggers, marine surveyors, other marine service providers, and Coast Guard marine inspectors regarding inspection of sail rigging, masts, and associated components for commercial sailing vessels and the use of preventative maintenance as a good marine practice. It provides guidance for the purpose of assisting vessel owners and operators, and U.S. Coast Guard personnel with the inspection and recommended documentation of maintenance for sail rigging and masts on inspected sailing vessels. It is intended to enhance consistency with the Coast Guard inspection process for the commercial sailing fleet.

    DATES:

    NVIC 02-16 is available on April 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    This NVIC is available at the following Coast Guard Web site: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call LCDR James T. Fogle, Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance, Coast Guard, telephone 202—372-1216, email [email protected]

    Dated: April 13, 2016. Paul F. Thomas, USCG, Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09022 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2016-0291] Cooperative Research and Development Agreement: Troposcatter Communications Exploratory Development AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces its intent to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Comtech Systems, Inc., to investigate the potential operational use of troposcatter technology. The research includes employment of their Modular Transportable Transmission System (MTTS) in northern Alaska to establish beyond line of sight (BLOS) network links without using existing infrastructure or satellite communications. Specifically, the MTTS will provide a wireless IEEE 802.3 (Ethernet) data link between two locations separated by long distances and elevated terrain. The MTTS will be setup in locations with no shelter/protection from the Northern Alaskan environment. A Pilot Demonstration schedule has been proposed in which Comtech Systems will provide their MTTS to connect two points separated by 68 miles with a 3000 foot elevation in between. The Coast Guard Research and Development Center (R&D Center) will prepare a Pilot Demonstration Assessment Plan and Comtech Systems will operate the equipment for exploratory development over a one week period to collect information on suitability, reliability, maintenance requirements, and ease of use. While the Coast Guard is currently considering partnering with Comtech Systems, Inc., the agency is soliciting public comment on the possible nature of and participation of other parties in the proposed CRADA. In addition, the Coast Guard also invites other potential non-Federal participants to propose similar CRADAs.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or before May 19, 2016.

    Synopses of proposals regarding future CRADAs must reach the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) on or before May 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments online at http://www.regulations.gov in accordance with Web site instructions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice or wish to submit proposals for future CRADAs, contact LCDR Samuel Nassar, Project Official, C4ISR Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320, telephone 860-271-2727, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We request public comments on this notice. Although we do not plan to respond to comments in the Federal Register, we will respond directly to commenters and may modify our proposal in light of comments.

    Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2016-0291and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the Federal Register Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR 3316, Jan. 17, 2008). We also accept anonymous comments.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Documents mentioned in this notice and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to the Docket Management Facility. Instead, submit them directly to the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Discussion

    CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).1 A CRADA promotes the transfer of technology to the private sector for commercial use, as well as specified research or development efforts that are consistent with the mission of the Federal parties to the CRADA. The Federal party or parties agree with one or more non-Federal parties to share research resources, but the Federal party does not contribute funding.

    1 The statute confers this authority on the head of each Federal agency. The Secretary of DHS's authority is delegated to the Coast Guard and other DHS organizational elements by DHS Delegation No. 0160.1, para. II.B.34.

    CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have a specific purpose and should not be confused with procurement contracts, grants, and other type of agreements.

    Under the proposed CRADA, the R&D Center will collaborate with one non-Federal participant. Together, the R&D Center and the non-Federal participant will collect information/data for performance, reliability, maintenance requirements, human systems integration and other data on Troposcatter communications technologies. After an initial installation and training, the Coast Guard plans to evaluate designated platforms outfitted with the communications technologies for a period of one week.

    We anticipate the Coast Guard's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:

    (1) Develop the Demonstration Pilot Assessment Plan to meet the objectives of the CRADA with a diverse set of real-life mission scenarios.

    (2) Provide the pilot demonstration support in and around Nome, AK.

    (3) Coordinate Pilot demonstration network connectivity between various internet protocol (IP) systems.

    (4) Collaborate with non-Federal partners to prepare demonstration documentation including equipment assessments, final report(s), and briefings.

    We anticipate that the non-Federal participant's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:

    (1) Assist the R&D Center in the development and drafting of all CRADA documents, including the pilot demonstration assessment plan, equipment assessments, final report(s), and briefings.

    (2) Provide and maintain the troposcatter communications equipment to ensure the communications link is usable.

    (3) Secure, with R&D Center assistance, Special Temporary Authority (STA) to employ the equipment within the desired frequency bands.

    (4) Provide technical support, training and maintenance throughout the period of performance to ensure maximum availability and utility of the networks.

    The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be unclassified and have no more than five single-sided pages (excluding cover page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will select proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:

    (1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and

    (2) How well they address the following criteria:

    (a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party contributions described; and

    (b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party contributions described.

    Currently, the Coast Guard is considering Comtech Systems, Inc. for participation in this CRADA. This consideration is based on the fact that Comtech Systems has demonstrated its technical ability as the developer, manufacturer, and integrator of troposcatter transmission equipment. However, we do not wish to exclude other viable participants from this or future similar CRADAs.

    This is a technology assessment effort. The goal for the Coast Guard of this CRADA is to better understand the advantages, disadvantages, required technology enhancements, performance, costs, and other issues associated with troposcatter transmission. Special consideration will be given to small business firms/consortia, and preference will be given to business units located in the U.S. This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: March 24, 2016. Captain Dennis C. Evans, USCG, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09034 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2016-0301] Navigation Safety Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Navigation Safety Advisory Council will meet in Arlington, Virginia to discuss matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings, Inland Rules of the Road, International Rules of the Road, navigation regulations and equipment, routing measures, marine information, diving safety, and aids to navigation systems. These meetings will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Navigation Safety Advisory Council will meet on Wednesday, May 4, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on Thursday, May 5, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Please note these meetings may close early if the Council has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 Fairfax Drive, Arlington VA 22203.

    https://www.holidayinn.com/hotels/us/en/arlington/wasfx/hoteldetail/directions

    For information on the meeting facility or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Mr. Burt Lahn listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below as soon as possible.

    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Council as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments for distribution to the Council members must be submitted no later than April 26, 2016 if you want Council members to be able to review your comments before the meeting, and must be identified by the docket number, USCG-2016-0301. Written comments may be submitted using Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact Mr. Lahn for alternate instructions.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action, USCG 2016-0301. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov insert USCG-2016-0301 in the Search box, press Enter, and then click on the item you wish to view.

    A public comment period will be held during the meeting on May 4, 2016, from 5 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on May 5, 2016, prior to the close of the meeting. Public presentations may also be given. Speakers are requested to limit their presentation and comments to 10 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. To register as a speaker, contact Mr. Burt Lahn listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about these meetings, please contact Mr. George Detweiler, the Navigation Safety Advisory Council Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Commandant (CG-NAV-2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7418, Washington, DC 20593, telephone 202-372-1566 or email [email protected] or Mr. Burt Lahn, Commandant (CG-NAV-2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7418, Washington, DC 20593, at telephone 202-372-1526 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code, Appendix.

    The Navigation Safety Advisory Council is an advisory committee authorized in 33 U.S.C. 2073 and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Navigation Safety Advisory Council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary, through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to prevention of maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings, Inland and International Rules of the Road, navigation regulations and equipment, routing measures, marine information, diving safety, and aids to navigation systems.

    Agenda

    Wednesday, May 4, 2016: The Navigation Safety Advisory Council will receive presentations on the following topics:

    (1) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—Future of Navigation Strategy: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coast Survey will provide a briefing on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Future of Navigation Strategy;

    (2) Coast Guard Future of Navigation initiative: The Council will receive an update on this ongoing initiative that leverages technology in order to optimize the mix of electronic and visual aids to navigation;

    (3) Electronic Charting Systems: The Coast Guard will provide an update on the use of Electronic Charting Systems, and brief the Council on the recently published Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 01-16; which outlines the use of Electronic Charts and publications in lieu of paper charts, maps, and publications; and

    (4) Port Access Route Studies. The Coast Guard will provide an update on Port Access Route Studies. The presentation will include the final report from the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study, an update from the ongoing Bering Straights Port Access Route Study, and a briefing on the recently initiated Nantucket Sound Port Access Route Study.

    Following the above presentations, the Designated Federal Officer will form subcommittees to continue discussions on the following task statements:

    (1) Navigation Safety Advisory Council Task 15-01 Unmanned Maritime Systems Best Practices;

    (2) Navigation Safety Advisory Council Task 15-04 Discontinuance of an Aid to Navigation; and

    (3) Navigation Safety Advisory Council Task 15-05 Electronic Chart Systems.

    Public comments or questions will be taken during the meeting as the Council discusses each issue and prior to the Council formulating recommendations on each issue. There will also be a public comment period at the end of the meeting.

    Thursday, May 5, 2016

    (1) Subcommittee discussions continued from Wednesday, May 4, 2016;

    (2) Subcommittee reports presented to the Council;

    (3) New Business; and

    a. Summary of Navigation Safety Advisory Council action items.

    b. Schedule next meeting date—Fall, 2016.

    c. Council discussions and acceptance of new tasks.

    A public comment period will be held after the discussion of new tasks. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 10 minutes each. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer during the discussion and recommendations, and new business portion of the meeting. Please contact Mr. Lahn, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, to register as a speaker.

    Dated: April 13, 2016. D.C Barata, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director, Marine Transportation Systems.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09021 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a Commercial Gauger AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a commercial gauger.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec Services, LLC, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 13, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective: The approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as commercial gauger became effective on August 13, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec Services, LLC, 2308 East Burton St., Sulphur, LA 70663, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. AmSpec Services, LLC is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank Gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 11 Physical Properties. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurement.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.

    http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories Dated: April 11, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09074 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [GX16LR000F60100] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a renewal of a currently approved information collection (1028-0065).

    SUMMARY:

    We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. This collection consists of 2 forms. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or [email protected] (email). Please reference `Information Collection 1028-0065, Production Estimate, in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth S. Sangine, National Minerals Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 989, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-7720 (phone); or [email protected] (email). You may also find information about this ICR at www.reginfo.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This collection is needed to provide data on mineral production for annual reports published by commodity for use by Government agencies, Congressional offices, educational institutions, research organizations, financial institutions, consulting firms, industry, academia, and the general public. This information will be published in the “Mineral Commodity Summaries,” the first preliminary publication to furnish estimates covering the previous year's nonfuel mineral industry.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028-0065.

    Form Numbers: USGS Forms 9-4042-A and 9-4124-A.

    Title: Production Estimate, Two Forms.

    Type of Request: Renewal of existing information collection.

    Affected Public: Business or Other-For-Profit Institutions: U.S. nonfuel minerals producers.

    Respondent's Obligation: None. Participation is voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: Annually.

    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 1,761.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 440 hours.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: There are no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this IC.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number and current expiration date.

    III. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Michael J. Magyar, Associate Director, National Minerals Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09007 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Permits AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is seeking comments on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the collection of information for Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Permits authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0162. This information collection expires July 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the information collection to Derrith Watchman-Moore, Office of Trust Services, Branch of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 1060, Gallup, New Mexico 87105; telephone: (505) 863-8221; email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Derrith Watchman-Moore, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    BIA is seeking comments on the information collection conducted under 25 CFR 161, implementing the Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Amendments Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 929, and the Federal court decisions of Healing v. Jones, 174 F. Supp.211 (D Ariz. 1959) (Healing I), Healing v. Jones, 210 F. Supp. 126 (D. Ariz. 1962), aff'd 363 U.S. 758 (1963) (Healing II), Hopi Tribe v. Watt, 530 F. Supp. 1217 (D. Ariz. 1982), and Hopi Tribe v. Watt, 719 F.2d 314(9th Cir. 1983).

    This information collection allows BIA to receive the information necessary to determine whether an applicant to obtain, modify, or assign a grazing permit on Navajo Partitioned Lands is eligible and complies with all applicable grazing permit requirements. BIA, in coordination with the Navajo Nation, will continue to collect grazing permit information up to and beyond the initial reissuing of the grazing permits, likely within a 1-3 year time period from the date of publication of this notice. The data is collected by electronic global positioning systems and field office interviews by BIA & Navajo Nation staff. The data is maintained by BIA's Navajo Partitioned Lands office. The burden hours for this continued collection of information are reflected in the Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden in this notice.

    II. Request for Comments

    The BIA requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.

    Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.

    It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1076-0162.

    Title: Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Permits, 25 CFR 161.

    Brief Description of Collection: Submission of information is required for Navajo Nation representatives, members, and authorized Tribal organizations to obtain, modify, or assign a grazing permit on Navajo partitioned lands.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Tribes, Tribal organizations, and individual Indians.

    Number of Respondents: 750.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,500.

    Estimated Time per Response: On average, 2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annually.

    Obligation to Respond: A response is required to obtain a benefit.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,000 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Dollar Cost: $0.

    Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09018 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Tribal Energy Resource Agreements AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (IA) is seeking comments on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the collection of information titled “Tribal Energy Resource Agreements” (TERAs) under the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development Office (IEED) authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0167. This information collection expires July 31, 2016. IA is also seeking comments as to how a reduction of burden could be achieved.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the information collection and on burden reduction to Ms. Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, telephone: (202) 273-4680; email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Elizabeth K. Appel, (202) 273-4680.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005, 25 U.S.C. 3503 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to approve individual Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs). The intent of these agreements is to promote Tribal oversight and management of energy and mineral resource development on Tribal lands and further the goal of Indian self-determination. A TERA offers a Tribe an alternative for developing energy-related business agreements and awarding leases and granting rights-of-way for energy facilities without having to obtain further approval from the Secretary.

    This information collection conducted under TERA regulations at 25 CFR 224 will allow IEED to determine the capacity of Tribes to manage the development of energy resources on Tribal lands. Information collection:

    • Enables IEED to engage in a consultation process with Tribes that is designed to foster optimal pre-planning of development proposals and speed up the review and approval process for TERA agreements;

    • Provides wide public notice and opportunity for review of TERA agreements by the public, industry, and government agencies;

    • Ensures that the public has an avenue for review of the performance of Tribes in implementing a TERA;

    • Creates a process for preventing damage to sensitive resources as well as ensuring that the public has fully communicated with the Tribe in the petition process;

    • Ensures that a Tribe is fully aware of any attempt by the Department of the Interior to resume management authority over energy resources on Tribal lands; and

    • Ensures that the Tribal government fully endorses any relinquishment of a TERA.

    II. Request for Comments on Collection of Information

    The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.

    Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.

    It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    III. Request for Comments on Burden Reduction

    The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs also requests your comments on ways to revise and reduce the burden of the governing regulations for TERAs under 25 CFR 224. Currently, the total annual hour burden for this information collection is 10,752 hours with an estimated time per response from 32 to 1,080 hours. Please submit comments on the following topics to the contact listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice: (1) The aspects of this information collection you identify as having the greatest burden, (2) Whether these burdensome aspects are the likely reason for an underutilization of TERAs; (3) Whether these burdensome aspects are required under statute or regulation, and (4) Any opportunities to reduce the burden of information collection, including but not limited to opportunities to reduce burdens associated with the application process by issuing guidance or instructions for prospective applicants.

