Federal Register Vol. 81, No.96,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 96 (May 18, 2016)

Page Range31161-31487
FR Document

81_FR_96
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 31167 - Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline SilicaPDF
81 FR 31487 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to BurmaPDF
81 FR 31485 - World Trade Week, 2016PDF
81 FR 31483 - Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week, 2016PDF
81 FR 31481 - National Hurricane Preparedness Week, 2016PDF
81 FR 31479 - National Defense Transportation Day and National Transportation Week, 2016PDF
81 FR 31475 - Emergency Medical Services Week, 2016PDF
81 FR 31161 - Delegation of Authority Pursuant to Section 3136(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016PDF
81 FR 31239 - Sunshine Act; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 31263 - Dominion Virginia Power; North Anna, Unit 3PDF
81 FR 31234 - NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics ManufacturingPDF
81 FR 31238 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
81 FR 31201 - Equal Access to Housing in HUD's Native American and Native Hawaiian Programs-Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 31172 - Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, Benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium Salts With Sepiolite; and Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, Benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium Salts With Saponite; Exemptions From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
81 FR 31252 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: FHA Technology Open to Approved Lenders (TOTAL) Mortgage ScorecardPDF
81 FR 31212 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone and Particulate MatterPDF
81 FR 31259 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Yoga Bridge AccreditationPDF
81 FR 31226 - Foreign-Trade Zone 244-Riverside, California; Application for Reorganization; (Expansion of Service Area); Under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
81 FR 31259 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Heterogeneous System Architecture FoundationPDF
81 FR 31259 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc.PDF
81 FR 31228 - Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (MFRC); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 31227 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013PDF
81 FR 31227 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31261 - Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Main Control Room Emergency Habitability System (VES) Design ChangesPDF
81 FR 31224 - USDA Increases the Fiscal Year 2016 Raw Sugar Tariff-Rate QuotaPDF
81 FR 31242 - Office of the Assistant Secretary; Statement of Delegation of AuthorityPDF
81 FR 31290 - Updated List of Goods and Services Produced by Independent Cuban Entrepreneurs Authorized for ImportationPDF
81 FR 31289 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor ApplicationPDF
81 FR 31290 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 31252 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Master Leasing Plan, Amend the Resource Management Plans for the Price and Richfield Field Offices, and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment, UtahPDF
81 FR 31295 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel GRACE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 31268 - Excepted Service; February 2016PDF
81 FR 31263 - Excepted Service; January 2016PDF
81 FR 31294 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel AVALANCHE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 31292 - South Carolina Division of Public Railways d/b/a Palmetto Railways-Acquisition Exemption-Hampton & Branchville Railroad CompanyPDF
81 FR 31267 - Submission for Review: 3206-0237, Information and Instructions on Your Reconsideration Rights, RI 38-47PDF
81 FR 31294 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TRUE NORTH II; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 31295 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel COOL BEANS III; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 31293 - Eighteenth Meeting: RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC)PDF
81 FR 31296 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FEEL THE MAGIC; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 31171 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Champlain, North Hero Island, VTPDF
81 FR 31232 - Chaves County Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 31231 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 31234 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 31233 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 31232 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 31258 - Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith; Commission's Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating Recordex USA, Inc.; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and BondingPDF
81 FR 31224 - Solicitation of Commodity Board Topics and Contribution of Funding Under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants ProgramPDF
81 FR 31230 - Update on Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial Action at Active Uranium and Thorium Processing SitesPDF
81 FR 31237 - Notice to all Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10370, First Commercial Bank of Tampa, Tampa, FloridaPDF
81 FR 31261 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Planetary Protection Subcommittee; MeetingPDF
81 FR 31298 - Sanctions Action Pursuant to Executive Order 13726 of April 19, 2016, “Blocking Property and Suspending Entry into the United States of Persons Contributing to the Situation in Libya.”PDF
81 FR 31260 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Labor Organization and Auxiliary ReportsPDF
81 FR 31236 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 31223 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
81 FR 31241 - Submission for OMB Review; Prompt PaymentPDF
81 FR 31239 - Information Collection; Anti-Kickback ProceduresPDF
81 FR 31240 - Submission for OMB Review; Make-or-Buy ProgramPDF
81 FR 31298 - Supplemental Information for 57 Individuals and 42 Entities Designated Pursuant to Executive Orders 12947, 13224, and/or 13582PDF
81 FR 31308 - Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 31243 - Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 31169 - Burmese Sanctions RegulationsPDF
81 FR 31230 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2018) Main Study Recruitment and Field TestPDF
81 FR 31244 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31293 - Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 31245 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31238 - Pro Transport, Inc., Pro Transport Jacksonville, Inc., Pro Transport Savannah, Inc., and Pro Transport Charleston, Inc. V. Seaboard Marine of Florida, Inc. and Seaboard Marine Ltd., Inc.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and AssignmentPDF
81 FR 31257 - Certain Wireless Headsets; Commission Determination To Affirm With Modification an Initial Determination, Granting Respondents' Motion for Summary Determination of Patent Invalidity Due to Indefiniteness; Termination of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 31292 - Determination Regarding Waiver of Discriminatory Purchasing Requirements With Respect to Goods and Services of UkrainePDF
81 FR 31254 - Ferrovanadium From KoreaPDF
81 FR 31255 - Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 31229 - Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 31306 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8404PDF
81 FR 31226 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
81 FR 31251 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 31248 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 31250 - Prospective Grant of Start-up Exclusive License: Development of Virus Like Particles for the Treatment of Breast Cancer, Lung Cancer, Melanoma, Pancreatic Cancer, and Hepatocellular CancerPDF
81 FR 31251 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive License: The Development of an Anti-GPC3 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) Based on YP7 for the Treatment of Human CancersPDF
81 FR 31246 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive License: The Development of an Anti-GPC3 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) Based on HN3 for the Treatment of Human CancersPDF
81 FR 31247 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Survey To Assess the Feasibility of Establishing a Gynecologic Specimen Bank (NCI)PDF
81 FR 31243 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31304 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 31306 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 2439PDF
81 FR 31307 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8498PDF
81 FR 31260 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
81 FR 31279 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Split-Price PriorityPDF
81 FR 31286 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 612, Aggregate Risk Manager (“ARM”)PDF
81 FR 31304 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 4506T-EZ, 4506-T-EZ (SP)PDF
81 FR 31305 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 31307 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8816PDF
81 FR 31165 - Removal of Allocation Rule for Disbursements From Designated Roth Accounts to Multiple DestinationsPDF
81 FR 31277 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
81 FR 31270 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
81 FR 31272 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31P(h) To Add a New Discretionary Pegged OrderPDF
81 FR 31272 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Description of Price Improving Orders Under Subparagraph (6) to Rule 21.1(d) and Add Subparagraph (4) to Rule 21.1(h) Modifying the Operation of Orders Subject to the Display Price Sliding Process When a Contra-Side Post Only Order Is Received by the Bats EDGX Exchange Options PlatformPDF
81 FR 31283 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Add Subparagraph (5) to Rule 21.1(h) Modifying the Operation of Orders Subject to the Display Price Sliding Process When a Contra-Side Post Only Order Is Received by the Bats BZX Exchange Options PlatformPDF
81 FR 31283 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31276 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31254 - Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof; Commission's Determination To Suspend Remedial Orders Issued in This InvestigationPDF
81 FR 31256 - Petroleum Wax Candles from ChinaPDF
81 FR 31296 - Guidelines for the Safe Deployment and Operation of Automated Vehicle Safety Technologies.PDF
81 FR 31238 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 31242 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 31206 - Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area in CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 31202 - Extension of the Attainment Date for the Oakridge, Oregon 24-Hour PM2.5PDF
81 FR 31222 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam Products Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition for PropanePDF
81 FR 31163 - Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan ProgramPDF
81 FR 31309 - Superior Pharmacy I and Superior Pharmacy II Decision and OrderPDF
81 FR 31177 - Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation; Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest, Solicitation Provisions and Contract ClausesPDF
81 FR 31375 - Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 31181 - Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Installation of Broadband Infrastructure in HUD-Funded New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation of Multifamily Rental HousingPDF
81 FR 31192 - Modernizing HUD's Consolidated Planning Process To Narrow the Digital Divide and Increase Resilience to Natural HazardsPDF
81 FR 31343 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program UpdatesPDF