    Please also specify any language within the regulations that you believe should be adjusted in order to reduce the burden associated with this information collection. Additionally, if you believe that an adjustment to statutory language would reduce the burden associated with this information collection, please specifically identify this language.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1076-0167.

    Title: Tribal Energy Resource Agreements.

    Brief Description of Collection: Submission of this information is required for Indian Tribes to apply for, implement, reassume, or rescind a TERA that has been entered into in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 25 CFR 224. This collection also requires the Tribe to notify the public of certain actions.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Federally recognized Indian Tribes.

    Number of Respondents: 14.

    Estimated Time per Response: Ranges from 32 hours to 1,080 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 10,752 hours.

    Obligation to Respond: A response is required to obtain a benefit.

    Estimated Total Non-hour Cost Burden: $48,200.

    Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09019 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCON02000 L51010000.ER0000 LVRWC16C8700 16X] Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange, Grand and Summit Counties, Colorado AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, Kremmling, Colorado intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate a proposed land exchange under section 206 of FLPMA, and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.

    DATES:

    This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until May 19, 2016. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/kfo.html. In order to be included in the Draft EIS, all comments must be received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later. We will provide additional opportunities for public participation upon publication of the Draft EIS.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments related to the Blue Valley Land Exchange by any of the following methods:

    Web site: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/kfo.html

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 970-724-3006

    Mail: 2103 E. Park Avenue, P.O. Box 68, Kremmling, CO 80459

    Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Kremmling Field Office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monte Senor, Assistant Field Manager; telephone 970-724-3002; see address above; email [email protected] Contact Annie Sperandio at 970-724-3062 to have your name added to our mailing list. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    After coordination with the BLM, Galloway, Inc., owner of Blue Valley Ranch, submitted a land exchange proposal to the BLM whereby approximately 1,489 acres of Federal lands managed by the BLM in Grand County, Colorado would be conveyed to Blue Valley Ranch in exchange for approximately 1,832 acres of non-Federal lands in Summit and Grand counties, Colorado. Of the 1,832 acres, approximately 300 acres would be acquired within the White River National Forest administrative boundary. The Forest Service will participate as a cooperating agency on the EIS.

    Pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976, as amended, the proposed land exchange must be determined to be in the public interest and appraisals of the Federal and non-Federal parcels must show that the exchange parcels are equal in value. The EIS will provide BLM with the information necessary to make these determinations. The BLM has found that the proposed land exchange is appropriate for processing and is in conformance with land tenure decisions in the Kremmling Resouce Management Plan.

    The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EIS. At present, the BLM has identified the preliminary issues from internal scoping and public comments received on the Notice of Exchange Proposal released in June 2005. The issues that were raised during the informal scoping process and feasibility analysis include changes to public fishing access, perceived changes to float boating on the Blue River, concerns about changes to public access for hunting, and concerns about large land owners realizing a benefit from the exchange. The BLM will address these preliminary issues, along with the other issues identified during the public scoping process and preparation of the EIS. The BLM will identify, analyze and require mitigation, as appropriate, to address the reasonably foreseeable impacts to resources if this project is approved. Mitigation may include avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction or elimination over time and compensatory mitigation. These potential measures may be considered at multiple scales, including the landscape-scale.

    The BLM will use and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.

    The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1501.7

    Ruth Welch, BLM Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09040 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [16X.LLAZ956000.L14400000.BJ0000.LXSSA225000.241A] Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Arizona AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing of plats of survey; Arizona.

    SUMMARY:

    The plats of survey of the described lands were officially filed in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona, on dates indicated.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 25, Township 3 North, Range 5 East, accepted December 10, 2015, and officially filed December 11, 2015, for Group 1141, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary, a portion of the south and west boundaries of the Fort McDowell Indian Reservation and a portion of the subdivisional lines defining the north boundary of the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Township 3 North, Range 6 East, accepted December 10, 2015, and officially filed December 11, 2015, for Group 1141, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 30, and a metes-and-bounds survey in section 30, Township 3 North, Range 6 East, accepted December 10, 2015, and officially filed December 11, 2015, for Group 1141, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary of the Fort McDowell Indian Reservation and a portion of the west boundary, Township 3 North, Range 7 East, accepted December 10, 2015, and officially filed December 11, 2015, for Group 1141, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of Homestead Entry Survey No. 88, and the survey of Small Tracts Act Survey AZ. No. 12, Township 13 North, Range 10 East, accepted November 17, 2015, and officially filed November 18, 2015, for Group 1123, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary of Township 14 North, Range 10 East, and the dependent resurvey of Homestead Entry Survey No. 178, Townships 13 and 14 North, Range 10 East, accepted January 7, 2016, and officially filed January 8, 2016, for Group 1123, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 5,Township 14 North, Range 10 East, accepted November 17, 2015, and officially filed November 18, 2015, for Group 1123, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.

    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a Hopi-Navajo Partion Line, Segment “D”, the survey of a portion of the south boundary, the survey of the east and north boundaries, a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections, Township 35 North, Range 15 East, accepted January 13, 2016, and officially filed January 14, 2016, for Group 1133, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat representing the corrective resurvey of portions of the north boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 1 and 12, Township 21 North, Range 29 East, accepted November 17, 2015, and officially filed November 19, 2015, for Group 957, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The supplemental plat showing the correction to the location of Mineral Survey No. 542, and the subsequent amended lotting, section 33, Township 24 North, Range 17 West, accepted September 9, 2015, and officially filed September 10, 2015, for Group 9109, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.

    A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.

    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    These plats will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona, 85004-4427. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    Gerald T. Davis, Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09032 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-16-013] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    United States International Trade Commission

    TIME AND DATE:

    April 21, 2016 at 1:00 p.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-1314 (Preliminary) (Phosphor Copper from Korea). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination on April 25, 2016; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on May 2, 2016.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 13, 2016. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09095 Filed 4-15-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2013-0008] The Benzene Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 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 proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Benzene Standard (29 CFR 1910.1028).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 20, 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 this method, you must submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2013-0008, 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-2013-0008) 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 address above. 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 also may contact Theda Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) 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 minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

    The information collection requirements specified in the Benzene Standard protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from occupational exposure to benzene. The major information collection requirements in the Standard include conducting worker exposure monitoring, notifying workers of the benzene exposure, implementing a written compliance program, implementing medical surveillance for workers, providing examining physicians with specific information, ensuring that workers receive a copy of their medical surveillance records, and providing access to these records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the worker who is the subject of the records, the worker's representative, and other designated parties.

    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 employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

    III. Proposed Actions

    The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 18,726 burden hours (from 126,183 hours to 144,909 hours). The adjustment increase is the result of an increase in the number of workers receiving medical examinations. There was a $1,826,862 increase in the cost under Item 13 from $8,984,612 to $10,811,474 as result of an increase in the number of workers receiving medical examinations and the cost of a medical examination.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Title: Benzene Standard (29 CFR 1910.1028).

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0129.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Not-for-profit organizations; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 12,148.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Total Responses: 297,672.

    Average Time per response: Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hour) for employers to maintain records to 4 hours for workers to receive referral medical exams.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 144,909.

    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $10,811,474.

    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; or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2013-0008). 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 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 social security numbers and dates 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 April 13, 2016. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08915 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting NOTICE:

    Schedule change.

    DATE AND TIME:

    The Legal Services Corporation is changing the dates and times of the Governance and Performance Review Committee and the Finance Committee meetings scheduled during the April meeting of its Board of Directors. These meetings were noticed in the Monday, April 11, 2016 issue of the Federal Register, 81 FR 21400. The Finance Committee meeting will be held on Sunday, April 17, 2016, commencing at 3:00 p.m. EDT. The Governance and Performance Review Committee meeting will be held on Monday, April 18, 2016, commencing at 3:15 p.m. EDT. All other information about the meetings remains as stated in the prior notice.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

    Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to [email protected].

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09098 Filed 4-15-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 3, 2016.

    PLACE:

    NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.

    STATUS:

    The one item is open to the public.

    MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

    8619C Railroad Accident Report—Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) L'Enfant Plaza Station Electrical Arcing and Smoke Accident. January 12, 2015 (DCA15FR004) NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:

    Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

    The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.

    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 or by email at [email protected] by Wednesday, April 27, 2016.

    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at www.ntsb.gov.

    Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at www.ntsb.gov.

    FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at [email protected]

    FOR MEDIA INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Knudson at (202) 314-6100 or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: Friday, April 15, 2016. Candi R. Bing, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09142 Filed 4-15-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels will hold a meeting on May 3, 2016, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Tuesday, May 3, 2016—1:00 p.m. Until 5:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1229, “Regulatory Guidance on the Alternate Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule” and Draft Report NUREG-2163, “Technical Basis for Regulatory Guidance on the Alternate Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Derek Widmayer (Telephone 301-415-5375 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63846).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the Web site cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: April 6, 2016. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09073 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-26; NRC-2015-0233] Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment application; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed an application by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E or the licensee) for amendment of Materials License No. SNM-2511, which authorizes the storage of spent nuclear fuel at the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. The licensee requested the removal of preferential loading references from the Technical Specifications (TS). The licensee also requested that the NRC approve several editorial corrections to the TS to improve the readability and human factors usage of the TS.

    DATES:

    April 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0233 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0233. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Allen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6877, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    By letter dated September 16, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15259A590), as supplemented January 27, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16027A357), PG&E submitted a license amendment request (LAR) to the NRC in accordance with section 72.56 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The LAR requested that the TS of Materials License No. SNM-2511 be amended by (a) removing references to preferential loading from the TS, and (b) making editorial corrections to the TS, to improve their readability and human factors usage. The NRC staff (staff) docketed the application, and in accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(1), a Notice of Proposed Action and a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2015 (80 FR 66938). No requests for a hearing or leave to intervene were submitted.

    The staff has completed its review of the September, 2015 LAR, and has determined that it complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), as well as the NRC's rules and regulations. As required by the Act and the NRC's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1, the staff made the appropriate findings which are contained in a Safety Evaluation Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML16048A478). The NRC has thus granted the LAR and has accordingly issued Amendment No. 5 to Materials License No. SNM-2511.

    Environmental Consideration

    The staff's environmental review of the proposed action is set forth in the Safety Evaluation Report. The staff found that the LAR met the categorical exclusion criteria in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11). Specifically, the staff determined that granting the LAR (i) does not produce a significant change in either the type or amount of effluents released to the environment; (ii) does not produce a significant increase in occupational radiation exposure; (iii) does not have significant construction impacts; and (iv) does not produce a significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement was required for this proposed action. This amendment was effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of April, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Steve Ruffin, Acting Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09041 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-390; NRC-2016-0076] Completion Date of Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone 8; Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-90, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1. The proposed amendment would revise the WBN, Unit 1, Cyber Security Plan (CSP) implementation schedule for Milestone 8 and would revise the associated license condition in the Facility Operating License. The amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).

    DATES:

    Submit comments by May 19, 2016. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by June 20, 2016. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by April 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0076. 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:

    Robert Schaaf, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6020, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0076 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0076.

    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 License Amendment Request (WBN-TS-16-04) to Change the Completion Date of Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone 8 is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16064A488.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0076 and “Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, application dated March 4, 2016, license amendment request to change the completion date of Cyber Security Plan Implementation Milestone 8,” 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 will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter 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 into ADAMS.

    II. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-90, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, for operation of the WBN, Unit 1, located in Rhea County, Tennessee.

    The proposed amendment would revise the WBN, Unit 1, CSP implementation schedule for Milestone 8 and would revise the associated license condition in the Facility Operating License.

    Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.

    The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the CSP Milestone 8 implementation date. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change is an extension to the completion date of implementation Milestone 8, that in itself does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the CSP Implementation Schedule. This proposed change to extend the completion date of implementation Milestone 8 does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. This change also does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change extends the CSP Implementation Schedule. Because there is no change to these established safety margins as result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a No Significant Hazards Consideration.

    The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    III. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.

    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by June 20, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by June 20, 2016.

    IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's “Guidance for Electronic Submission,” which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.

    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated March 4, 2016.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin Beasley.

    Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.

    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.

    C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected], respectively.1 The request must include the following information:

    1 While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's “E-Filing Rule,” the initial request to access SUNSI under these procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.

    (1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice;

    (2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and

    (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.

    D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:

    (1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and

    (2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.

    E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to SUNSI.

    2 Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the receipt of the written access request.

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the dates the petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.

    G. Review of Denials of Access.

    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.

    (2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been designated to rule on information access issues.

    H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.

    If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.3

    3 Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.

    I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.

    It is so ordered.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of April, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
    Attachment 1—General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information in This Proceeding Day Event/activity 0 Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests. 10 Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information: supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. 60 Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff's determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). 25 If NRC staff finds no “need” or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds “need” for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of access. 30 Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 40 (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI. A If access granted: issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. A + 3 Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. A + 28 Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. A + 53 (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. A + 60 (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. >A + 60 Decision on contention admission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09042 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on May 4, 2016, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Wednesday, May 4, 2016—12:00 p.m. Until 1:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301-415-5844 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63846).

    Information regarding changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the DFO if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: April 6, 2016. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09078 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0001] Sunshine Act Meeting DATE:

    April 18, 25, May 2, 9, 16, 23, 2016.

    PLACE:

    Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    STATUS:

    Public and Closed.

    Week of April 18, 2016 Tuesday, April 19, 2016 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (Public Meeting) (Contact: Paul Michalak: 301-415-5804)

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Week of April 25, 2016—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 25, 2016.

    Week of May 2, 2016—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 2, 2016.

    Week of May 9, 2016—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 9, 2016.

    Week of May 16, 2016—Tentative Tuesday, May 17, 2016 9:00 a.m. Briefing on the Status of Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (Public Meeting) (Contact: Kevin Witt: 301-415-2145)

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Thursday, May 19, 2016 10:00 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed Ex. 1) 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed Ex. 1) Week of May 23, 2016—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 23, 2016.

    The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at [email protected].

    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.

    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301-287-0739, by videophone at 240-428-3217, or by email at [email protected]. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email [email protected] or [email protected].

    Dated: April 13, 2016. Denise McGovern, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08954 Filed 4-14-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on May 4, 2016, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Wednesday, May 4, 2016—1:00 p.m. Until 5:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will review the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, License Renewal Application. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Entergy Operations, Inc., and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Kent Howard (Telephone 301-415-2989 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63846).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the Web site cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: April 6, 2016. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09094 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. PI2016-3; Order No. 3238] Public Inquiry on Commission Report to the President and Congress AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is establishing a public inquiry to receive comments regarding the Commission's second report to the President and Congress pursuant to section 701 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This notice informs the public of this proceeding, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: June 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction II. Legal Requirements and Background III. Areas of Interest IV. Conclusion V. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    The Commission establishes Docket No. PI2016-3 for the purpose of obtaining public comment on its second report to the President and Congress pursuant to section 701 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006.1

    1 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006), section 701.

    II. Legal Requirements and Background A. Statutory Requirements

    Under the PAEA, the Commission is required at least every 5 years to submit a report to the President and Congress concerning (1) the operation of the amendments made by this Act; and (2) recommendations for any legislation or other measures necessary to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the postal laws of the United States.