Issue

81 96 Wednesday, May 18, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

See

Rural Housing Service

NOTICES Increase in Fiscal Year 2016 Raw Sugar Tariff-Rate Quota, 31224 2016-11732
Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Heterogeneous System Architecture Foundation, 31259 2016-11738 Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc., 31259-31260 2016-11737 Yoga Bridge Accreditation, 31259 2016-11740 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31242 2016-11633 Statement of Delegation of Authority, 31242-31243 2016-11731 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Lake Champlain, North Hero Island, VT, 31171-31172 2016-11713 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31227-31228 2016-11734 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Anti-Kickback Procedures, 31239-31240 2016-11686 Make-or-Buy Program, 31240 2016-11685 Prompt Payment, 31241 2016-11687 Meetings: Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council, 31228-31229 2016-11736 Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee, 31229-31230 2016-11666 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Superior Pharmacy I and Superior Pharmacy II, 31310-31341 2016-11550 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey Main Study Recruitment and Field Test, 31230 2016-11676 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Update on Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial Action at Active Uranium and Thorium Processing Sites, 31230-31231 2016-11700
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Acquisition Regulations: Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest, Solicitation Provisions, and Contract Clauses, 31177-31180 2016-11509 Requirement of a Tolerance; Exemptions: Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, Benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium Salts with Sepiolite; and Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, Benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium Salts with Saponite, 31172-31176 2016-11743 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; San Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone and Particulate Matter, 31212-31222 2016-11741 Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area in California, 31206-31212 2016-11630 Extension of Attainment Dates: Oakridge, Oregon 24-hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, 31202-31206 2016-11628 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Applications and Program Updates, 31344-31374 2016-11265 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam Products, etc., 31222-31223 2016-11627 NOTICES Petitions: NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, 31234-31236 2016-11749 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES Meetings: RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee, 31293 2016-11715 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 31223 2016-11689 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31236-31237 2016-11690 2016-11691 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: First Commercial Bank of Tampa, Tampa, FL, 31237-31238 2016-11699 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 2016-11708 2016-11709 2016-11710 31231-31234 2016-11711 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Chaves County Solar, LLC, 31232-31233 2016-11712 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 31238 2016-11748 Complaints: Pro Transport, Inc., Pro Transport Jacksonville, Inc., et al., v. Seaboard Marine of Florida, Inc., and Seaboard Marine Ltd., Inc., 31238 2016-11671 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Charter Renewals: Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, 31293 2016-11673 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 31238-31239 2016-11634 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31239 2016-11752 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee, 31243 2016-11678 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office RULES Burmese Sanctions Regulations, 31169-31171 2016-11677 NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 31298-31304 2016-11684 2016-11697 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Applications for Reorganization under Alternative Site Framework: Foreign-Trade Zone 244, Riverside, CA, 31226 2016-11739 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Anti-Kickback Procedures, 31239-31240 2016-11686 Make-or-Buy Program, 31240 2016-11685 Prompt Payment, 31241 2016-11687 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

RULES Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities, 31376-31473 2016-11458
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31243-31246 2016-11657 2016-11672 2016-11674 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Modernizing the Consolidated Planning Process to Narrow the Digital Divide and Increase Resilience to Natural Hazards, 31192-31201 2016-11350 Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Installation of Broadband Infrastructure in HUD-Funded New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation of Multifamily Rental Housing, 31181-31192 2016-11352 Native American and Native Hawaiian Programs: Equal Access to Housing Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity; Correction, 31201-31202 2016-11747 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: FHA Technology Open to Approved Lenders Mortgage Scorecard, 31252 2016-11742 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Removal of Allocation Rule for Disbursements from Designated Roth Accounts to Multiple Destinations, 31165-31166 2016-11647 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2016-11648 31304-31308 2016-11649 2016-11650 2016-11654 2016-11655 2016-11656 2016-11665 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China; Correction, 31227 2016-11735 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 31226-31227 2016-11664 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith, 31258-31259 2016-11706 Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof, 31254-31256 2016-11638 2016-11667 Certain Wireless Headsets, 31257 2016-11670 Ferrovanadium from Korea, 31254 2016-11668 Petroleum Wax Candles from China, 31256 2016-11637 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Water Act, 31260 2016-11653
Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Labor Organization and Auxiliary Reports, 31260-31261 2016-11695
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Master Leasing Plan, Resource Management Plans for the Price and Richfield Field Offices, Utah, 31252-31254 2016-11726 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel AVALANCHE, 31294 2016-11722 Vessel COOL BEANS III, 31295 2016-11716 Vessel FEEL THE MAGIC, 31296 2016-11714 Vessel GRACE, 31295-31296 2016-11725 Vessel TRUE NORTH II, 31294-31295 2016-11719 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Anti-Kickback Procedures, 31239-31240 2016-11686 Make-or-Buy Program, 31240 2016-11685 Prompt Payment, 31241 2016-11687 Meetings: NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee Planetary Protection Subcommittee, 31261 2016-11698 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Guidelines for the Safe Deployment and Operation of Automated Vehicle Safety Technologies, 31296-31297 2016-11635 National Institute Food National Institute of Food and Agriculture NOTICES Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program: Solicitation of Commodity Board Topics and Contribution of Funding, 31224-31226 2016-11705 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Survey to Assess the Feasibility of Establishing a Gynecologic Specimen Bank, 31247-31248 2016-11658 Exclusive Licenses: Development of an Anti-GPC3 Chimeric Antigen Receptor Based on HN3 for the Treatment of Human Cancers, 31246-31247 2016-11659 Development of an Anti-GPC3 Chimeric Antigen Receptor Based on YP7 for the Treatment of Human Cancers, 31251-31252 2016-11660 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 31248-31250 2016-11662 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 31251 2016-11663 Start-up Exclusive License Approvals: Development of Virus Like Particles for the Treatment of Breast Cancer, Lung Cancer, Melanoma, Pancreatic Cancer, and Hepatocellular Cancer, 31250-31251 2016-11661 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Amendment Applications: Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Main Control Room Emergency Habitability System Design Changes, 31261-31263 2016-11733 License Applications: Dominion Virginia Power North Anna, Unit 3, 31263 2016-11750 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, 31167-31169 C1--2016--04800 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Information and Instructions on Your Reconsideration Rights, 31267-31268 2016-11720 Excepted Service; February 2016, 31268-31270 2016-11724 Excepted Service; January 2016, 31263-31267 2016-11723 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Emergency Medical Services Week (Proc. 9445), 31475-31478 2016-11922 National Defense Transportation Day and National Transportation Week (Proc. 9446), 31479-31480 2016-11923 National Hurricane Preparedness Week (Proc. 9447), 31481-31482 2016-11924 Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week (Proc. 9448), 31483-31484 2016-11925 World Trade Week (Proc. 9449), 31485-31486 2016-11926 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Burma; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of May 17, 2016), 31487 2016-11936 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of May 10, 2016), 31161 2016-11836 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service RULES Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program, 31163-31165 2016-11608 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31276, 31283 2016-11639 2016-11640 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 31283-31286 2016-11641 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 31272-31276 2016-11642 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 31277-31283 2016-11645 2016-11652 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 31270-31272 2016-11644 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 31286-31289 2016-11651 NYSE Arca, Inc., 31272 2016-11643 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor Application, 31289-31290 2016-11728 Meetings: Preparations for the 103rd Session of the International Maritime Organization's Legal Committee, 31290 2016-11727 Updated List of Goods and Services Produced by Independent Cuban Entrepreneurs Authorized for Importation, 31290-31292 2016-11730 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisition Exemptions: South Carolina Division of Public Railways dba Palmetto Railways from Hampton and Branchville Railroad Co., 31292 2016-11721 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Determination Regarding Waiver of Discriminatory Purchasing Requirements with Respect to Goods and Services of Ukraine, 31292-31293 2016-11669 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Veterans Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, 31308 2016-11680 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, 31310-31341 2016-11550 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 31344-31374 2016-11265 Part IV Health and Human Services Department, 31376-31473 2016-11458 Part V Presidential Documents, 31475-31487 2016-11922 2016-11923 2016-11924 2016-11925 2016-11926 2016-11936 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 96 Wednesday, May 18, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service 7 CFR Part 3555 RIN 0575-AD04 Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program AGENCY:

Rural Housing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency) is amending the current regulation for the Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program (SFHGLP) on the subject of liquidation value appraisals. In order to reduce overall processing time, reduce cost, and expedite claim submission, lenders will order the liquidation value appraisal used to estimate a loss claim against the SFHGLP instead of the Agency. Currently, if a Real Estate Owned (REO) property remains unsold by the lender at the end of the permissible marketing period, the Agency orders a liquidation value appraisal and applies an acquisition and management resale factor to estimate holding and disposition cost. This amendment requires the servicing lender to order the liquidation value appraisal. The costs associated with obtaining the liquidation value appraisal can then be included in the liquidation costs paid under the guarantee.

DATES:

Effective Date: June 17, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lilian Lipton, Finance and Loan Analyst, Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Division, STOP 0784, Room 2250, USDA Rural Development, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0784, telephone: (202) 260-8012, email is [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

RHS amends the current regulation for the Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program (SFHGLP) on the subject of liquidation value appraisals. In order to reduce overall processing time, reduce cost, and expedite claim submission, lenders will order the liquidation value appraisal used to estimate a loss claim against the SFHGLP instead of the Agency. Specifically, RHS amends 7 CFR 3555.306(f)(3), 3555.352(e), 3555.353(b)(1), and 3555.354(b)(1)(i) and (ii) and (b)(2).

Executive Order 12866, Classification

This rule has been determined to be non-significant and, therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Except where specified, all State and local laws and regulations that are in direct conflict with this rule will be preempted. Federal funds carry Federal requirements. No person is required to apply for funding under SFHGLP, but if they do apply and are selected for funding, they must comply with the requirements applicable to the Federal program funds. This final rule is not retroactive. It will not affect agreements entered into prior to the effective date of the rule. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effect of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Agency generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million, or more, in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Environmental Impact Statement

This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” It is the determination of the Agency that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) the undersigned has determined and certified by signature of this document that this rule change will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any significant new requirements on Agency applicants and borrowers, and the regulatory changes affect only Agency determination of program benefits for guarantees of loans made to individuals.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 imposes requirements on RHS in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. RHS has determined that the rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe determines that this rule has implications of which RHS is not aware and would like to engage with RHS on this rule, please contact USDA Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or [email protected]

Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation

These loans are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. RHS conducts intergovernmental consultations for each SFHGLP in accordance with 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.

Programs Affected

The program affected by this regulation is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.410, Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans (Section 502 Rural Housing Loans).

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection and record keeping requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The assigned OMB control number is 0570-0179.

E-Government Act Compliance

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

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

I. Background Information

On October 6, 2015, RHS published a proposed rule with request for comments for the Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program (SFHGLP) (80 FR 60298-60300). Rural Development received comments from one respondent. The comments are addressed below.

II. Discussion of the Comments Received

Comment: The respondent strongly supported the Agency's proposal and requested clarification: (1) If mortgagees will be required to order a liquidation value appraisal when a sale date for a possessed home has been scheduled, but the sale date falls outside the permissible marketing period; (2) if mortgagees should order a liquidation value appraisal for the property when a contract for a sale falls through after the permissible marketing period has expired; and (3) if mortgagees will be held liable for not having ordered a liquidation value appraisal in the event a home sale is scheduled to be finalized on a date that is near the end of the permissible marketing period and the sale falls through.

RHS response: Technical details of lenders responsibilities while servicing non-performing loans are explained in the Agency's 3555 Handbook, therefore there will be no changes made in this provision.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3555

Home improvement, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Mortgages, Rural areas.

Therefore, chapter XXXV, title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 3555—GUARANTEED RURAL HOUSING PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 3555 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.

Subpart G—Servicing Non-Performing Loans 2. Section 3555.306 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:
§ 3555.306 Liquidation.

(f) * * *

(3) The lender must notify the Agency when the property has not been sold within 30 days of the expiration of the permissible marketing period. If the REO remains unsold at the end of the permissible marketing period, the lender will order a liquidation value appraisal and the Agency will apply an acquisition and management resale factor to estimate holding and disposition cost. Interest expenses accrued beyond 90 days of the foreclosure sale date or expiration of any redemption period, whichever is later, will be the responsibility of the lender and not covered by the guarantee.

Subpart H—Collecting on the Guarantee 3. Section 3555.352 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 3555.352 Loss covered by the guarantee.

(e) Liquidation costs. Reasonable and customary liquidation costs, such as attorney fees, liquidation value appraisals, and foreclosure costs. Annual fees advanced by the lender to the Agency are ineligible for reimbursement when calculating the loss payment, as otherwise provided by the Agency.

4. Section 3555.353 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
§ 3555.353 Net recovery value.

(b) * * *

(1) The value of the property as determined by a liquidation value appraisal. The value should be determined as if the property would be sold without the market exposure it would ordinarily receive in a normal transaction, or within 90 days, minus;

5. Section 3555.354 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
§ 3555.354 Loss claim procedures.

(b) * * *

(1) The lender must submit a loss claim request that includes a completed liquidation value appraisal within 30 calendar days of the period ending:

(i) Nine (9) months after either foreclosure or the end of any applicable redemption period, whichever is later, if the property remains unsold and is not located on American Indian restricted land; or

(ii) Twelve (12) months after either foreclosure or the end of any applicable redemption period, whichever is later, if the property remains unsold and is located on American Indian restricted land. Late claims made beyond this period of time, or submitted with a liquidation value appraisal not completed within the timeframes described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, may be rejected.