    PAEA section 701(a). Before submitting the “701 Report,” the Commission must afford the Postal Service a reasonable opportunity to review the report and submit written comments. PAEA section 701(b).

    B. 2011 Report

    In 2011, the Commission submitted its first section 701 report.2 The 2011 Report focused on three main areas involved with the implementation of the PAEA: (1) The Postal Service's financial condition; (2) rate and service matters; and (3) improvements to Commission processes. 2011 Report at 1-2.

    2 Postal Regulatory Commission, Section 701 Report, Analysis of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, September 22, 2011 (2011 Report).

    In its review of the Postal Service's financial condition, the Commission recommended that Congress adjust the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund and suggested several alternative payment options intended to alleviate Postal Service liquidity issues. Id. at 21-25. The 2011 Report also discussed the Postal Service's annual financial reporting requirements and Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance, finding that the PAEA requirements resulted in improved transparency and greater cost savings. Id. at 25-27.

    The 2011 Report also included several recommendations regarding rate and service matters. First, the Commission recommended that the PAEA be amended to allow the Postal Service to add new market dominant classes of mail. Id. at 44. Second, the 2011 Report recommended that if Congress chose to allow the Postal Service to introduce new nonpostal services, it should include adequate safeguards to reduce the potential for the introduction of unprofitable products. Id. at 50. The Commission suggested that new nonpostal products be subject to review under 39 U.S.C. 404(e)(3), the same regulatory review applied to determining whether to “grandfather” a nonpostal service. Id. Although the Commission found that the PAEA constraints on market tests were effective and not unduly burdensome, the 2011 Report included as its third recommendation that Congress consider raising the maximum revenue limitation on experimental market test products to further bolster Postal Service revenue streams. Id. at 70. Fourth, the Commission recommended that Congress clarify the PAEA to require the Postal Service to consult with the Commission not only in establishing service standards for market dominant products, but also when seeking to change existing service standards. Id. at 64-65. The Commission did not recommend any changes to existing procedures for price adjustments and indicated that it had not vetted this concept, stating that Congress should consider allowing the Postal Service increased pricing flexibility based on improvements to quality of service. Id. at 40. The Commission stated that service quality pricing authority would create “an incentive for the Postal Service to increase the service performance of its products.” Id.

    Finally, the Commission made three major recommendations aimed at developing enhancements to improve Commission processes. The first was a recommendation that Congress require the Postal Service to provide the Commission regular reports on retail network plans and activities. Id. at 77. The second recommendation was to clarify the scope of the Commission's appellate review of post office closings, including a definition of “post office” that would encompass all Postal Service-operated retail facilities. Id. at 77-78. The third recommendation was that Congress consider providing statutory language allowing the Postal Service expedited consideration of requests for advisory opinions by the Commission.3

    3Id. at 83-84. As noted below in section III.H, the Commission amended its internal procedures for considering requests for advisory opinions in 2014. See Docket No. RM2012-4.

    Since submitting its 2011 Report, the Commission has benefitted from its additional years of experience implementing the provisions of the PAEA. The Commission also recognizes the value of input from public stakeholders on matters concerning the operation of the provisions of the PAEA and ideas for legislative reform. Accordingly, the Commission invites public comment for consideration in preparing the upcoming 701 Report.

    III. Areas of Interest

    The requirements of section 701 allow the Commission significant discretion when providing recommendations to the President and Congress. The Commission is thus empowered to consider the PAEA amendment generally, as well as provide any appropriate recommendations related to the operations of the amendment.

    However, to assist the public in focusing its comments and in furtherance of the Commission's mission of enhancing transparency and accountability of the Postal Service, the Commission has identified several topics that were either highlighted in the 2011 Report and not yet resolved, or the Commission has identified as potential areas of interest. Interested parties are invited to comment on any of the issues listed below, as well as any other pertinent areas related to the operation of PAEA amendments.

    A. Postal Service Financial Situation

    Despite a slight improvement in its liquidity from 2014, the Postal Service continues to face significant financial challenges ahead. In its initial 701 Report issued in 2011, the Commission made several recommendations aimed at strengthening the Postal Service's financial situation. 2011 Report at 2-3. Subsequent to the 701 Report, the Commission issued reports highlighting the Postal Service's continued financial struggles.4 In its most recent review, the Commission found fundamental balance sheet issues with the Postal Service and made several additional findings.5

    4See, e.g., Postal Regulatory Commission, Analysis of the United States Postal Service Financial Results and 10-K Statement for Fiscal Year 2014, Revised April 10, 2014.

    5 Postal Regulatory Commission, Analysis of the United States Postal Service Financial Results and 10-K Statement, March 29, 2016, at 3-4 (FY 2015 Financial Report).

    In sum, while the Postal Service's cash position is at the highest level since Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, significant balance sheet liabilities and off-balance sheet unfunded liabilities for pension and annuitant health benefits threaten the improvements in liquidity. See FY 2015 Financial Report at 3. In addition to requesting comments tied to specific parts of the PAEA as outlined below, the Commission also welcomes any comments or suggestions about provisions of the PAEA that impact the overall financial position of the Postal Service as described above.

    B. Market Dominant Rate System

    Perhaps chief among the amendments of the PAEA are the provisions on the establishment of a modern system for regulating rates and classes for market dominant products. See 39 U.S.C. 3622. Although this system is subject to a 10-year review pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3), the 701 Report also contemplates reviewing this system. The Commission promulgates regulations with respect to this system of regulating rates and classes for market dominant products in accordance with PAEA directives. See 39 CFR 3010. Issues for consideration in the 701 Report might include: The financial success of the ratemaking system; challenges faced as a result of the system; a review of rate adjustments; mail classification; or compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Recent rate case dockets include market dominant price adjustments,6 as well as an exigent rate adjustment.7 Given these dockets, the Commission welcomes comments on the effectiveness and challenges of the current market dominant rate system administered by the Commission.8

    6See, e.g., Docket Nos. R2016-2 and R2015-4.

    7See Docket No. R2013-11.

    8 For a discussion of negotiated service agreements for both market dominant and competitive products, see section III.D below.

    One potential area of interest associated with the market dominant rate system is worksharing. Workshare discounts provide reduced rates for mailers based on the costs avoided as a result of the mailer performing an activity that would otherwise be performed by the Postal Service. Under the PAEA, the Commission must review workshare discounts to ensure that the discounts do not exceed the Postal Service's avoided costs, subject to limited exceptions. 39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(2). Legally, workshare discounts are only bound by this ceiling; the Postal Service is not bound by this provision to increase a workshare discount that is less than avoided costs. A discussion of noncompliant workshare discounts is typically included in the Commission's Annual Compliance Determination (ACD).9

    9See, e.g., Docket No. ACR2014, Annual Compliance Determination, March 27, 2015, at 8-32.

    The Commission welcomes comments on the current operation of the provisions regarding workshare discounts, as well as insights on how the discounts and exceptions have functioned in practice.

    C. Competitive Rate System

    The PAEA also tasks the Commission with the regulation of rates for competitive products. See 39 U.S.C. 3633. The Commission must ensure that market dominant products do not subsidize competitive products, that each competitive product covers its costs, and that competitive products collectively cover an appropriate share of institutional costs. Id. The current appropriate share is a minimum of 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's total institutional costs. 39 CFR 3015.7(c). The Commission uses this framework to evaluate Postal Service requests for changes in competitive product rates of general applicability.10 In 2012, the Commission conducted its first review of the institutional costs contribution requirement.11 See 39 U.S.C. 3633(b). This review is to be conducted every 5 years. The Commission welcomes comments on the statutory framework for review of competitive product rates.

    10See, e.g., Docket No. CP2016-9, Order No. 2814, Order Approving Changes in Rates of General Applicability for Competitive Products, November 13, 2014.

    11See Docket No. RM2012-3, Order No. 1449, Order Reviewing Competitive Products' Appropriate Share Contribution to Institutional Costs, August 23, 2012.

    Section 703(a) of the PAEA required the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a comprehensive report identifying federal and state laws that apply differently to the Postal Service with respect to competitive products.12 The Commission seeks comment on the FTC Report's findings, including those regarding the postal and mailbox monopolies and the competitive products industry.

    12 Federal Trade Commission, Accounting for Laws that Apply Differently to the United States Postal Service and Its Private Competitors: A Report by the Federal Trade Commission, December 2007 (FTC Report) (available at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/accounting-laws-apply-differently-united-states-postal-service-its-private-competitors).

    D. Negotiated Service Agreements

    The Commission reviews negotiated service agreements (NSAs) for both competitive 13 and market dominant products.14 NSAs for competitive products make up the overwhelming majority of all NSAs. The Commission reviews competitive NSAs to ensure: (1) That the competitive product is not subsidized by market dominant products; (2) that the NSA will cover its attributable costs; and (3) that competitive products as a whole cover an appropriate share of institutional costs. 39 U.S.C. 3633. The Commission invites comments on the current legal requirements for NSAs.

    13See 39 CFR 3015.5.

    14See 39 CFR 3010.40.

    E. Post Office Closing/Consolidation Procedures

    The Commission anticipates that its 701 Report will include a discussion of the procedures for appeals of Postal Service determinations to close or consolidate post offices. Under the PAEA, the Postal Service must consider, prior to closing or consolidating a post office, the effect on the community, the effect on its employees, economic savings, and consistency with a policy aimed toward providing a maximum degree of service to rural areas and communities. 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(2). When considering a timely appeal, the Commission is required to set aside Postal Service determinations found to be arbitrary or capricious, without observance of procedure required by law, or unsupported by evidence on the record. 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5). The Commission's rules governing these appeals are located at 39 CFR part 3025.

    Docket No. PI2016-2 is a pending Commission proceeding concerning the scope of the Commission's authority to review certain Postal Service determinations of closings and consolidations. At issue is whether a relocation or rearrangement of postal services is subject to Commission review. Also at issue is whether the Commission has authority to review the closing of contract postal units.

    The Commission welcomes comments on the scope of the Commission's authority to review Postal Service determinations under the framework and procedures set forth in the PAEA for appeals of post office closings and consolidations.

    F. Service Standards

    The PAEA required that the Postal Service, in consultation with the Commission, establish service standards for market dominant products. 39 U.S.C. 3691(a). These standards and procedures are located at 39 CFR part 3055. The regulations outline the annual and periodic reporting of service performance achievements for each market dominant product. An assessment of service performance results for FY 2015 is included in the Commission's latest ACD.15

    15 Docket No. ACR2015, Annual Compliance Determination, March 28, 2016, at 94-146.

    A public inquiry docket pertaining to improvements to service performance measurement data is currently pending before the Commission.16 The Commission recently updated its Web site 17 to provide service performance information to the public in a more readily accessible format. All service performance-related reports and dockets are available under a tab titled “Reports/Data Service Reports.” The Commission urges commenters to review background information on service standards and performance and welcomes comments on issues not already raised in Docket No. PI2016-1.

    16 Docket No. PI2016-1, Order No. 2791, Notice Establishing Docket Concerning Service Performance Measurement Data, October 29, 2015.

    17 The Commission's Web site is available at http://www.prc.gov.

    G. Nonpostal Services

    The PAEA revoked the Postal Service's authority to offer new nonpostal services. See 39 U.S.C. 404(e)(2). The Commission reviewed the Postal Service's existing nonpostal services and designated them market dominant, competitive, or experimental products, in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 404(e)(5). Currently, the Postal Service offers two market dominant nonpostal services and nine competitive nonpostal products.18 The Commission welcomes comments on issues related to nonpostal services, particularly, whether the Postal Service should be permitted to offer them in the future and, if so, whether and how the Commission should review new nonpostal services.

    18 Mail Classification Schedule, sections 1700.2 and 2700.2.

    H. The Postal Service Fund and the Postal Service Competitive Products Fund

    The PAEA updated the guidelines for the Postal Service to utilize a separate Treasury fund to be made available for payment of costs attributable and allocable to competitive products, and for deposits of revenues and other receipts from competitive products (the Postal Service Competitive Products Fund, hereinafter “Competitive Products Fund”). 39 U.S.C. 2011(a)(b). The Competitive Products Fund is intended to operate separately from the Postal Service Fund (Postal Fund). See 39 U.S.C. 2003. The Postal Service provides an annual report to the Secretary of the Treasury concerning the operation of the Competitive Products Fund. 39 U.S.C. 2011(h)(2)(D)(i). Reporting material is also filed with the Commission each year in the ACD. The Competitive Products Fund reporting information for FY 2015 is available on the Commission's Web site.19 The Commission invites comments on the operation of the Postal Fund and Competitive Products Fund to the extent they are not duplicative of matters raised within Docket No. RM2016-2.

    19 Docket No. ACR2015, Library Reference USPS-FY15-39, December 29, 2015.

    The Commission also reviews the Postal Service's annual calculation of the assumed Federal income tax on competitive products income pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3634.20 The Commission's regulations require that the Postal Service develop a Competitive Products Income Statement for each fiscal year. 39 CFR 3060.21. The Commission reviews the calculation for compliance with Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. If the assumed taxable income from competitive products in a fiscal year is positive, the Postal Service must transfer the assumed Federal income tax amount to the Postal Service Fund no later than January 15 of the following fiscal year. 39 CFR 3060.43(b). The Commission invites comments on the effectiveness of the requirements for the annual computation of the assumed Federal income tax on competitive products income.

    20 39 CFR 3060.42; see Docket No. T2016-1 and Docket No. T2015-1.

    I. Advisory Opinion Process

    Section 3661 of title 39 requires the Postal Service to seek an advisory opinion from the Commission whenever it determines that there should be a change in the nature of postal services which will generally affect service on a nationwide basis. In 2014, the Commission revised its rules of procedure for these advisory opinion requests, referred to as “N-cases.” 21 The primary objective of the adoption of the Commission's new procedural rules was “to establish a procedural framework in which advisory opinions could be issued within 90 days of the filing of a Postal Service request.” Order No. 2080 at 6. The PAEA requires “an opportunity for hearing on the record under sections 556 and 557 of title 5” before the Commission issues an opinion. 39 U.S.C. 3661(c). Given this requirement, the revised rules preserve the opportunity for participants to request a formal hearing on Postal Service proposals.

    21 Docket No. RM2012-4, Order Adopting Amended Rules of Procedure for Nature of Service Proceedings Under 39 U.S.C. 3661, May 20, 2014 (Order No. 2080).

    Since the adoption of the new N-case procedural rules, the Postal Service has filed no request for an advisory opinion on the nature of postal services. Nevertheless, the Commission welcomes comments on the advisory opinion process, including the advisability of preserving the opportunity for a hearing on the record in the PAEA.

    J. Market Tests

    The PAEA grants the Postal Service authority to conduct market tests of experimental products. 39 U.S.C. 3641(a). The Commission reviews market tests to ensure that: (1) The product is significantly different than all products offered by the Postal Service within the prior 2 years; (2) the product will not create an unfair competitive advantage for the Postal Service or any mailer; and (3) the Postal Service identifies the product as either market dominant or competitive. 39 U.S.C. 3641(b). The Commission also ensures compliance with the rules set forth at 39 CFR 3035. All notices of market tests must include a data collection plan including revenue, attributable costs, and volumes, but the Commission may request additional data as it deems appropriate. 39 CFR 3035.3. Market tests may not exceed 24 months in duration, although the Postal Service may request an extension of no more than 12 months. 39 CFR 3035.10. Total anticipated revenues for a market test must not exceed $10 million in any fiscal year, as adjusted for the change in the Consumer Price Index. 39 CFR 3035.15.

    The last notice of a market test was authorized by the Commission on October 23, 2014.22 The experimental product, Customized Delivery, was approved while a request for an exemption from the $10 million limitation was denied as premature. The Commission welcomes comments on the procedures for review of Postal Service notices of market tests of experimental products.

    22 Docket No. MT2014-1, Order No. 2224, Order Authorizing Customized Delivery Market Test, October 23, 2014.

    K. Universal Service Obligation and the Postal Monopoly

    The Commission's report is required to include any recommended changes to the universal service obligation (USO) and the postal monopoly. PAEA section 702(b)(1). The Commission must include the perceived effects of the recommended changes, as well as the costs and benefits of the postal monopoly under current law. PAEA section 702(b)(2).

    Each year, the Commission includes a discussion of costs of the USO and the value of the postal monopoly in the Annual Report to the President and Congress. For the most recent estimates, please refer to the Annual Report for FY 2015.23

    23 Postal Regulatory Commission, Annual Report to the President and Congress, Fiscal Year 2015, January 6, 2016.

    In 2008, pursuant to PAEA section 702(a), the Commission issued an in-depth report on universal postal service and the postal monopoly.24 The USO Report reviews the historical development of the USO and postal monopoly, universal service and monopoly laws of other countries, economic considerations, needs and expectations of the United States public, policy options, and Commission recommendations. The Commission invites comments and recommendations regarding the USO and the postal monopoly.

    24 Postal Regulatory Commission, Report of Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly, December 19, 2008 (USO Report) (available at http://www.prc.gov/prc-reports).

    L. Requirement of a Public Representative

    The Commission must designate a public representative in all proceedings on a case-by-case basis. See 39 U.S.C. 505; 39 CFR 3002.14. The public representative serves the interest of the general public in these proceedings, and is subject to ex parte communication restrictions with the Commission for those proceedings. The Commission welcomes comments on the utility of the public representative in Commission proceedings, and any improvements the Commission should consider to improve the public representative program.

    M. Requirement of Commission Inspector General

    The Commission's Office of the Inspector General has duties related to the oversight of Commission programs and operations. See 39 CFR 3002.16. The Inspector General reports to Congress and the Commission on a bi-annual basis its activities related to audits, inspections, and other evaluations.25 The Commission welcomes comment on the Office of the Inspector General, and any perspectives on the cost benefit or effectiveness of the office.

    25See Postal Regulatory Commission Office of Inspector General, Semiannual Report to Congress, April 1, 2015 through September 30, 2015 (available at http://www.prc.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/SARC2015-2.pdf).

    IV. Conclusion

    The Commission invites public comment on the issues noted above, and on any other issues of interest related to the operation of the amendments of the PAEA. Comments shall be submitted no later than June 14, 2016.

    The Commission appoints Richard A. Oliver to serve as Public Representative in this docket.

    V. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. PI2016-3 and invites public comments on the operation of the amendments of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

    2. Comments are due no later than June 14, 2016.

    3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Richard A. Oliver is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).

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

    By the Commission.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-09038 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77600; File No. SR-BatsBYX-2016-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Certificate of Incorporation of the Exchange's Ultimate Parent Company, Bats Global Markets, Inc. April 13, 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 April 8, 2016, Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the certificate of incorporation of the Exchange's ultimate parent company, Bats Global Markets, Inc. (the “Corporation”).

    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

    On December 16, 2015, the Corporation, the ultimate parent entity of the Exchange, filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the Commission seeking to register shares of common stock and to conduct an initial public offering of those shares, which will be listed for trading on the Exchange (the “IPO”). In connection with its IPO, the Corporation intends to amend and restate its certificate of incorporation (the “New Certificate of Incorporation”). The Exchange previously received Commission approval of certain substantive amendments to the certificate of incorporation of the Corporation that comprise changes included in the New Certificate of Incorporation.5 Since that date, the Corporation has determined it to be necessary to further amend its certificate of incorporation to achieve the final, pre-IPO version of the New Certificate of Incorporation. The additional amendments will be achieved through the filing with the State of Delaware of a certificate of amendment to the New Certificate of Incorporation. The additional amendments are described in further detail below.

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77464 (March 29, 2016), 81 FR 19252 (April 1, 2016) (SR-BATS-2016-010; SR-BYX-2016-02; SR-EDGX-2016-04; SR-EDGA-2016-01).

    The Exchange, on behalf of the Corporation, proposes changes to the New Certificate of Incorporation in connection with a forward stock split, pursuant to which each share of common stock of the Corporation outstanding or held in treasury immediately prior to the completion of the IPO would automatically and without action on the part of the holders thereof be subdivided into 2.91 shares of common stock (the “Stock Split”).6 Accordingly, the number of authorized shares of the Corporation, both in the aggregate and as set forth by class, as codified in paragraph (a)(i) of Article Fourth of the New Certificate of Incorporation, will be adjusted. The Corporation also plans to adjust the preferred stock of the Corporation consistent with the Stock Split. The par value of the Corporation's common stock will remain $0.01 per share.

    6 Common stock consists of voting common stock and non-voting common stock of the Corporation.

    The purpose of this rule filing is to permit the Corporation, the ultimate parent company of the Exchange, to adopt an amendment to the New Certificate of Incorporation, as described in this proposal. The changes described herein relate to the certificate of incorporation of the Corporation only, not to the governance of the Exchange. The Exchange will continue to be governed by its existing certificate of incorporation and bylaws. The stock in, and voting power of, the Exchange will continue to be directly and solely held by Bats Global Markets Holdings, Inc., an intermediate holding company wholly-owned by the Corporation, and the governance of the Exchange will continue under its existing structure.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and 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.7 In particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, because it retains, without modification, the existing limitations on ownership and total voting power that currently exist and that are designed to prevent any stockholder from exercising undue control over the operation of the Exchange and to assure that the Exchange is able to carry out its regulatory obligations under the Act. Under the proposal, the Corporation is making certain administrative and structural changes to the New Certificate of Incorporation. These changes, however, do not impact the governance of the Exchange nor do they modify the ownership of the Corporation.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    (B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition. As described above, the proposed rule change is simply to make certain administrative and structural changes to the New Certificate of Incorporation. These changes do not impact the governance of the Exchange nor do they modify the ownership of the Corporation.

    (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)(iii) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.9 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, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.11

    8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    11 In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 12 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that the Corporation's IPO may occur in the near future, and the changes described in this notice are a critical component of such IPO. The Exchange states that waiver of the operative delay will allow the Corporation to promptly move forward with the IPO without delay. The Commission notes that the Exchange represents that there are no changes to the provisions of the New Certificate of Incorporation that impact the ownership or governance of the Exchange, and that instead, the amendments reflect administrative and structural amendments to the New Certificate of Incorporation. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.14 The Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the proposal operative upon filing.

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    14 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 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-BatsBYX-2016-04 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-BatsBYX-2016-04. 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-BatsBYX-2016-04 and should be submitted on or before May 10, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15

    15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08938 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77613; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-45] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Proposed Rule Change To Modify Chapter VII Section B of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule April 13, 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 April 1, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx” 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 modify Section B of the NASDAQ PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule (“Pricing Schedule”) in Chapter VII separately to identify streaming quote interface (“SQF”) Purge Ports and to set the fees applicable to SQF Purge Ports. The Exchange also is making technical, non-substantive modifications to the certain existing provisions in Chapter VII, Section B.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx .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 purpose of the proposal is to modify Chapter VII, Section B of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule separately to identify SQF Purge Ports and to set the fees applicable to SQF Purge Ports. Active SQF Ports today allow purging, however the Exchange does not separately identify such ports or assess a fee for SQF Purge Ports.

    The SQF Port (known as “Active SQF Port”) 3 is an interface that enables Specialists,4 Streaming Quote Traders (“SQTs”) 5 and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (“RSQTs”) 6 (together known as “Market Makers”) to connect and send quotes into the Exchange's trading system and receive certain information.7 Market Makers rely on data available through Active SQF Ports to provide them the necessary information for risk control and risk management so that they can perform market making activities in a swift and meaningful way. Active SQF Ports allow Market Makers to access information such as execution reports, execution report messages, auction notifications, and administrative data through a single feed. Other data that is available includes: (1) Options Auction Notifications (e.g., opening imbalance, market exhaust, PIXL or other information); (2) Options Symbol Directory Messages; (3) System Event Messages (e.g., start of messages, start of system hours, start of quoting, start of opening); (4) Complex Order Strategy Auction Notifications (COLA); (5) Complex Order Strategy messages; (6) Option Trading Action Messages (e.g., trading halts, resumption of trading); and (7) Complex Strategy Trading Action Messages (e.g., trading halts, resumption of trading). In addition to Active SQF Ports being used to send quotes and to receive information needed for market making activities, Active SQF Ports now can be also used for purging quotes. Such Active SQF Ports enable Market Makers to seamlessly manage their ability to remove their quotes in a swift manner.

    3 Current SQF Ports are known as “Active SQF Ports” in the Pricing Schedule to signify that such ports are fee liable when they receive inbound quotes at any time within that month ($1,250 per port per month up to a maximum of $42,000 per month).

    4 A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an options specialist. See Phlx Rule 1020(a).

    5 An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as a Registered Options Trader (“ROT”) who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is assigned.

    6 An RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member or member organization with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations electronically from off the floor of the Exchange.

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63034 (October 4, 2010), 75 FR 62441 (October 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-124).

    An Active Purge Port currently can be configured as a “Purge-only” port utilized for the sole purpose of purging option interest from the Exchange's system and allowing entry of underlying-level purges for a specified range of options.8 Such dedicated ports reduce the amount of data flowing through Active SQF Ports. A purge of options quoted on the SQF interface is reported via a “Purge Notification” message that identifies who submitted the purge and the underlying symbols.9

    8 If a Market Maker wants to re-enter an option contract after it was purged, the Market Maker is required to specify a re-entry indicator on the first quote following a purge.

    9 For additional information regarding SQF Purge Ports, as well as SQF generally, see http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/technicalsupport/specifications/TradingProducts/sqfnom2.0.pdf. This document applies to the Exchange, to the Nasdaq Options Market, and to the BX Options Market, all of which are options exchanges of Nasdaq, Inc.

    The proposed SQF Purge Ports are, similar to the Active SQF Ports, designed to assist Market Makers in the management of, and risk control over, their quotes, particularly if the Market Makers are dealing with large numbers of options. For example, if a Market Maker detects market indications that may influence the direction or bias of his quotes the Market Maker may use the proposed SQF Purge Port(s) to reduce uncertainty and to manage risk by purging all quotes in a number of options seamlessly to avoid unintended executions, while continuing to evaluate the direction of the market.

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VII, Section B of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to distinguish SQF Purge Ports from Active SQF Ports and to add a new monthly SQF Purge Port fee. The Exchange is also making technical, non-substantive changes to Chapter VII, Section B to enhance clarity and readability. These changes are described in detail below.

    Change 1—SQF Purge Port Fees

    The Exchange proposes new subsection 4 of Chapter VII, Section B to institute an SQF Purge Port Fee. The proposed fee will be $500 per port per month for each of the first five SQF Purge Ports, and will be $100 per port per month for each port thereafter. The SQF Purge Port Fee will be applicable to all Market Makers who elect to use SQF Purge Ports on the Exchange. The structure of the proposed SQF Purge Port Fee is similar to that of the current CTI 10 Port Fee, except that the SQF Purge Port Fee is lower for the first five ports.11 The following is an example of the proposed new SQF Purge Port Fee: A Participant that has three SQF Purge Ports would, on a monthly basis, be fee liable for $1,500 ($500 × 3). And a Participant that has seven SQF Purge Ports would, on a monthly basis, be fee liable for $2,700 ($500 × 5 and $100 × 2).

    10 CTI offers real-time clearing trade updates. A real-time clearing trade update is a message that is sent to a member after an execution has occurred and contains trade details. The message containing the trade details is also simultaneously sent to The Options Clearing Corporation.

    11 Whereas the proposed SQF Purge Port Fee is $500 per port, per month for each of the first five ports and $100 per port per month for each port thereafter, the CTI Port Fee is $650 per port, per month for the first five ports and $100 per port per month thereafter. See Phlx Pricing Schedule at Chapter VII, Section B.

    Change 2—Technical Modifications

    The Exchange is also taking the opportunity to enhance the clarity and readability of Chapter VII, Section B of the Pricing Schedule. First, the Exchange is numbering each port fee in a separate subsection. Second, the Exchange is moving text from a footnote to the body of the current Active SQF Port Fee provision. Third, the Exchange is adding missing words to clarify that the current CTI Port Fee is per month. Fourth, the Exchange is deleting extraneous trademark language from the Pricing Schedule. None of these changes modifies the application of any existing fee.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,12 in general, and with Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,13 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using its facilities which the Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, for example, the Commission indicated that market forces should generally determine pricing because national market system regulation “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.” 14 Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission15 (“NetCoalition”) the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based approach.16 As the court emphasized, the Commission “intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.” 17

    14 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 at 37499 (“Regulation NMS Adopting Release” at Securities Exchange Release No. 34-51808 (June 29, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (File No. S7-10-04)).

    15NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 09-1042 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

    16See id. at 534-535.

    17See id. at 537.

    Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers.' . . . .” 18 Although the court and the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange believes that these views apply with equal force to the options markets.

    18See id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) at 73 FR at 74782-74783).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because offering Market Makers designated SQF Purge Ports would enhance Market Makers' ability to manage quotes, quote traffic, and their quoting obligations,19 which would, in turn, improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the SQF Purge Ports would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities because designating SQF Purge Ports for purges only, and making it clear in the Pricing Schedule that such ports are available,20 may encourage better use of such dedicated ports. This may, concurrent with the Active SQF Ports that carry quote and other information necessary for market making activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and reasonable, use of Market Makers' resources. Because SQF Purge Ports, as the name suggests, are only available for purging and not for activities such as order or quote entry, the SQF Purge Ports are not designed to permit unfair discrimination but rather are designed to enable Market Makers to manage their quoting risk and meet their heightened quoting obligations that other market participants are not subject to, which, in turn, benefits all market participants.

    19See Rule 1014 titled “Obligations and Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.”

    20 As discussed, SQF Purge Ports will be fee liable on a monthly basis (and not only when such ports are active), which will help the Exchange to recoup the cost of these ports.

    The Exchange believes that its proposal should facilitate the ability of the Exchange to recoup some costs associated with SQF Purge Ports as well as provide, maintain, and improve SQF Purge Ports. The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons.