(2) The lender must submit a loss claim that includes the completed liquidation value appraisal within 30 calendar days of receiving the appraisal. Late claims made beyond this period of time, or submitted with a liquidation value appraisal not completed within the timeframes described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, may be rejected.

Dated: March 26, 2016. Tony Hernandez, Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11608 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9769] RIN 1545-BK08 Removal of Allocation Rule for Disbursements From Designated Roth Accounts to Multiple Destinations AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final regulations.

SUMMARY:

This document contains final regulations eliminating the requirement that each disbursement from a designated Roth account that is directly rolled over to an eligible retirement plan be treated as a separate distribution from any amount paid directly to the employee and therefore separately subject to the rule in section 72(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) allocating pretax and after-tax amounts to each distribution. As a result of this change, if disbursements are made from a taxpayer's designated Roth account to the taxpayer and also to the taxpayer's Roth IRA or designated Roth account in a direct rollover, then pretax amounts will be allocated first to the direct rollover, rather than being allocated pro rata to each destination. Also, a taxpayer will be able to direct the allocation of pretax and after-tax amounts that are included in disbursements from a designated Roth account that are directly rolled over to multiple destinations, applying the same allocation rules to distributions from designated Roth accounts that apply to distributions from other types of accounts. These regulations affect participants in, beneficiaries of, employers maintaining, and administrators of designated Roth accounts under tax-favored retirement plans.

DATES:

Effective Date: These regulations are effective on May 18, 2016.

Applicability Date: These regulations generally apply to distributions on or after January 1, 2016 (or an earlier date chosen by the taxpayer that is on or after September 18, 2014). For more information see the “Effective/Applicability Dates” section of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Brewer at (202) 317-6700 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

Section 402(a) provides generally that any amount distributed from a trust described in section 401(a) that is exempt from tax under section 501(a) is taxable to the distributee under section 72 in the taxable year of the distributee in which distributed. Under section 403(b)(1), any amount distributed from a section 403(b) plan is also taxable to the distributee under section 72.

If a participant's account balance in a plan qualified under section 401(a) or in a section 403(b) plan includes both after-tax and pretax amounts, then, under section 72(e)(8), each distribution (other than a distribution that is paid as part of an annuity) from the plan will include a pro rata share of both after-tax and pretax amounts. (Under section 72(d), a different allocation method applies to annuity distributions.)

Section 402(c) prescribes rules for amounts that are rolled over from qualified trusts to eligible retirement plans, including individual retirement accounts or annuities (“IRAs”). Subject to certain exceptions, section 402(c)(1) provides that if any portion of an eligible rollover distribution paid to an employee from a qualified trust is transferred to an eligible retirement plan, the portion of the distribution so transferred is not includible in gross income in the taxable year in which paid.

Under section 402(c)(2), the maximum portion of an eligible rollover distribution that may be rolled over in a transfer to which section 402(c)(1) applies generally cannot exceed the portion of the distribution that is otherwise includible in gross income. However, under section 402(c)(2)(A) and (B), the general rule does not apply to such a distribution to the extent that such portion is transferred in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to a qualified trust or to an annuity contract described in section 403(b) and such trust or contract provides for separate accounting for amounts so transferred (and earnings thereon), including separately accounting for the portion of such distribution which is includible in gross income and the portion of such distribution which is not so includible, or such portion is transferred to an IRA.

In addition, section 402(c)(2) provides that, in the case of a transfer described in subparagraph (A) or (B), the amount transferred shall be treated as consisting first of the portion of such distribution that is includible in gross income (determined without regard to section 402(c)(1)).

Under section 402A, an applicable retirement plan may include a designated Roth account. An applicable retirement plan is defined in section 402A(e)(1) to mean a plan qualified under section 401(a), a section 403(b) plan, and a governmental section 457(b) plan. Section 402A(d) provides that a qualified distribution (as defined in section 402A(d)(2)) from a designated Roth account is not includible in gross income.

Under section 402A(d)(4), section 72 is applied separately with respect to distributions and payments from a designated Roth account and other distributions and payments from the plan.

Section 1.402A-1, Q&A-5(a), of the Income Tax Regulations prescribes taxability rules for a distribution from a designated Roth account that is rolled over. Q&A-5(a) provides, in part, that “any amount paid in a direct rollover is treated as a separate distribution from any amount paid directly to the employee” (the “separate distribution rule”).

Proposed regulations limiting the applicability of the separate distribution rule of § 1.402A-1, Q&A-5(a), were published on September 19, 2014 (REG-105739-11, 79 FR 56310). The proposed regulations achieved this result by adding, after the separate distribution rule in paragraph A-5(a), the following sentence: “The preceding sentence does not apply to distributions made on or after January 1, 2015; in addition, a taxpayer may elect not to apply the preceding sentence to distributions made on or after an earlier date that is no earlier than September 18, 2014.” Thus, under the proposed regulations, an amount paid in a direct rollover is not required to be treated as a separate distribution from any amount paid directly to the employee.

The proposed regulations were issued in conjunction with Notice 2014-54 (2014-41 IRB 670 (October 6, 2014)), which specified that a taxpayer may direct after-tax and pretax amounts that are simultaneously disbursed to multiple destinations so as to allocate them to specific destinations. Under Notice 2014-54, a taxpayer may direct the allocation of after-tax and pretax amounts in connection with disbursements that are directly rolled over, as well as in connection with disbursements that are rolled over in 60-day rollovers.

No comments were received regarding the proposed regulations.

Explanation of Provisions

These regulations finalize the proposed regulations, with a 1-year delay of the applicability date (from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2016). They are substantively the same as the proposed regulations, but express the rule differently to better reflect the ongoing rule and the transition rule. For distributions made on or after January 1, 2016, the final regulations remove the sentence in the existing regulations that provided the separate distribution rule. For earlier distributions, the final regulations add a sentence at the end of the paragraph which provides that a separate distribution rule applies to distributions made prior to January 1, 2016, unless a taxpayer elects not to apply that rule with respect to a distribution made on or after September 18, 2014.

Effective/Applicability Dates

These regulations apply to distributions from designated Roth accounts made on or after January 1, 2016, and for such distributions taxpayers are required to follow the allocation rules described in Notice 2014-54.

These regulations also preserve the separate distribution rule for distributions made prior to the January 1, 2016, applicability date, except that a taxpayer is permitted to choose not to apply the separate distribution rule to distributions that are made on or after September 18, 2014, and before January 1, 2016. Taxpayers choosing not to apply the separate distribution rule to distributions made during that transition period, must apply a reasonable interpretation of the last sentence of section 402(c)(2) (generally requiring that pretax amounts be treated as rolled over first) to allocate pretax and after-tax amounts among disbursements made to multiple destinations. For this purpose, a reasonable interpretation of the last sentence of section 402(c)(2) includes the rules described in Notice 2014-54.

Statement of Availability of IRS Documents

Notice 2014-54 is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS Web site at http://www.irs.gov.