    Change 1—SQF Purge Port Fees

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to institute a $500 per port per month fee for each of the first 5 SQF Purge Ports and $100 per port per month for each port thereafter is reasonable because it would allow the Exchange to recoup technology costs. The proposed SQF Purge Port Fee reflects the desire of the Exchange to recoup the costs of maintaining ports. The SQF Purge Port Fee is reasonable because it enables the Exchange to offset, in part, its costs associated with making such ports available, including costs based on software and hardware enhancements and resources dedicated to development, quality assurance, and support. The structure of the Exchange's SQF Purge Port Fee is similar to that of the current CTI Port Fee, except that the SQF Purge Port Fee is lower for the first five ports.21 In addition, the SQF Purge Port Fee is in line with costs for ports at other options exchanges.22 The SQF Purge Port Fee is also reasonable because it reflects a structure that is not novel in the options markets but rather, as a gradated fee, is similar to that of other options exchanges and competitive with what is offered by other exchanges.

    21 Whereas the proposed SQF Purge Port Fee is $500 per port per month for each of the first five ports and $100 per port per month for each port thereafter, the Phlx CTI Port Fee is $650 per port per month for the first five ports and $100 per port per month thereafter. NOM and BX Options CTI Port Fees are simply $650 and $200, respectively. See NOM Chapter XV, Section 3(b) and BX Chapter XV, Section 3(b).

    22See NOM Pricing Schedule (port fees $650 or $750 per port). See also C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (“C2”) (generally assesses port fees $500 to $1,000 depending on connectivity levels); and NYSE AMEX Options (“AMEX”) fees (assesses a Quote Takedown Port of $450 per port per month in excess of the number of order/quote entry ports utilized.)

    Moreover, SQF Purge Ports allow Market Makers to better rely on data available through Active SQF Ports to provide them the necessary information for risk control and risk management so that they can perform market making activities in a swift and meaningful way. The Exchange believes that the progressive nature of the proposed new SQF Purge Port Fees for Market Makers is reasonable. While the proposed SQF Purge Port Fees will be assessed at $500 for the first five SQF Purge Ports, for more than five ports the fees will be assessed at only $100 per SQF Purge Port per month.23 Market Makers on the Exchange are valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs unlike other market participants because Market Makers add value through continuous quoting 24 and the commitment of capital. Market Makers provide a critical liquidity function across thousands of individual option put and call series, a function no other market participants are obligated to perform.

    23 Upon effectiveness of this proposal, a Market Maker that has three SQF Purge Ports would, on a monthly basis, be fee liable for $1,500 ($500 × 3). And a Participant that has seven SQF Purge Ports would, on a monthly basis, be fee liable for $2,700 ($500 × 5 plus $100 × 2).

    24See Rule 1014 titled “Obligations and Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.”

    The Exchange believes that establishing the proposed SQF Purge Port Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it will apply uniformly to all similarly situated market participants. All Market Makers that use SQF Purge Ports will be assessed the SQF Purge Port Fee in the same way. Market Makers who do not wish to acquire a dedicated SQF Purge Port can continue to use their Active SQF Port for purging their quotes without requiring a new SQF Purge Port. Having the SQF Purge Port to purge gives Market Makers choices in their preferred technical configuration with the exchange.

    Change 2—Technical Modifications

    The Exchange believes that the proposed technical modifications are fair and reasonable in that they do not impact the application of existing fees but simply enhance clarity and readability. Nor are the proposed technical modifications discriminatory in any respect.

    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. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal to make changes to Chapter VII, Section B to add new SQF Purge Port Fees will impose any undue burden on competition, as discussed below.

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market forces ensure that the Exchange's fees remain competitive with the fee structures at other trading platforms. In that sense, the Exchange's proposal is actually pro-competitive because it enables the Exchange to propose offering dedicated purge ports, SQF Purge Ports, to the benefit of Market Makers.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any undue 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. Moreover, in terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange notes that the proposed assessment of an SQF Purge Port Fee will be applied uniformly to all Market Makers that use such ports but should have no undue burden on any particular group of users. The proposal is designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by allowing the Exchange to recoup for certain of its connectivity costs, while continuing to offer competitive rates to participants.

    Furthermore, in this instance the proposed SQF Purge Port Fee does not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution and routing services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share and revenue as participants choose to abandon ports. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Additionally, the changes proposed herein are pro-competitive to the extent that they continue to allow the Exchange to promote and maintain order executions.

    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

    Because the foregoing 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)(iii) of the Act 25 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.26 The Exchange believes the rule change qualifies for immediate effectiveness as a “non-controversial” rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act.

    25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).

    26 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    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-Phlx-2016-45 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-Phlx-2016-45. 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-Phlx-2016-45 and should be submitted on or before May 10, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.27

    27 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08948 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77606; File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2016-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 8.17 To Provide a Process for an Expedited Suspension Proceeding and Rule 12.15 To Prohibit Layering and Spoofing April 13, 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 March 31, 2016, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by 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 filed a proposal to adopt a new rule to clearly prohibit disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange, as further described below. Further, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules to permit the Exchange to take prompt action to suspend Members or their clients that violate such rule.

    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 Introduction

    The Exchange is filing this proposal to adopt a new rule to clearly prohibit disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange and to amend Exchange Rules to permit the Exchange to take prompt action to suspend Members or their clients that violate such rule. The proposal is identical to the proposal of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., formerly known as BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”),3 which was recently approved by the Commission.4

    3 The Exchange notes that the membership of the Exchange and the membership of BZX is nearly identical. BZX members and the public had the opportunity to comment—and did comment—on an identical BZX proposal to the current proposal before the Staff approved the BZX proposal. See https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-bats-2015-101/bats2015101.shtml.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77171 (February 18, 2016) (SR-BATS-2015-101).

    Background

    As a national securities exchange registered pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the Exchange is required to be organized and to have the capacity to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members, with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the Exchange's Rules.5 Further, the Exchange's Rules are required to be “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade . . . and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.” 6 In fulfilling these requirements, the Exchange has developed a comprehensive regulatory program that includes automated surveillance of trading activity that is both operated directly by Exchange staff and by staff of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement (“RSA”). When disruptive and potentially manipulative or improper quoting and trading activity is identified, the Exchange or FINRA (acting as an agent of the Exchange) conducts an investigation into the activity, requesting additional information from the Member or Members involved. To the extent violations of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, or Exchange Rules have been identified and confirmed, the Exchange or FINRA as its agent will commence the enforcement process, which might result in, among other things, a censure, a requirement to take certain remedial actions, one or more restrictions on future business activities, a monetary fine, or even a temporary or permanent ban from the securities industry.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The process described above, from the identification of disruptive and potentially manipulative or improper quoting and trading activity to a final resolution of the matter, can often take several years. The Exchange believes that this time period is generally necessary and appropriate to afford the subject Member adequate due process, particularly in complex cases. However, as described below, the Exchange believes that there are certain obvious and uncomplicated cases of disruptive and manipulative behavior or cases where the potential harm to investors is so large that the Exchange should have the authority to initiate an expedited suspension proceeding in order to stop the behavior from continuing on the Exchange.

    In recent years, several cases have been brought and resolved by an affiliate of the Exchange and other SROs that involved allegations of wide-spread market manipulation, much of which was ultimately being conducted by foreign persons and entities using relatively rudimentary technology to access the markets and over which the Exchange and other SROs had no direct jurisdiction. In each case, the conduct involved a pattern of disruptive quoting and trading activity indicative of manipulative layering 7 or spoofing.8 An affiliate of the Exchange and other SROs were able to identify the disruptive quoting and trading activity in real-time or near real-time; nonetheless, in accordance with Exchange Rules and the Act, the Members responsible for such conduct or responsible for their customers' conduct were allowed to continue the disruptive quoting and trading activity during the entirety of the subsequent lengthy investigation and enforcement process. The Exchange believes that it should have the authority to initiate an expedited suspension proceeding in order to stop the behavior from continuing on the Exchange if a Member is engaging in or facilitating disruptive quoting and trading activity and the Member has received sufficient notice with an opportunity to respond, but such activity has not ceased.

    7 “Layering” is a form of market manipulation in which multiple, non-bona fide limit orders are entered on one side of the market at various price levels in order to create the appearance of a change in the levels of supply and demand, thereby artificially moving the price of the security. An order is then executed on the opposite side of the market at the artificially created price, and the non-bona fide orders are cancelled.

    8 “Spoofing” is a form of market manipulation that involves the market manipulator placing non-bona fide orders that are intended to trigger some type of market movement and/or response from other market participants, from which the market manipulator might benefit by trading bona fide orders.

    The following two examples are instructive on the Exchange's rationale for the proposed rule change.

    In July 2012, Biremis Corp. (formerly Swift Trade Securities USA, Inc.) (the “Firm”) and its CEO were barred from the industry for, among other things, supervisory violations related to a failure by the Firm to detect and prevent disruptive and allegedly manipulative trading activities, including layering, short sale violations, and anti-money laundering violations.9 The Firm's sole business was to provide trade execution services via a proprietary day trading platform and order management system to day traders located in foreign jurisdictions. Thus, the disruptive and allegedly manipulative trading activity introduced by the Firm to U.S. markets originated directly or indirectly from foreign clients of the Firm. The pattern of disruptive and allegedly manipulative quoting and trading activity was widespread across multiple exchanges, and FINRA and other SROs identified clear patterns of the behavior in 2007 and 2008. Although the Firm and its principals were on notice of the disruptive and allegedly manipulative quoting and trading activity that was occurring, the Firm took little to no action to attempt to supervise or prevent such quoting and trading activity until at least 2009. Even when it put some controls in place, they were deficient and the pattern of disruptive and allegedly manipulative trading activity continued to occur. As noted above, the final resolution of the enforcement action to bar the Firm and its CEO from the industry was not concluded until 2012, four years after the disruptive and allegedly manipulative trading activity was first identified.

    9See Biremis Corp. and Peter Beck, FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent No. 2010021162202, July 30, 2012.

    In September of 2012, Hold Brothers On-Line Investment Services, Inc. (the “Firm”) settled a regulatory action in connection with the Firm's provision of a trading platform, trade software and trade execution, support and clearing services for day traders.10 Many traders using the Firm's services were located in foreign jurisdictions. The Firm ultimately settled the action with FINRA and several exchanges for a total monetary fine of $3.4 million. In a separate action, the Firm settled with the Commission for a monetary fine of $2.5 million.11 Among the alleged violations in the case were disruptive and allegedly manipulative quoting and trading activity, including spoofing, layering, wash trading, and pre-arranged trading. Through its conduct and insufficient procedures and controls, the Firm also allegedly committed anti-money laundering violations by failing to detect and report manipulative and suspicious trading activity. The Firm was alleged to have not only provided foreign traders with access to the U.S. markets to engage in such activities, but that its principals also owned and funded foreign subsidiaries that engaged in the disruptive and allegedly manipulative quoting and trading activity. Although the pattern of disruptive and allegedly manipulative quoting and trading activity was identified in 2009, as noted above, the enforcement action was not concluded until 2012. Thus, although disruptive and allegedly manipulative quoting and trading was promptly detected, it continued for several years.

    10See Hold Brothers On-Line Investment Services, LLC, FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent No. 20100237710001, September 25, 2012.

    11In the Matter of Hold Brothers On-Line Investment Services, LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 67924, September 25, 2012.

    The Exchange also notes the current criminal proceedings that have commenced against Navinder Singh Sarao. Mr. Sarao's allegedly manipulative trading activity, which included forms of layering and spoofing in the futures markets, has been linked as a contributing factor to the “Flash Crash” of 2010, and yet continued through 2015.

    The Exchange believes that the activities described in the cases above provide justification for the proposed rule change, which is described below.

    Rule 8.17—Expedited Client Suspension Proceeding

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 8.17 to set forth procedures for issuing suspension orders, immediately prohibiting a Member from conducting continued disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange. Importantly, these procedures would also provide the Exchange the authority to order a Member to cease and desist from providing access to the Exchange to a client of the Member that is conducting disruptive quoting and trading activity in violation of proposed Rule 12.15.

    Under proposed paragraph (a) of Rule 8.17, with the prior written authorization of the Chief Regulatory Officer (“CRO”) or such other senior officers as the CRO may designate, the Office of General Counsel or Regulatory Department of the Exchange (such departments generally referred to as the “Exchange” for purposes of proposed Rule 8.17) may initiate an expedited suspension proceeding with respect to alleged violations of Rule 12.15, which is proposed as part of this filing and described in detail below. Proposed paragraph (a) would also set forth the requirements for notice and service of such notice pursuant to the Rule, including the required method of service and the content of notice.

    Proposed paragraph (b) of Rule 8.17 would govern the appointment of a Hearing Panel as well as potential disqualification or recusal of Hearing Officers. The proposed provision is consistent with existing Exchange Rule 8.6 and includes the requirement for a Hearing Officer to be recused in the event he or she has a conflict of interest or bias or other circumstances exist where his or her fairness might reasonably be questioned. In addition to recusal initiated by such a Hearing Officer, a party to the proceeding will be permitted to file a motion to disqualify a Hearing Officer. However, due to the compressed schedule pursuant to which the process would operate under Rule 8.17, the proposed rule would require such motion to be filed no later than 5 days after the announcement of the Hearing Panel and the Exchange's brief in opposition to such motion would be required to be filed no later than 5 days after service thereof. Pursuant to existing Rule 8.6(b), if the Hearing Panel believes the Respondent has provided satisfactory evidence in support of the motion to disqualify, the applicable Hearing Officer shall remove himself or herself and request the Chief Executive Officer to reassign the hearing to another Hearing Officer such that the Hearing Panel still meets the compositional requirements described in Rule 8.6(a). If the Hearing Panel determines that the Respondent's grounds for disqualification are insufficient, it shall deny the Respondent's motion for disqualification by setting forth the reasons for the denial in writing and the Hearing Panel will proceed with the hearing.

    Under paragraph (c) of the proposed Rule, the hearing would be held not later than 15 days after service of the notice initiating the suspension proceeding, unless otherwise extended by the Chairman of the Hearing Panel with the consent of the Parties for good cause shown. In the event of a recusal or disqualification of a Hearing Officer the hearing shall be held not later than five days after a replacement Hearing Officer is appointed. Proposed paragraph (c) would also govern how the hearing is conducted, including the authority of Hearing Officers, witnesses, additional information that may be required by the Hearing Panel, the requirement that a transcript of the proceeding be created and details related to such transcript, and details regarding the creation and maintenance of the record of the proceeding. Proposed paragraph (c) would also state that if a Respondent fails to appear at a hearing for which it has notice, the allegations in the notice and accompanying declaration may be deemed admitted, and the Hearing Panel may issue a suspension order without further proceedings. Finally, as proposed, if the Exchange fails to appear at a hearing for which it has notice, the Hearing Panel may order that the suspension proceeding be dismissed.

    Under paragraph (d) of the proposed Rule, the Hearing Panel would be authorized to issue a written decision stating whether a suspension order would be imposed. The Hearing Panel would be required to issue the decision not later than 10 days after receipt of the hearing transcript, unless otherwise extended by the Chairman of the Hearing Panel with the consent of the Parties for good cause shown. The Rule would state that a suspension order shall be imposed if the Hearing Panel finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged violation specified in the notice has occurred and that the violative conduct or continuation thereof is likely to result in significant market disruption or other significant harm to investors.

    Proposed paragraph (d) would also describe the content, scope and form of a suspension order. As proposed, a suspension order shall be limited to ordering a Respondent to cease and desist from violating proposed Rule 12.15, and/or to ordering a Respondent to cease and desist from providing access to the Exchange to a client of Respondent that is causing violations of Rule 12.15. Under the proposed rule, a suspension order shall also set forth the alleged violation and the significant market disruption or other significant harm to investors that is likely to result without the issuance of an order. The order shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts the Respondent is to take or refrain from taking, and suspend such Respondent unless and until such action is taken or refrained from. Finally, the order shall include the date and hour of its issuance. As proposed, a suspension order would remain effective and enforceable unless modified, set aside, limited, or revoked pursuant to proposed paragraph (e), as described below. Finally, paragraph (d) would require service of the Hearing Panel's decision and any suspension order consistent with other portions of the proposed rule related to service.

    Proposed paragraph (e) of Rule 8.17 would state that at any time after the Office of Hearing Officers served the Respondent with a suspension order, a Party could apply to the Hearing Panel to have the order modified, set aside, limited, or revoked. If any part of a suspension order is modified, set aside, limited, or revoked, proposed paragraph (e) of Rule 8.17 provides the Hearing Panel discretion to leave the cease and desist part of the order in place. For example, if a suspension order suspends Respondent unless and until Respondent ceases and desists providing access to the Exchange to a client of Respondent, and after the order is entered the Respondent complies, the Hearing Panel is permitted to modify the order to lift the suspension portion of the order while keeping in place the cease and desist portion of the order. With its broad modification powers, the Hearing Panel also maintains the discretion to impose conditions upon the removal of a suspension—for example, the Hearing Panel could modify an order to lift the suspension portion of the order in the event a Respondent complies with the cease and desist portion of the order but additionally order that the suspension will be re-imposed if Respondent violates the cease and desist provisions modified order in the future. The Hearing Panel generally would be required to respond to the request in writing within 10 days after receipt of the request. An application to modify, set aside, limit or revoke a suspension order would not stay the effectiveness of the suspension order.

    Finally, proposed paragraph (f) would provide that sanctions issued under the proposed Rule 8.17 would constitute final and immediately effective disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Exchange, and that the right to have any action under the Rule reviewed by the Commission would be governed by Section 19 of the Act. The filing of an application for review would not stay the effectiveness of a suspension order unless the Commission otherwise ordered.

    Rule 12.15—Disruptive Quoting and Trading Activity Prohibited

    The Exchange currently has authority to prohibit and take action against manipulative trading activity, including disruptive quoting and trading activity, pursuant to its general market manipulation rules, including Rule 3.1. The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 12.15, which would more specifically define and prohibit disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange also proposes to apply the proposed suspension rules to proposed Rule 12.15.

    Proposed Rule 12.15 would prohibit Members from engaging in or facilitating disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange, as described in proposed Interpretation and Policies .01 and .02 of the Rule, including acting in concert with other persons to effect such activity. The Exchange believes that it is necessary to extend the prohibition to situations when persons are acting in concert to avoid a potential loophole where disruptive quoting and trading activity is simply split between several brokers or customers.

    To provide proper context for the situations in which the Exchange proposes to utilize its proposed authority, the Exchange believes it is necessary to describe the types of disruptive quoting and trading activity that would cause the Exchange to use its authority. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .01 and .02, providing additional details regarding disruptive quoting and trading activity. Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01(a), which describes disruptive quoting and trading activity containing many of the elements indicative of layering, would describe disruptive quoting and trading activity as a frequent pattern in which the following facts are present: (a) A party enters multiple limit orders on one side of the market at various price levels (the “Displayed Orders”); and (b) following the entry of the Displayed Orders, the level of supply and demand for the security changes; and (c) the party enters one or more orders on the opposite side of the market of the Displayed Orders (the “Contra-Side Orders”) that are subsequently executed; and (d) following the execution of the Contra-Side Orders, the party cancels the Displayed Orders. Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01(b), which describes disruptive quoting and trading activity containing many of the elements indicative of spoofing, would describe disruptive quoting and trading activity as a frequent pattern in which the following facts are present: (a) A party narrows the spread for a security by placing an order inside the national best bid or offer; and (b) the party then submits an order on the opposite side of the market that executes against another market participant that joined the new inside market established by the order described in (a) that narrowed the spread. The Exchange believes that the proposed descriptions of disruptive quoting and trading activity articulated in the rule are consistent with the activities that have been identified and described in the client access cases described above. The Exchange further believes that the proposed descriptions will provide Members with clear descriptions of disruptive quoting and trading activity that will help them to avoid engaging in such activities or allowing their clients to engage in such activities.

    The Exchange proposes to make clear in Interpretation and Policy .02 that, unless otherwise indicated, the descriptions of disruptive quoting and trading activity do not require the facts to occur in a specific order in order for the rule to apply. For instance, with respect to the pattern defined in proposed Interpretation and Policy .01(a) it is of no consequence whether a party first enters Displayed Orders and then Contra-side Orders or vice-versa. However, as proposed, it is required for supply and demand to change following the entry of the Displayed Orders. The Exchange also proposes to make clear that disruptive quoting and trading activity includes a pattern or practice in which some portion of the disruptive quoting and trading activity is conducted on the Exchange and the other portions of the disruptive quoting and trading activity are conducted on one or more other exchanges. The Exchange believes that this authority is necessary to address market participants who would otherwise seek to avoid the prohibitions of the proposed Rule by spreading their activity amongst various execution venues.

    In sum, proposed Rule 12.15 coupled with proposed Rule 8.17 would provide the Exchange with authority to promptly act to prevent disruptive quoting and trading activity from continuing on the Exchange. Below is an example of how the proposed rule would operate.

    Assume that through its surveillance program, Exchange staff identifies a pattern of potentially disruptive quoting and trading activity. After an initial investigation the Exchange would then contact the Member responsible for the orders that caused the activity to request an explanation of the activity as well as any additional relevant information, including the source of the activity. If the Exchange were to continue to see the same pattern from the same Member and the source of the activity is the same or has been previously identified as a frequent source of disruptive quoting and trading activity then the Exchange could initiate an expedited suspension proceeding by serving notice on the Member that would include details regarding the alleged violations as well as the proposed sanction. In such a case the proposed sanction would likely be to order the Member to cease and desist providing access to the Exchange to the client that is responsible for the disruptive quoting and trading activity and to suspend such Member unless and until such action is taken. The Member would have the opportunity to be heard in front of a Hearing Panel at a hearing to be conducted within 15 days of the notice. If the Hearing Panel determined that the violation alleged in the notice did not occur or that the conduct or its continuation would not have the potential to result in significant market disruption or other significant harm to investors, then the Hearing Panel would dismiss the suspension order proceeding. If the Hearing Panel determined that the violation alleged in the notice did occur and that the conduct or its continuation is likely to result in significant market disruption or other significant harm to investors, then the Hearing Panel would issue the order including the proposed sanction, ordering the Member to cease providing access to the client at issue and suspending such Member unless and until such action is taken. If such Member wished for the suspension to be lifted because the client ultimately responsible for the activity no longer would be provided access to the Exchange, then such Member could apply to the Hearing Panel to have the order modified, set aside, limited or revoked. The Exchange notes that the issuance of a suspension order would not alter the Exchange's ability to further investigate the matter and/or later sanction the Member pursuant to the Exchange's standard disciplinary process for supervisory violations or other violations of Exchange rules or the Act.12

    12 The proposal will not supplant the Exchange's current investigative and enforcement process. Currently, when Exchange surveillance staff identifies a pattern of potentially disruptive quoting and trading activity, the staff conducts an initial analysis and investigation of that activity. After the initial investigation, the Exchange then contacts the Member responsible for the orders that caused the activity to request an explanation of the activity as well as any additional relevant information, including the source of the activity. The Exchange will continue this practice after this proposal becomes operative. The Exchange will only seek an expedited suspension when—after multiple requests to a Member for an explanation of activity—it continues to see the same pattern of manipulation from the same Member and the source of the activity is the same or has been previously identified as a frequent source of disruptive quoting and trading activity.

    The Exchange reiterates that it already has broad authority to take action against a Member in the event that such Member is engaging in or facilitating disruptive or manipulative trading activity on the Exchange. For the reasons described above, and in light of recent cases like the client access cases described above, as well as other cases currently under investigation, the Exchange believes that it is equally important for the Exchange to have the authority to promptly initiate expedited suspension proceedings against any Member who has demonstrated a clear pattern or practice of disruptive quoting and trading activity, as described above, and to take action including ordering such Member to terminate access to the Exchange to one or more of such Member's clients if such clients are responsible for the activity. The Exchange recognizes that its proposed authority to issue a suspension order is a powerful measure that should be used very cautiously. Consequently, the proposed rules have been designed to ensure that the proceedings are used to address only the most clear and serious types of disruptive quoting and trading activity and that the interests of Respondents are protected. For example, to ensure that proceedings are used appropriately and that the decision to initiate a proceeding is made only at the highest staff levels, the proposed rules require the CRO or another senior officer of the Exchange to issue written authorization before the Exchange can institute an expedited suspension proceeding. In addition, the Exchange believes that it would use this authority in limited circumstances, when necessary to protect investors, other Members and the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed expedited suspension provisions described above that provide the opportunity to respond as well as a Hearing Panel determination prior to taking action will ensure that the Exchange would not utilize its authority in the absence of a clear pattern or practice of disruptive quoting and trading activity.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 13 and further the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act 14 because they are 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 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. Pursuant to the proposal, the Exchange will have a mechanism to promptly initiate expedited suspension proceedings in the event the Exchange believes that it has sufficient proof that a violation of Rule 12.15 has occurred and is ongoing.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act,15 which require that the rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline for, violations of the Commission and Exchange rules. The Exchange also believes that the proposal is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposal helps to strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization in cases where awaiting the conclusion of a full disciplinary proceeding is unsuitable in view of the potential harm to other Members and their customers as well as the Exchange if conduct is allowed to continue on the Exchange. As explained above, the Exchange notes that it has defined the prohibited disruptive quoting and trading activity by modifying the traditional definitions of layering and spoofing 16 to eliminate an express intent element that would not be proven on an expedited basis and would instead require a thorough investigation into the activity. As noted throughout this filing, the Exchange believes it is necessary for the protection of investors to make such modifications in order to adopt an expedited process rather than allowing disruptive quoting and trading activity to occur for several years. Through this proposal, the Exchange does not intend to modify the definitions of spoofing and layering that have generally been used by the Exchange and other regulators in connection with actions like those cited above.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).

    16See supra, notes 7 and 8.

    The Exchange further believes that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(7) of the Act,17 which requires that the rules of an exchange “provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated with persons . . . and the prohibition or limitation by the exchange of any person with respect to access to services offered by the exchange or a member thereof.” Finally, the Exchange also believes the proposal is consistent with sections 6(d)(1) and 6(d)(2) of the Act,18 which require that the rules of an exchange with respect to a disciplinary proceeding or proceeding that would limit or prohibit access to or membership in the exchange require the exchange to: Provide adequate and specific notice of the charges brought against a member or person associated with a member, provide an opportunity to defend against such charges, keep a record, and provide details regarding the findings and applicable sanctions in the event a determination to impose a disciplinary sanction is made. The Exchange believes that each of these requirements is addressed by the notice and due process provisions included within proposed Rule 8.17. Importantly, as noted above, the Exchange anticipates using the authority proposed in this filing only in clear and egregious cases when necessary to protect investors, other Members and the Exchange, and even in such cases, the Respondent will be afforded due process in connection with the suspension proceedings.

    17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).

    18 15 U.S.C. 78f(d)(1).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that each self-regulatory organization should be empowered to regulate trading occurring on their market consistent with the Act and without regard to competitive issues. The Exchange is requesting authority to take appropriate action if necessary for the protection of investors, other Members and the Exchange.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 19 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.20 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, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 21 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.22

    19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    20 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    21 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    22 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 23 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),24 the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change may become operative immediately. The Exchange asserts that the waiver of the 30-day operative delay will allow the Exchange to immediately enforce the proposed rules to protect its members and market participants from the behavior proscribed by the proposed rules. The Exchange further states that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it is designed to protect investors and the public from disruptive quoting and trading activity. Furthermore, the Commission notes that it recently approved an identical expedited disciplinary procedure for an affiliate of the Exchange, BatsBZX,25 and the Exchange represents above that the membership of the Exchange and the membership of BatsBZX is nearly identical.26 Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.27

    23 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    24 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    25See supra, note 4.

    26See supra, note 3.

    27 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day 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 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-BatsEDGA-2016-03 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-BatsEDGA-2016-03. 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-BatsEDGA-2016-03, and should be submitted on or before May 10, 2016.

    28 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.28

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08943 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77607; File No. SR-BYX-2016-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS-Y Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt an Early Trading Session and Three New Time-In-Force Instructions April 13, 2016. I. Introduction

    On February 16, 2016, BATS-Y Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.) (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 a proposed rule change to amend its rules to: (i) Create a new trading session to be known as the Early Trading Session, which will run from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time; and (ii) adopt three new Time-in-Force (“TIF”) instructions. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 29, 2016.4 On April 11, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.5 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77213 (February 23, 2016), 81 FR 10310 (“Notice”).

    5 Amendment No. 1 amended and replaced the proposed rule change in its entirety. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made technical, non-substantive changes to the proposed rule text to replace references to “BATS” with “BYX,” and otherwise revised Exhibit 5, so that the proposed rule text therein is consistent with the Exchange's current rule text. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77308 (March 7, 2016) 81 FR 12975 (March 11, 2016) (SR-BYX-2016-07). In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange also proposes a non-substantive change to Exchange Rule 14.1 to correct an inaccurate description of the start time for the Pre-Opening Session. Because Amendment No. 1 adds clarification and does not materially alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise unique or novel regulatory issues, Amendment No. 1 is not subject to notice and comment.

    II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to: (i) Create a new trading session, the Early Trading Session, which will run from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time; and (ii) adopt three new TIF instructions.

    A. Early Trading Session

    The Exchange trading day is currently divided into three sessions: (i) The Pre-Opening Session, which starts at 8:00 a.m. and ends at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time; (ii) Regular Trading Hours, which run from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time; and (iii) the After Hours Session, which runs from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.6 The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to create the Early Trading Session. Exchange Rule 1.5 would be amended to add a new term, “Early Trading Session,” under proposed paragraph (ee). “Early Trading Session” would be defined as “the time between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time.”

    6See Notice, supra note 4, at 10310.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.1(a) to state that orders may be entered or executed on, or routed away from, the Exchange during the Early Trading Session and to reflect the start time of the Early Trading Session as 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Other than the proposal to adopt an Early Trading Session, the Exchange does not propose to amend the substance or operation of Exchange Rule 11.1(a).7

    7See id.

    Users 8 currently designate when their orders are eligible for execution by selecting a desired TIF instruction. Orders entered between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time are not eligible for execution until the start of the Pre-Opening Session or Regular Trading Hours, depending on the TIF selected by the User. A User may enter orders in advance of the trading session for which its orders are eligible. For example, Users may enter orders starting at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time with a TIF of Regular Hours Only (“RHO”), which designates that the order only be eligible for execution during Regular Trading Hours.9 Users may enter orders as early as 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time, but those orders would not be eligible for execution until the start of the Pre-Opening Session at 8:00 a.m. According to the Exchange, some Users have requested the ability for their orders to be eligible for execution starting at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to adopt the Early Trading Session.10

    8 “User” is defined as “any Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3.” See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).