Special Analyses

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Drafting Information

The principal author of these regulations is Michael Brewer, Office of the IRS Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Department of Treasury participated in the development of the regulations.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

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

26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.402A-1 is amended by removing the third sentence of paragraph A-5(a) and adding a new sentence to the end of paragraph A-5(a) to read as follows:
§ 1.402A-1 Designated Roth Accounts.

A-5. (a) * * * For distributions made prior to January 1, 2016, any amount paid in a direct rollover is treated as a separate distribution from any amount paid directly to the employee, except that taxpayers may choose not to apply this sentence to distributions made on or after September 18, 2014, and before January 1, 2016.

John M. Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: March 24, 2016. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016-11647 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926 [Docket No. OSHA-2010-0034] RIN 1218-AB70 Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica Correction

In rule document 2016-04800 appearing on pages 16285-16890 in the issue of March 25, 2016, make the following corrections:

§ 1910.1000 [Corrected]
(1) On pages 16861-16862, in § 1910.100, Table Z-3—Mineral Dusts is corrected to read as set forth below: ER18MY16.000
§ 1915.1000 [Corrected]
(2) On page 16875, in § 1910.100, Table Z—Shipyards is corrected to read as set forth below: ER18MY16.001
§ 1926.55 [Corrected]
(3) On pages 16875-16876, in § 1926.55, the table titled “Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for Construction” is corrected to read as set forth below: ER18MY16.002
[FR Doc. C1-2016-04800 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Part 537 Burmese Sanctions Regulations AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Burmese Sanctions Regulations to add a general license authorizing certain transactions related to U.S. persons residing in Burma. OFAC is also incorporating a general license authorizing certain transactions incident to exports to and from Burma that has, until now, appeared only on OFAC's Web site on the Burma sanctions page, and expanding this authorization to allow certain transactions incident to the movement of goods within Burma that otherwise would be prohibited. Finally, OFAC is expanding and updating another existing authorization allowing most transactions involving certain blocked financial institutions.

DATES:

Effective: May 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic and Facsimile Availability

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

Background

On June 30, 2014, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) amended and reissued in their entirety the Burmese Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 537 (the “Regulations”), to implement Executive Order 13448 of October 18, 2007, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Burma,” Executive Order 13464 of April 30, 2008, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Burma,” Executive Order 13619 of July 11, 2012, “Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Burma,” and Executive Order 13651 of August 6, 2013, “Prohibiting Certain Imports of Burmese Jadeite and Rubies” (79 FR 37106).

Following Burma's peaceful and competitive elections in 2015, the U.S. Government is taking additional steps to support Burma's political reforms and broad-based economic growth.

Transactions related to U.S. persons residing in Burma. OFAC is adding a general license in section 537.525 to authorize certain transactions related to maintenance of U.S. persons residing in Burma, including payment of living expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use. This general license complements the existing exemption in section 537.210(c) of the Regulations for travel to or from Burma, including maintenance within Burma, such as payment of living expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use.

Trade-related transactions. In December 2015, OFAC issued and made available on its Web site General License No. 20, a six-month general license authorizing certain transactions ordinarily incident to exportations to or from Burma of goods, technology, or non-financial services that are otherwise prohibited by the Regulations and unblocking certain previously blocked transactions. Today, OFAC is amending the Regulations by adding section 537.532 to incorporate that general license, to remove its six-month time limitation, and to expand this authorization to allow additional transactions incident to the movement of goods within Burma.

Banking services. In February 2013, OFAC issued and made available on its Web site General License No. 19, and subsequently added this authorization to the Regulations at section 537.531, authorizing most transactions, including opening and maintaining accounts and conducting other financial services, involving four of Burma's major financial institutions that were then included on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List): Asia Green Development Bank, Ayeyarwady Bank, Myanma Economic Bank (MEB), and Myanma Investment and Commercial Bank (MICB). In an action coordinated with these regulatory amendments, OFAC has delisted two of these financial institutions, MEB and MICB. As a result of that action, transactions involving these two institutions are no longer prohibited and therefore do not require an OFAC license. Accordingly, OFAC is amending section 537.531 to remove their names. At the same time, to further support Burma's broad-based economic growth, OFAC is adding two other Burmese financial institutions, Innwa Bank and Myawaddy Bank, to the general license at section 537.531, thereby authorizing most transactions involving those institutions.

Public Participation

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 537

Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Blocking of assets, Credit, Burma, Exportation, Exports, Foreign trade, Investments, Loans, New investment, Securities, Services, Specially Designated Nationals.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 537 as set forth below:

PART 537—BURMESE SANCTIONS REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 537 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Sec. 570, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009; Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note); Pub. L. 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note); E.O. 13047, 62 FR 28301, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 202; E.O. 13310, 68 FR 44853, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 241; E.O. 13448, 72 FR 60223, 3 CFR, 2007 Comp., p. 304; E.O. 13464, 73 FR 24491, 3 CFR, 2008 Comp., p. 189; E.O. 13619, 77 FR 41243, 3 CFR, 2012 Comp., p. 279; E.O. 13651, 78 FR 48793, 3 CFR, 2014 Comp., p. 324; Determination No. 2009-11, 74 FR 3957, 3 CFR, 2009 Comp., p. 330.

Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations, and Statements of Licensing Policy 2. Add § 537.525 to read as follows:
§ 537.525 Certain transactions related to U.S. persons residing in Burma authorized.

(a) U.S. persons are authorized to engage in transactions in Burma ordinarily incident to the routine and necessary maintenance within Burma, including payment of living expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use, of U.S. person individuals who reside in Burma.

(b) Nothing in this section authorizes transactions related to employment of a U.S. person by a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 537.201(a).

Note to § 537.525:

See § 537.210(c) for an exemption for transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from Burma, including maintenance within Burma, such as payment of living expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use.

3. Amend § 537.531 by revising the section heading, revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d), and revising the Note to § 537.531 to read as follows:
§ 537.531 Certain transactions involving Asia Green Development Bank, Ayeyarwady Bank, Innwa Bank, and Myawaddy Bank authorized.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section, all transactions involving Asia Green Development Bank, Ayeyarwady Bank, Innwa Bank, and Myawaddy Bank are authorized.

(b) This section does not authorize transactions involving any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 537.201(a) other than Asia Green Development Bank, Ayeyarwady Bank, Innwa Bank, and Myawaddy Bank.

(d) This section does not authorize any new investment, as defined in § 537.311, including in or with Asia Green Development Bank, Ayeyarwady Bank, Innwa Bank, or Myawaddy Bank.

Note to § 537.531:

As a result of the authorization contained in this section, the special measures against Burma imposed under Section 311 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-56) (USA PATRIOT Act) do not apply to the operation of correspondent accounts for Asia Green Development Bank, Ayeyarwady Bank, Innwa Bank, and Myawaddy Bank, or to transactions conducted through such accounts, provided the transactions are authorized pursuant to this part, and therefore fall within the exception set forth in 31 CFR 1010.651(b)(3). This section does not affect any obligation of U.S. financial institutions processing such transactions to conduct enhanced due diligence under Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act. See 31 CFR 1010.610(c).

4. Add § 537.532 to subpart E to read as follows:
§ 537.532 Certain transactions incident to exportations to or from Burma authorized; certain transactions incident to the movement of goods within Burma authorized.