    9See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(7).

    10See Notice, supra note 4, at 10310.

    As amended, Exchange Rule 11.1(a) would state that orders entered between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time, rather than 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time, would not be eligible for execution until the start of the Early Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, or Regular Trading Hours, depending on the TIF selected by the User. Exchange Rule 11.1(a) would also be amended to state that the Exchange would not accept the following orders prior to 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time, rather than 8:00 a.m.: (i) BYX Post Only Orders; 11 (ii) Partial Post Only at Limit Orders; 12 (iii) Intermarket Sweep Orders (“ISOs”); 13 (iv) BYX Market Orders 14 with a TIF other than RHO; (v) Minimum Quantity Orders 15 that also include a TIF of RHO; (vi) Retail Price Improvement Orders; 16 and (vii) all orders with a TIF instruction of Immediate-or-Cancel (“IOC”) 17 or Fill-or-Kill (“FOK”).18 At the commencement of the Early Trading Session, orders entered between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time, rather than 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time, would be handled in time sequence, beginning with the order with the oldest time stamp, and would be placed on the BYX Book,19 routed, cancelled, or executed in accordance with the terms of the order. As amended, Exchange Rule 11.1(a) would state that orders may be executed on the Exchange or routed away from the Exchange during Regular Trading Hours and during the Early Trading, Pre-Opening, and After Hours Trading Sessions.20

    11See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(6).

    12See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(7).

    13See Exchange Rule 11.9(d).

    14See Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(2).

    15See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(5).

    16See Exchange Rule 11.24(a)(3).

    17See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(1).

    18See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(6).

    19See Exchange Rule 1.5(e).

    20See Notice, supra note 4, at 10310-11. Amendment No. 1 updated Exhibit 5 so that the names of orders, order modifiers, and the Exchange's book stated therein conform with those used in the current Exchange Rules. See supra, note 5. The Exchange also describes how the Early Trading Session will affect its Members' operations and the Exchange's opening process, order types, routing services, order processing, data feeds, trade reporting, market surveillance, and clearly erroneous trade processing. The Exchange clarifies that these processes would operate in the same manner with the exception of changes in time to reflect the adoption of the Early Trading Session. See Notice, supra note 4, at 10311.

    The Exchange also proposes to make the changes described below to Exchange Rules 3.21, 11.9, 11.13, 11.17, and 14.1 to reflect the adoption of the Early Trading Session:

    • Exchange Rule 3.21, Customer Disclosures. Exchange Rule 3.21 prohibits Members from accepting an order from a customer for execution in the Pre-Opening or After Hours Trading Session without disclosing to their customer that extended hours trading involves material trading risks, including the possibility of lower liquidity, high volatility, changing prices, unlinked markets, an exaggerated effect from news announcements, wider spreads and any other relevant risk. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 3.21 to also require such disclosures for customer orders that are to be executed during the Early Trading Session.21

    21See id.

    • Exchange Rule 11.9, Orders and Modifiers. The Exchange proposes to amend the description of BYX Market Orders under Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(2), Market Maker Peg Orders under Rule 11.9(c)(16), and Supplementary Peg Orders under Rule 11.9(c)(19) to account for the Early Trading Session. Every order type that is currently available beginning at 8:00 a.m. would be available beginning at 7:00 a.m. for inclusion in the Early Trading Session. All other order types, and all order type behaviors, would otherwise remain unchanged. Therefore, each of the above rules for BYX Market Orders, Market Maker Peg Orders, and Supplemental Peg Orders would be amended to account for the Early Trading Session.22

    22See id. at 10311-12. Amendment No. 1 updated Exhibit 5 so that the names of orders and order modifiers stated therein conform with those used in the current Exchange Rules. See supra, note 5.

    • Exchange Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing. Exchange Rule 11.13(a)(2)(B) discusses compliance with Regulation NMS and Trade Through Protections and states that the price of any execution occurring during the Pre-Opening Session or the After Hours Trading Session must be equal to or better than the highest Protected Bid or lowest Protected Offer, unless the order is marked ISO or a Protected Bid is crossing a Protected Offer. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.13(a)(2)(B) to expand the Exchange Rule's requirements to the Early Trading Session.23

    23See Notice, supra note 4, at 10312.

    • Exchange Rule 11.17, Clearly Erroneous Executions. Exchange Rule 11.17 outlines under which conditions the Exchange may determine that an execution is clearly erroneous. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.17 to include executions that occur during the Early Trading Session. Exchange Rule 11.17(c)(1) sets forth the numerical guidelines the Exchange is to follow when determining whether an execution was clearly erroneous during Regular Trading Hours or the Pre-Opening or After Hours Trading Session. Exchange Rule 11.17(c)(3) sets forth additional factors the Exchange may consider in determining whether a transaction is clearly erroneous. These factors include whether the transaction was executed during the Pre-Opening or After Hours Trading Sessions. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.17(c)(1) and (3) to include executions occurring during the Early Trading Session.24

    24See id. The Exchange also proposes technical amendments to Exchange Rules 11.17(c)(1) and (3) to delete the letter “s” from the word “Trading Sessions” and the letter “s” from the word “tapes,” respectively.

    • Rule 14.1, Unlisted Trading Privileges. The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 14.1(c)(2), and Interpretation and Policies .01(a) and (b) to account for the proposed Early Trading Session. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (c)(2) to state that an information circular distributed by the Exchange prior to the commencement of trading of a UTP Derivative Security will include the risk of trading during the Early Trading Session, in addition to the Pre-Opening Session and After Hours Trading Session.25 In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policies .01(a) to add Early Trading Session to the paragraph's title and to state that if a UTP Derivative Security begins trading on the Exchange in the Early Trading Session or Pre-Opening Session and subsequently a temporary interruption occurs in the calculation or wide dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) or the value of the underlying index, as applicable, to such UTP Derivative Security, by a major market data vendor, the Exchange may continue to trade the UTP Derivative Security for the remainder of the Early Trading Session and Pre-Opening Session. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policies .01(b) to add Early Trading Session to the paragraph's title and to amend subparagraph (ii) of that section to state that if the IIV or the value of the underlying index continues not to be calculated or widely available as of the commencement of the Early Trading Session or Pre-Opening Session on the next business day, the Exchange shall not commence trading of the UTP Derivative Security in the Early Trading Session or Pre-Opening Session that day.26

    25 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 14.1(c)(2) to correct an inaccurate description of the Pre-Opening Session, which currently reads as 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. rather than 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. as is set forth throughout Exchange Rules.

    26See Notice, supra note 4, at 10312.

    B. TIF Instructions

    The Exchange proposes to adopt three new TIF instructions under Exchange Rule 11.9(b). As discussed above, a User may designate when its order is eligible for execution by selecting the desired TIF instruction under Exchange Rule 11.9(b).27

    27See Exchange Rule 11.1(a).

    Although the Exchange states that the proposal to adopt an Early Trading Session is in response to User requests for their orders to be eligible for execution starting at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time, the Exchange states that some Users have requested that their orders continue to not be eligible for execution until the start of the Pre-Opening Session at 8:00 a.m. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following three new TIF instructions under Exchange Rule 11.9(b): 28

    28See Notice, supra note 4, at 10312.

    • Pre-Opening Session Plus (“PRE”). A limit order that is designated for execution during the Pre-Opening Session and Regular Trading Hours. Like the current Good `til Cancel TIF instruction,29 any portion not executed would expire at the end of Regular Trading Hours.

    29See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(3).

    • Pre-Opening Session `til Extended Day (“PTX”). A limit order that is designated for execution during the Pre-Opening Session, Regular Trading Hours, and the After Hours Session. Like the current Good `til Extended Day TIF instruction,30 any portion not executed would expire at the end of the After Hours Session.

    30See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(5).

    • Pre-Opening Session `til Day (“PTD”). A limit order that is designated for execution during the Pre-Opening Session, Regular Trading Hours, and the After Hours Session. Like the current Good `til Day TIF instruction,31 any portion not executed would be cancelled at the expiration time assigned to the order, which can be no later than the close of the After Hours Trading Session.

    31See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(4).

    Under each proposed TIF instruction, Users may designate that their orders only be eligible for execution starting with the Pre-Opening Session. Users may continue to enter orders as early as 6:00 a.m., but orders with the proposed TIF instructions would not be eligible for execution until 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time, which is the start of the Pre-Opening Session. At the commencement of the Pre-Opening Session, orders entered between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time with one of the proposed TIF instructions would be handled in time sequence, beginning with the order with the oldest time stamp, and would be placed on the BYX Book, routed, cancelled, or executed in accordance with the terms of the order.32

    32See Notice, supra note 4, at 10312. Amendment No. 1 updated Exhibit 5 so that the name of the Exchange's book stated therein conforms with the name used in the current Exchange Rules. See supra, note 5. Orders utilizing one of the proposed TIF instructions would not be eligible for execution during the Early Trading Session. See Notice, supra note 4, at 10312, n.32.

    III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.33 The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 34 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.

    33 In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    34 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange proposes to adopt an Early Trading Session and three new TIF instructions and to make related changes to its rules as discussed above.35 The Commission believes that the proposed rules would provide Users with additional options for trading on the Exchange. The Commission notes that the proposed Early Trading Session hours are similar to those of other exchanges,36 and that the proposed TIF instructions would offer functionality similar to existing functionality available on the Exchange and other exchanges that allows Members to select when their orders become eligible for execution.37

    35See supra section II.

    36 For example, NYSE Arca, Inc. operates an Opening Session that starts at 4:00 a.m. Eastern Time and ends at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, and Nasdaq Stock Market LLC operates a pre-market session that also opens at 4:00 a.m. and ends at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. See NYSE Arca Rule 7.34(a)(1); Nasdaq Rule 4701(g). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60605 (September 1, 2009), 74 FR 46277 (September 8, 2009) (SR-CHX-2009-13) (adopting bifurcated post-trading session on the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.).

    37 Specifically, on the Exchange, Users may enter an order starting at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time with a TIF of Regular Hours Only, which designates that the order only be eligible for execution during Regular Trading Hours, which begin at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(7); see also NASDAQ Rule 4703(a)(7).

    The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it would subject orders that are eligible for execution as of the start of the Pre-Opening Session to all of the Exchange's standard regulatory checks, as it currently does with all orders upon entry.38 Specifically, the Exchange would subject such orders to checks for compliance with, including but not limited to, Regulation NMS,39 Regulation SHO,40 and relevant Exchange rules.41 Moreover, the Exchange reminds its Members of their regulatory obligations when submitting an order with one of the proposed TIF instructions.42 In particular, the Exchange states that Members must comply with the Market Access Rule,43 which requires, among other things, pre-trade controls and procedures that are reasonably designed to assure compliance with Exchange trading rules and Commission rules pursuant to Regulation SHO and Regulation NMS. The Exchange also notes that a Member's procedures must be reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements, not just at the time the order is routed to the Exchange, but also at the time the order becomes eligible for execution.44

    38See Notice, supra note 4, at 10314.

    39See 17 CFR 242.600-613.

    40See 17 CFR 242.200-204.

    41See Notice, supra note 4, at 10314.

    42See id.

    43See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.

    44See Notice, supra note 4, at 10314.

    The Commission further notes the Exchange's discussion of the best execution obligations of Members utilizing the proposed TIF instructions.45 Specifically, the Exchange states that a Member's best execution obligations may include cancelling an order when market conditions deteriorate and could result in an inferior execution or informing customers when the execution of their order may be delayed intentionally while the Member utilizes reasonable diligence to ascertain the best market for the security.46 The Exchange further notes that Members will maintain the ability to cancel or modify the terms of an order utilizing any of the proposed TIF instructions at any time, including during the time from when the order is routed to the Exchange until the start of the Pre-Opening Session.47 As a result, the Exchange states that a Member who utilizes the proposed TIF instructions, but later determines that market conditions favor execution during Early Trading Session, can cancel the order residing at the Exchange and enter a separate order to execute during the Early Trading Session.48

    45See id. at 10314.

    46See id. at n.41.

    47See id. at 10313.

    48See id. at 10313-14.

    Furthermore, the Exchange proposes technical amendments to its Rules to correct erroneous plural words and an inaccurate description of the Pre-Opening Session times in Exchange Rules 11.17 and 14.1, respectively. The Commission believes these proposed amendments would help alleviate potential confusion among Users and Members regarding the operation of the Exchange's rules and are, therefore, consistent with the Act.

    IV. Conclusion

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 49 that the proposed rule change (SR-BYX-2016-03), as modified by Amendment No.1, be, and it hereby is, approved.

    49 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.50

    50 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08955 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77611; File No. SR-BATS-2016-14] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt an Early Trading Session and Three New Time-in-Force Instructions April 13, 2016. I. Introduction

    On February 12, 2016, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BATS”) (n/k/a Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 a proposed rule change to amend its rules to: (i) Create a new trading session to be known as the Early Trading Session, which will run from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time; and (ii) adopt three new Time-in-Force (“TIF”) instructions. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 29, 2016.4 On April 11, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.5 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77214 (February 23, 2016), 81 FR 10350 (“Notice”).

    5 Amendment No. 1 amended and replaced the proposed rule change in its entirety. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made technical nonsubstantive changes to the proposed rule text to replace all references to “BATS” with “BZX” and to otherwise revise Exhibit 5 so that the proposed rule text is consistent with the Exchange's current rule text. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77307 (March 7, 2016), 81 FR 12996 (March 11, 2016) (SR-BATS-2016-25) and 77476 (March 30, 2016) 81 FR 19661 (April 5, 2016) (SR-BATS-2016-17). Because Amendment No. 1 adds clarification and does not materially alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise unique or novel regulatory issues, Amendment No. 1 is not subject to notice and comment.

    II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to: (i) Create a new trading session, the Early Trading Session, which will run from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time; and (ii) adopt three new TIF instructions.

    A. Early Trading Session

    The Exchange trading day is currently divided into three sessions: (i) The Pre-Opening Session, which starts at 8:00 a.m. and ends at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time; (ii) Regular Trading Hours, which run from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time; and (iii) the After Hours Session, which runs from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.6 The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to create the Early Trading Session. Exchange Rule 1.5 would be amended to add a new term, “Early Trading Session,” under proposed paragraph (ee). “Early Trading Session” would be defined as “the time between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time.”

    6See Notice, supra note 4, at 10350.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.1(a) to state that orders may be entered or executed on, or routed away from, the Exchange during the Early Trading Session and to reflect the start time of the Early Trading Session as 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Other than the proposal to adopt an Early Trading Session, the Exchange does not propose to amend the substance or operation of Exchange Rule 11.1(a).7

    7See id.

    Users 8 currently designate when their orders are eligible for execution by selecting a desired TIF instruction. Orders entered between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time are not eligible for execution until the start of the Pre-Opening Session or Regular Trading Hours, depending on the TIF selected by the User. A User may enter orders in advance of the trading session for which its orders are eligible. For example, Users may enter orders starting at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time with a TIF of Regular Hours Only (“RHO”), which designates that the order only be eligible for execution during Regular Trading Hours.9 Users may enter orders as early as 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time, but those orders would not be eligible for execution until the start of the Pre-Opening Session at 8:00 a.m. According to the Exchange, some Users have requested the ability for their orders to be eligible for execution starting at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to adopt the Early Trading Session.10

    8 “User” is defined as “any Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3.” See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).

    9See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(7).

    10See Notice, supra note 4, at 10351.

    As amended, Exchange Rule 11.1(a) would state that orders entered between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time, rather than 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time, would not be eligible for execution until the start of the Early Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, or Regular Trading Hours, depending on the TIF selected by the User. Exchange Rule 11.1(a) would also be amended to state that the Exchange would not accept the following orders prior to 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time, rather than 8:00 a.m.: (i) BZX Post Only Orders; 11 (ii) Partial Post Only at Limit Orders; 12 (iii) Intermarket Sweep Orders (“ISOs”); 13 (iv) BZX Market Orders 14 that are not Eligible Auction Orders as defined in Rule 11.23(a)(8); (v) Minimum Quantity Orders 15 that also include a TIF of RHO; and (vi) all orders with a TIF instruction of Immediate-or-Cancel (“IOC”) 16 or Fill-or-Kill (“FOK”).17 At the commencement of the Early Trading Session, orders entered between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time, rather than 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time, would be handled in time sequence, beginning with the order with the oldest time stamp, and would be placed on the BZX Book,18 routed, cancelled, or executed in accordance with the terms of the order.19 As amended, Exchange Rule 11.1(a) would state that orders may be executed on the Exchange or routed away from the Exchange during Regular Trading Hours and during the Early Trading, Pre-Opening, and After Hours Trading Sessions.20

    11See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(6).

    12See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(7).

    13See Exchange Rule 11.9(d).

    14See Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(2).

    15See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(5).

    16See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(1).

    17See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(6).

    18See Exchange Rule 1.5(e).

    19See Notice, supra note 4, at 10351.

    20See id. Amendment No. 1 updated Exhibit 5 so that the names of orders, order modifiers, and the Exchange's book stated therein conform with those used in the current Exchange Rules. See supra, note 5. The Exchange also describes how the Early Trading Session will affect its Members' operations and the Exchange's opening process, order types, routing services, order processing, data feeds, trade reporting, market surveillance, and clearly erroneous trade processing. The Exchange clarifies that these processes would operate in the same manner with the exception of changes in time to reflect the adoption of the Early Trading Session. See Notice, supra note 4, at 10351.

    The Exchange also proposes to make the changes described below to Exchange Rules 3.21, 11.9, 11.13, 11.17, 11.23, 14.6, 14.11 and 14.12 to reflect the adoption of the Early Trading Session:

    • Exchange Rule 3.21, Customer Disclosures. Exchange Rule 3.21 prohibits Members from accepting an order from a customer for execution in the Pre-Opening or After Hours Trading Session without disclosing to their customer that extended hours trading involves material trading risks, including the possibility of lower liquidity, high volatility, changing prices, unlinked markets, an exaggerated effect from news announcements, wider spreads and any other relevant risk. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 3.21 to also require such disclosures for customer orders that are to be executed during the Early Trading Session.21

    21See id.

    • Exchange Rule 11.9, Orders and Modifiers. The Exchange proposes to amend the description of BZX Market Orders under Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(2), Market Maker Peg Orders under Rule 11.9(c)(16), and Supplementary Peg Orders under Rule 11.9(c)(19) to account for the Early Trading Session. Every order type that is currently available beginning at 8:00 a.m. would be available beginning at 7:00 a.m. for inclusion in the Early Trading Session. All other order types, and all order type behaviors, would otherwise remain unchanged. Therefore, each of the above rules for BZX Market Orders, Market Maker Peg Orders, and Supplemental Peg Orders would be amended to account for the Early Trading Session.22

    22See id. at 10351-52. Amendment No. 1 updated Exhibit 5 so that the names of orders and order modifiers stated therein conform with those used in the current Exchange Rules. See supra, note 5.

    • Exchange Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing. Exchange Rule 11.13(a)(2)(B) discusses compliance with Regulation NMS and Trade Through Protections and states that the price of any execution occurring during the Pre-Opening Session or the After Hours Trading Session must be equal to or better than the highest Protected Bid or lowest Protected Offer, unless the order is marked ISO or a Protected Bid is crossing a Protected Offer. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.13(a)(2)(B) to expand the Exchange Rule's requirements to the Early Trading Session.23

    23See Notice, supra note 4, at 10352.

    • Exchange Rule 11.17, Clearly Erroneous Executions. Exchange Rule 11.17 outlines under which conditions the Exchange may determine that an execution is clearly erroneous. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.17 to include executions that occur during the Early Trading Session. Exchange Rule 11.17(c)(1) sets forth the numerical guidelines the Exchange is to follow when determining whether an execution was clearly erroneous during Regular Trading Hours or the Pre-Opening or After Hours Trading Session. Exchange Rule 11.17(c)(3) sets forth additional factors the Exchange may consider in determining whether a transaction is clearly erroneous. These factors include whether the transaction was executed during the Pre-Opening or After Hours Trading Sessions. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.17(c)(1) and (3) to include executions occurring during the Early Trading Session.24

    24See id. The Exchange also proposes technical amendments to Exchange Rules 11.17(c)(1) and (3) to delete the letter “s” from the word “Trading Sessions” and the letter “s” from the word “tapes,” respectively.

    • Exchange Rule 11.23, Auction. Exchange Rules 11.23(b) and (c) describe the Exchange's Opening and Closing Auction processes. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 11.23(b)(1)(C) to reflect that Orders eligible for execution in the Early Trading Session or Pre-Opening Session may be cancelled or modified at any time prior to execution.25

    25 The Commission notes that in the initial filing for this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposed additional conforming changes to Exchange Rules 11.23(b)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(A) to state that Users may submit orders at the start of the Early Trading Session at 7:00 a.m., rather than 8:00 a.m., to participate in either the Opening or Closing Auction. In Amendment No. 1, those proposed amendments were removed from the proposal because the current rule text for each rule no longer requires changes to conform with this proposal due to recent amendments in a separate rule filing. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77476 (March 30, 2016) 81 FR 19661 (April 5, 2016) (SR-BATS-2016-17).

    • Rule 14.6, Obligations for Companies Listed on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 14.6(b)(1), (b)(2), and Interpretation and Policies .01(a), (b), (c), and .02 to require an Exchange-Listed Company that publicly releases material information outside of the Exchange market hours to inform the Exchange's Surveillance Department of that material information prior to 6:50 a.m. rather than 7:50 a.m. Eastern Time. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 14.6, Interpretation and Policies .01(a), (b), (c), and .02 to reflect the start of the Early Trading Session at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The amended provisions of Exchange Rule 14.6, Interpretation and Policies .01(a), (b), (c), and .02 require companies to notify the Exchange's Surveillance Department of the release of certain material information at least ten minutes prior to the release of such information to the public when the public release of the information is made during Exchange market hours.26

    26See Notice, supra note 4, at 10352.

    • Rule 14.11, Other Securities. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 14.11(b)(7) and (c)(7) to reflect the extension of the pre-Opening session of the Exchange to 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time for the trading of Portfolio Depository Receipts and Index Fund Shares, respectively. The Exchange also proposes to amend the provisions of Exchange Rules 14.11(d) and (e) that address the trading of the following securities to include references to the Early Trading Session or to state that transaction in the following products may occur during the Early Trading Session, in addition to during Regular Trading Hours and the Pre-Opening and After Hours Trading Sessions: (i) Securities Linked to the Performance of Indexes and Commodities (Including Currencies) (Exchange Rule 14.11(d)); (ii) Commodity-Based Trust Shares (Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4)); (iii) Currency Trust Shares (Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(5)); (iv) Commodity Index Trust Shares (Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(6)); (v) Commodity Futures Trust Shares (Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(7)); (vi) Trust Units (Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(9)); (vii) Managed Trust Securities (Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(10)); and (viii) Derivative Securities Traded under Unlisted Trading Privileges (Exchange Rule 14.11(j)).27

    27See id. at 10352-53. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 14.11(j)(2) to correct an inaccurate description of the Pre-Opening Session, which currently reads as 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. rather than 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. as is set forth throughout Exchange Rules. See id. at 10353

    • Rule 14.12, Failure to Meet Listing Standards. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 14.12(e) and (m)(11) to require that companies that publicly announce the receipt of a notification of deficiency, Staff Delisting Determination, Public Reprimand Letter, or Adjudicatory Body Decision that serves as a Public Reprimand Letter outside of Exchange market hours inform the Exchange's Surveillance Department of the material information prior to 6:50 a.m. rather than 7:50 a.m. Eastern Time. If the public announcement is made during Exchange market hours, both Exchange Rules would continue to require that the company inform the Exchange's Surveillance Department at least 10 minutes prior to the announcement.28

    28See id.

    B. TIF Instructions

    The Exchange proposes to adopt three new TIF instructions under Exchange Rule 11.9(b). As discussed above, a User may designate when its order is eligible for execution by selecting the desired TIF instruction under Exchange Rule 11.9(b).29

    29See Exchange Rule 11.1(a).

    Although the Exchange states that the proposal to adopt an Early Trading Session is in response to User requests for their orders to be eligible for execution starting at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time, the Exchange states that some Users have requested that their orders continue to not be eligible for execution until the start of the Pre-Opening Session at 8:00 a.m. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following three new TIF instructions under Exchange Rule 11.9(b): 30

    30See Notice, supra note 4, at 10353.

    • Pre-Opening Session Plus (“PRE”). A limit order that is designated for execution during the Pre-Opening Session and Regular Trading Hours. Like the current Good `til Cancel TIF instruction,31 any portion not executed would expire at the end of Regular Trading Hours.

    31See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(3).

    • Pre-Opening Session `til Extended Day (“PTX”). A limit order that is designated for execution during the Pre-Opening Session, Regular Trading Hours, and the After Hours Session. Like the current Good `til Extended Day TIF instruction,32 any portion not executed would expire at the end of the After Hours Session.

    32See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(5).

    • Pre-Opening Session `til Day (“PTD”). A limit order that is designated for execution during the Pre-Opening Session, Regular Trading Hours, and the After Hours Session. Like the current Good `til Day TIF instruction,33 any portion not executed would be cancelled at the expiration time assigned to the order, which can be no later than the close of the After Hours Trading Session.

    33See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(4).

    Under each proposed TIF instruction, Users may designate that their orders only be eligible for execution starting with the Pre-Opening Session. Users may continue to enter orders as early as 6:00 a.m., but orders with the proposed TIF instructions would not be eligible for execution until 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time, which is the start of the Pre-Opening Session. At the commencement of the Pre-Opening Session, orders entered between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time with one of the proposed TIF instructions would be handled in time sequence, beginning with the order with the oldest time stamp, and would be placed on the BZX Book, routed, cancelled, or executed in accordance with the terms of the order.34

    34See Notice, supra note 4, at 10353. Amendment No. 1 updated Exhibit 5 so that the name of the Exchange's book stated therein conforms with the name used in the current Exchange Rules. See supra, note 5. Orders utilizing one of the proposed TIF instructions would not be eligible for execution during the Early Trading Session. See Notice, supra note 4, at 10353, n.32.

    III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.35 The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) 36 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.

    35 In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    36 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange proposes to adopt an Early Trading Session and three new TIF instructions and to make related changes to its rules as discussed above.37 The Commission believes that the proposed rules would provide Users with additional options for trading on the Exchange. The Commission notes that the proposed Early Trading Session hours are similar to those of other exchanges,38 and that the proposed TIF instructions would offer functionality similar to existing functionality available on the Exchange and other exchanges that allows Members to select when their orders become eligible for execution.39

    37See supra section II.

    38 For example, NYSE Arca, Inc. operates an Opening Session that starts at 4:00 a.m. Eastern Time and ends at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, and Nasdaq Stock Market LLC operates a pre-market session that also opens at 4:00 a.m. and ends at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. See NYSE Arca Rule 7.34(a)(1); Nasdaq Rule 4701(g). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60605 (September 1, 2009), 74 FR 46277 (September 8, 2009) (SR-CHX-2009-13) (adopting bifurcated post-trading session on the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.).

    39 Specifically, on the Exchange, Users may enter an order starting at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time with a TIF of Regular Hours Only, which designates that the order only be eligible for execution during Regular Trading Hours, which begin at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. See Exchange Rule 11.b(7); see also NASDAQ Rule 4703(a)(7).

    The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it would subject orders that are eligible for execution as of the start of the Pre-Opening Session to all of the Exchange's standard regulatory checks, as it currently does with all orders upon entry.40 Specifically, the Exchange would subject such orders to checks for compliance with, including but not limited to, Regulation NMS,41 Regulation SHO,42 and relevant Exchange rules.43 Moreover, the Exchange reminds its Members of their regulatory obligations when submitting an order with one of the proposed TIF instructions.44 In particular, the Exchange states that Members must comply with the Market Access Rule,45 which requires, among other things, pre-trade controls and procedures that are reasonably designed to assure compliance with Exchange trading rules and Commission rules pursuant to Regulation SHO and Regulation NMS. The Exchange also notes that a Member's procedures must be reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements, not just at the time the order is routed to the Exchange, but also at the time the order becomes eligible for execution.46

    40See Notice, supra note 4, at 10355.

    41See 17 CFR 242.600-613.

    42See 17 CFR 242.200-204.

    43See Notice, supra note 4, at 10355.

    44See id.

    45See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.

    46See Notice, supra note 4, at 10355.

    The Commission further notes the Exchange's discussion of the best execution obligations of Members utilizing the proposed TIF instructions.47 Specifically, the Exchange states that a Member's best execution obligations may include cancelling an order when market conditions deteriorate and could result in an inferior execution or informing customers when the execution of their order may be delayed intentionally while the Member utilizes reasonable diligence to ascertain the best market for the security.48 The Exchange further notes that Members will maintain the ability to cancel or modify the terms of an order utilizing any of the proposed TIF instructions at any time, including during the time from when the order is routed to the Exchange until the start of the Pre-Opening Session.49 As a result, the Exchange states that a Member who utilizes the proposed TIF instructions, but later determines that market conditions favor execution during Early Trading Session, can cancel the order residing at the Exchange and enter a separate order to execute during the Early Trading Session.50

    47See id. at 10354-55.

    48See id. n.41.

    49See id. at 10354.

    50See id.

    Furthermore, the Exchange proposes technical amendments to its Rules to correct erroneous plural words and an inaccurate description of the Pre-Opening Session times in Exchange Rules 11.17 and 14.11, respectively. The Commission believes these proposed amendments would help alleviate potential confusion among Users and Members regarding the operation of Exchange Rules and are, therefore, consistent with the Act.

    IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act 51 that the proposed rule change (SR-BATS-2016-14), as modified by Amendment No.1, be, and it hereby is, approved.

    51 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.52

    52 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-08969 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77609; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-054] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 7018(a) April 13, 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 April 12, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“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.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018(a) to add a new credit tier available to a member for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity.

    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.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    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 t