(a) Certain transactions incident to exportations to or from Burma authorized. Except as provided in paragraph (c), all transactions otherwise prohibited by §§ 537.201 and 537.202 that are ordinarily incident to an exportation to or from Burma of goods, technology, or non-financial services, as defined in paragraph (f) of this section, are authorized, provided the exportation is not to, from, or on behalf of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 537.201(a).

(b) Unblocking of certain property previously blocked as part of a transaction incident to an exportation to or from Burma authorized. U.S. financial institutions, as defined in § 537.320, are authorized to engage in all transactions necessary to unblock and return property blocked as part of a transaction on or after April 1, 2015 that would have qualified as authorized had it been engaged in under paragraph (a) of this section. U.S. financial institutions unblocking property pursuant to this section must submit a report to the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Attn: Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation Division, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Annex, Washington, DC 20220 within 10 business days from the date such property is unblocked. Such reports shall include the following:

(1) A copy of the original blocking report filed with OFAC pursuant to § 501.603(b)(1) of this chapter;

(2) The date the property was unblocked;

(3) If applicable, the amount unblocked;

(4) The name of the party to whom the blocked property was returned; and

(5) A reference to this general license as the legal authority under which the property was unblocked and the blocked property was returned.

(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not authorize:

(1) The unblocking of any property or interests in property that were blocked pursuant to § 537.201(a) prior to April 1, 2015.

(2) A U.S. financial institution to advise or confirm any financing by a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 537.201(a).

(d) Certain transactions incident to the movement of goods within Burma authorized. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, all transactions otherwise prohibited by §§ 537.201 and 537.202 that are ordinarily incident to the movement of goods within Burma are authorized, provided the goods are not being sent to, from, or on behalf of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 537.201(a).

(e) Paragraph (d) of this section does not authorize:

(1) The unblocking of any property or interests in property that were blocked pursuant to § 537.201(a).

(2) A U.S. financial institution to advise or confirm any financing by a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 537.201(a).

(f) For the purposes of this section, the term non-financial services means all services other than those listed in § 537.305.

Note to § 537.532:

See § 537.529 for a general license authorizing the exportation or reexportation of financial services to Burma.

Dated: May 13, 2016. John E. Smith, Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2016-11677 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0406] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Champlain, North Hero Island, VT AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US2 Bridge across Lake Champlain (The Gut), mile 91.8, between North Hero and South Hero Island, Vermont. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform mechanical and electrical repairs at the bridge.

DATES:

This deviation is effective without actual notice from May 18, 2016 to 8 a.m. on June 15, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8 a.m. on May 15, 2016, until May 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2016-0406, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Jim Rousseau; Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (617) 223-8619, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The US2 Bridge across Lake Champlain, at North Hero Island, Vermont, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 18 feet at mean high water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.993(b).

The subject waterway is typically transited by seasonal, recreational vessels of various sizes. Several marina facilities are in the area of the bridge with local vessels requesting bridge openings several times a week.

The bridge owner, Vermont Agency of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate mechanical and electrical repairs at the bridge. In response to the request, the Coast Guard's First District has approved a deviation from 8 a.m. on May 15, 2016 until 8 a.m. June 15, 2016.

During the time of this temporary deviation, the US2 Bridge shall open on signal on the hour, but it will not open on the half hour. Also during the time of this temporary deviation, the US2 Bridge will be open by use of an auxiliary drive system not designed for high-speed openings, which means the bridge will open more slowly than it does under normal operations.

Vessels that are able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is an alternate route for vessels to pass to the north under the Alburg Passage US2 fixed bridge, which has a vertical clearance of 26 feet at mean high water.

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

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

Dated: May 13, 2016, C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-11713 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0018, EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0020; FRL-9945-76] Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, Benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium Salts With Sepiolite; and Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, Benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium Salts With Saponite; Exemptions From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite (CAS Reg. No. 1574487-61-8) when used as an inert ingredient (suspending or structuring agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops at a concentration not to exceed 2.0% by weight in the formulation, asbestos free and containing less than 1% crystalline silica. This regulation also establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite (CAS Reg. No. 1588523-05-0) when used as an inert ingredient (suspending or structuring agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops at a concentration not to exceed 1.0% by weight in the formulation. Technology Sciences Group on behalf of BYK Additives Inc. submitted petitions to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite.

DATES:

This regulation is effective May 18, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 18, 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 dockets for these actions, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0018, EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0020 are 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 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. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.”

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-2015-0018 (CAS Reg. No. 1574487-61-8), EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0020 (CAS Reg. No. 1588523-05-0) 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 July 18, 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-2015-0018, EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0020 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. Petition for Exemption

In the Federal Register of April 6, 2015 (80 FR 18327) (FRL-9924-00), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP IN-10780) and (PP IN-10781) by Technology Sciences Group on behalf of BYK Additives Inc., 1600 West Hill Street, Louisville, KY 40210. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite (CAS Reg. No. 1574487-61-8) when used as an inert ingredient suspending or structuring agent in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops with a limitation of 2.0% in formulation, asbestos free and containing less than 1% crystalline silica; and quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite (CAS Reg. No. 1588523-05-0) when used as an inert ingredient suspending or structuring agent in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops with a limitation of 1.0% in formulation.

That document referenced a summary of the petitions prepared by Technology Science Group, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notices of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for 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. . . .”

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite, and quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their 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.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

Based on data in structurally similar quaternary ammonium clay substances, quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite have low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and inhalation routes in rats. The substances are expected to be a slight skin and eye irritant. A structurally similar quaternary ammonium clay substance did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs.

Multiple 28-day repeat-dose studies consistently showed high No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs), typically the highest dose tested, which was 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) in rats. There was an absence of test substance-related toxicologically significant effects at any of the doses administered, including for neurological and immunological endpoints. Similarly, there were no effects on reproductive or developmental endpoints and no evidence for genotoxicity in multiple in vitro and in vivo assays (OECD 471, 474 and 476 on multiple quaternary ammonium compounds).

Clays treated with quaternary ammonium compounds have low water solubility, a high hydrophobic partition coefficient and relatively high molecular weight. All three factors indicate likely limited absorption following ingestion, dermal exposure or inhalation. Based on similarities to other quaternary ammonium clays (high molecular weights, low water solubility, high hydrophobicity), both benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite would also be almost completely eliminated from the body shortly after oral dosing. Therefore, the biological availability is expected to be low.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

1. The available toxicity studies indicate that both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite have very low overall toxicity. The NOAELs were >1,000 mg/kg/day (limit dose). Since signs of toxicity were not observed at the limit dose an endpoint of concern for risk assessment purposes were not identified. Therefore, since no endpoint of concern was identified for the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessment and short and intermediate dermal and inhalation exposure, quantitative risk assessments for both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite are not necessary.

C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite in food as follows:

Under this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, residues of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite may be found on foods from crops that were treated with pesticide formulations containing both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite. However, quantitative dietary exposure assessments were not conducted since endpoints for risk assessment were not identified.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Since hazard endpoints of concern were not identified for the acute and chronic dietary assessments, quantitative dietary exposure risk assessments for drinking water were not conducted, although exposures may be expected from use on food crops.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). Both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide products that may be used around the home. Based on the discussion in Unit IV.B., quantitative residential exposure assessments for both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite was not conducted.

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 either quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite or with saponite to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite do 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://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children. Based on the lack of toxicity of ammonium acetate in the available studies and its chemical properties, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

Taking into consideration all available information both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite when used as an inert ingredient (suspending or structuring agent) with a limitation of 2.0% in formulation, asbestos free and containing less than 1% crystalline silica and quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite when used as an inert ingredient (suspending or structuring agent) with a limitation of 1.0% in formulation, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite under reasonable foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops with a limitation of 2.0% in formulation, asbestos free and containing less than 1% crystalline silica and quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite when used as an inert ingredient (suspending or structuring agent) with a limitation of 1.0% in formulation, is safe under FFDCA section 408.

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite are not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Chronic risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment takes into account subchronic and chronic exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a subchronic or chronic oral exposure were identified and no chronic dietary endpoints were selected. Therefore, quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite is not expected to pose a chronic risk.

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). Because no short-term adverse effect was identified, both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite were not expected to pose short-term risks.

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). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, both quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite and with saponite were not expected to pose intermediate-term risks.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit IV.A., EPA does not expect either quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite or with saponite 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 either quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite or with saponite residues.

V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Although EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite; and quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite that may be used in pesticide formulations, an analytical enforcement methodology is not necessary for this exemption from the requirement of tolerance. The limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide for sale or distribution for use on growing crops with concentrations of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite exceeding 2.0% by weight of the formulation, asbestos free and containing less than 1% crystalline silica; and quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite exceeding 1.0% by weight of the formulation.

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 Nation 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 a MRL for quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite, and quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite.

VI. Conclusions

Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are established under 40 CFR 180. 920 for quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite (CAS Reg. No. 1574487-61-8) when used as an inert ingredient (suspending or structuring agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops with a limitation of 2.0% in formulation, asbestos free and containing less than 1% crystalline silica; and for quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite (CAS Reg. No. 1588523-05-0) when used as an inert ingredient (suspending or structuring agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops with a limitation of 1.0% in formulation.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This action establishes a tolerance 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).

VIII. 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: May 10, 2016. G. Jeffery Herndon, Acting 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 § 180.920, add alphabetically the inert ingredients “Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite” and “Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with sepiolite” to the table to read as follows:
§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)di-methylammonium salts with saponite (CAS Reg. No. 1588523-05-0) Not to exceed 1.0% by weight of pesticide formulation Suspending or structuring agent. Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)di-methylammonium salts with sepiolite (CAS Reg. No. 1574487-61-8) Not to exceed 2.0% by weight of pesticide formulation, asbestos free and containing less than 1% crystalline silica Suspending or structuring agent. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
[FR Doc. 2016-11743 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 48 CFR Parts 1503 and 1552 [EPA-HQ-OARM-2015-0662; FRL 9943-61-OARM] Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation; Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a final rule to make administrative changes to the Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR). EPA does not anticipate any adverse comments.

DATES:

This rule is effective on July 18, 2016 without further action, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 17, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, a timely withdrawal will be published in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2015-0662, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). 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:

Julianne Odend'hal, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-5218; email address: odend'[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comment. EPAAR parts 1503 and 1552 are amended to conform to the format of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and to correct, clarify and update information. If EPA receives adverse comment, a timely withdrawal will be published in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

II. Does this action apply to me?

The EPAAR applies to contractors who have a contract with the EPA.

III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

A. 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.

B. 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 referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions 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.

IV. Background

EPAAR parts 1503 and 1552 are amended to conform to the format of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and to correct, clarify and update information.

V. Final Rule

This direct final rule makes the following changes: (1) Updates the title and clarifies the information in section 1503.101-370 including correcting statute citations; (2) corrects section number “1503.104-5” to read “1503.104-4” and corrects the reference to “FAR 3.104-5” to read “FAR 3.104-4”; (3) removes section 1503.408, Evaluation of the SF 119, because the form no longer exists; (4) updates the subpart number and title of “1503.5” including “1503.500-70”, “1503.500-71” and “1503.500-72” to read “1503.10 Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct”, “1503.1002 Policy”, “1503.1003 Requirements”, and “1503.1004 Contract clause” to conform to the FAR, updates the reference to “EPAAR 1503.500-71(b)” to read “EPAAR 1503.1003(b)”; (5) replaces the term “regular employee” with “employee” which is defined at 5 U.S.C. 2505, and replaces the term “special employee” with “special government employee” which is defined at 18 U.S.C. 202 in sections 1503.600-71, 1503.601, and 1552.203-70; and (6) updates the EPA OIG contact information in section 1552.203-71.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action amends EPAAR parts 1503 and 1552 to conform to the format of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and to correct, clarify and update information. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communication between EPA and Tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, (February 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

K. Congressional Review

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1503 and 1552

Government procurement.

Dated: May 2, 2016. John R. Bashista, Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 48 CFR parts 1503 and 1552 are amended as set forth below:

1. Revise part 1503 to read as follows: PART 1503—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Sec. 1503.000 Scope of part. Subpart 1503.1 Safeguards 1503.101-370 Financial conflicts of interest and loss of impartiality. 1503.104-4 Disclosure, protection, and marking of contractor bid or proposal information and source selection information. Subpart 1503.6 Contracts With Government Employees or Organizations Owned or Controlled by Them 1503.600-70 Scope of subpart. 1503.600-71 Definitions. 1503.601 Policy. 1503.602 Exceptions. 1503.670 Disclosure provision. Subpart 1503.9 Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees 1503.905 Procedures for investigating complaints. Subpart 1503.10 Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct 1503.1002 Policy. 1503.1003 Requirements. 1503.1004 Contract clause. Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

1503.000 Scope of part.

This part implements FAR part 3, cites EPA regulations on employee responsibilities and conduct, establishes responsibility for reporting violations and related actions, and provides for authorization of exceptions to policy.

Subpart 1503.1—Safeguards
1503.101-370 Financial conflicts of interest and loss of impartiality.

(a) Each EPA employee (including special government employees as defined by 18 U.S.C. 202 and 1503.600-71(b)) engaged in source evaluation and selection is required to abide by and be familiar with the conflict of interest statutes codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, as well as the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR part 2635.

(b) Pursuant to the financial conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. 208 and 5 CFR part 2635, subparts D and E, each employee must abide by ethics requirements regarding financial conflict of interest and impartiality in performing official duties. The employee shall inform his or her Deputy Ethics Official and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) in writing if his/her participation in the source evaluation and selection process may raise possible or apparent conflict of interest or impartiality concerns. The employee must cease work on the source evaluation and selection process until the appropriate ethics official makes a determination. Please note that only the Office of General Counsel can direct employees to divest of financial interests or to recommend any waivers of the financial conflict of interest standards.

1503.104-4 Disclosure, protection, and marking of contractor bid or proposal information and source selection information.

(a)(1) The Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO) is the designated official to make the decision whether support contractors are used in proposal evaluation (as authorized at FAR 15.305(c) and restricted at FAR 37.203(d)).

(2) The following written certification and agreement shall be obtained from non-Government evaluator prior to the release of any proposal to that evaluator:

“Certification on the Use and Disclosure of Proposals” RFP #: Offeror:

1. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, no conflict of interest exists that may diminish my capacity to perform an impartial, technically sound, objective review of this proposal(s) or otherwise result in a biased opinion or unfair competitive advantage.

2. I agree to use any proposal information only for evaluation purposes. I agree not to copy any information from the proposal(s), to use my best effort to safeguard such information physically, and not to disclose the contents of nor release any information relating to the proposal(s) to anyone outside of the evaluation team assembled for this acquisition or individuals designated by the Contracting Officer.

3. I agree to return to the Government all copies of proposals, as well as any abstracts, upon completion of the evaluation.

Name and Organization: Date of Execution:
(End of certificate)

(b) Information contained in proposals will be protected and disclosed to the extent permitted by law, and in accordance with FAR 3.104-4, 15.207, and Agency procedures at 40 CFR part 2.

Subpart 1503.6—Contracts With Government Employees or Organizations Owned or Controlled by Them
1503.600-70 Scope of subpart.

This subpart implements and supplements FAR subpart 3.6 and sets forth EPA policy and procedures for identifying and dealing with conflicts of interest and improper influence or favoritism in connection with contracts involving current or former EPA employees. This subpart does not apply to agreements with other departments or agencies of the Federal Government, nor to contracts awarded to State or local units of Government.

1503.600-71 Definitions.

(a) Employee means an EPA officer and an individual who is appointed in the civil service and engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive act. See 5 U.S.C. 2105.

(b) Special government employee means an officer or employee of EPA who is retained, designated, appointed or employed to perform, with or without compensation, for not to exceed 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days, temporary duties either on a full-time or intermittent basis. See 18 U.S.C. 202.

1503.601 Policy.

(a) No contract may be awarded without competition to a former employee or special government employee (or to a business concern or other organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by a former employee) whose employment terminated within 365 calendar days before submission of a proposal to EPA.

(b) No contract shall be awarded without competition to a firm which employs, or proposes to employ, a current employee or special government employee, or a former EPA employee or special government employee, whose employment terminated within 365 calendar days before submission of a proposal to EPA, if either of the following conditions exists:

(1) The current or former EPA employee or special government employee is or was involved in development or negotiating the proposal for the prospective contractor; or

(2) The current or former EPA employee or special government employee will be involved directly or indirectly in the management, administration, or performance of the contract.

1503.602 Exceptions.

The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources Management may authorize an exception, in writing, to the policy in FAR 3.601 and 1503.601 for the reasons stated in FAR 3.602, if the exception would not involve a violation of 18 U.S.C. 203, 18 U.S.C. 205, 18 U.S.C. 207, 18 U.S.C. 208, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635, or the EPA supplemental regulations at 5 CFR part 6401. The Assistant Administrator shall consult with the Designated Agency Ethics Official before authorizing any exceptions.

1503.670 Disclosure provision.

The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 1552.203-70, Current/Former Agency Employee Involvement Certification, in all solicitations for sole-source acquisitions.

Subpart 1503.9—Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees
1503.905 Procedures for investigating complaints.

The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources Management is designated as the recipient of the written report of findings by the Inspector General. The Assistant Administrator shall ensure that the report of findings is disseminated in accordance with FAR 3.905(c).

Subpart 1503.10—Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
1503.1002 Policy.

Government contractors must conduct themselves with the highest degree of integrity and honesty. Contractors should have standards of conduct and internal control systems that:

(a) Are suitable to the size of the company and the extent of their involvement in Government contracting;

(b) Promote such standards;

(c) Facilitate timely discovery and disclosure of improper conduct in connection with Government contracts; and

(d) Ensure corrective measures are promptly instituted and carried out.

1503.1003 Requirements.

(a) A contractor's system of management controls should provide for:

(1) A written code of business ethics and conduct and an ethics training program for all employees;

(2) Periodic reviews of company business practices, procedures, policies and internal controls for compliance with standards of conduct and the special requirements of Government contracting;

(3) A mechanism, such as a hotline, by which employees may report suspected instances of improper conduct, and instructions that encourage employees to make such reports;

(4) Internal and/or external audits, as appropriate;

(5) Disciplinary action for improper conduct;

(6) Timely reporting to appropriate Government officials of any suspected or possible violation of law in connection with Government contracts or any other irregularities in connection with such contracts; and

(7) Full cooperation with any Government agencies responsible for either investigation or corrective actions.

(b) Contractors who are awarded an EPA contract of $1 million or more must display EPA Office of Inspector General Hotline Posters unless the contractor has established an internal reporting mechanism and program as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

1503.1004 Contract clause.

As required by EPAAR 1503.1003(b), the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1552.203-71, Display of EPA Office of Inspector General Hotline Poster, in all contracts valued at $1,000,000 or more, including all contract options.

PART 1552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 2. The authority citation for part 1552 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

3. Revise section 1552.203-70 to read as follows:
1552.203-70 Current/former agency employee involvement certification.

As prescribed in 1503.670, insert the following provision in all EPA solicitations for sole-source acquisitions.

Current/Former Agency Employee Involvement Certification Jul 2016

The offeror (quoter) hereby certifies that:

(a) He/She is [ ] is not [ ] a former employee or special government employee whose EPA employment terminated within one year prior to submission of this offer (quote).

(b) He/She does [ ] does not [ ] employ or propose to employ a current/former employee or special government employee whose EPA employment terminated within one year prior to submission of this offer (quote) and who has been or will be involved, directly or indirectly, in developing or negotiating this offer (quote) for the offeror (quoter), or in the management, administration or performance of any contract resulting from this offer (quote).

(c) He/She does [ ] does not [ ] employ or propose to employ as a consultant or subcontractor under any contract resulting from this offer (quote) a current/former employee or special government employee whose EPA employment terminated within one year prior to submission of this offer (quote).

(d) A former employee or special government employee whose EPA employment terminated within one year prior to submission of this offer (quote) or such former employee's spouse or minor child does [ ] does not [ ] own or substantially own or control the offeror's (quoter's) firm.

(e) See EPAAR part 1503.600-71 for definitions of the terms “employee” and “special government employee.”

(End of provision)
4. Revise section 1552.203-71 to read as follows:
1552.203-71 Display of EPA Office of Inspector General Hotline poster.

As prescribed in 1503.1004, insert the following clause in all contracts valued at $1,000,000 or more including all contract options.

Display of EPA Office of Inspector General Hotline Poster Jul 2016

(a) For EPA contracts valued at $1,000,000 or more including all contract options, the contractor shall prominently display EPA Office of Inspector General Hotline posters in contractor facilities where the work is performed under the contract.

(b) Office of Inspector General hotline posters may be obtained from the EPA Office of Inspector General, ATTN: OIG Hotline (2443), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, or by accessing the OIG Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.html.

(c) The Contractor need not comply with paragraph (a) of this clause if it has established a mechanism, such as a hotline, by which employees may report suspected instances of improper conduct, and has provided instructions that encourage employees to make such reports.

(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2016-11509 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
81 96 Wednesday, May 18, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Parts 5, 92, 93, 570, 574, 578, 880, 881, 883, 884, 886, 891, 905, 983 [Docket No. FR 5890-P-01] RIN 2501-AD75 Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Installation of Broadband Infrastructure in HUD-Funded New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation of Multifamily Rental Housing AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, HUD.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

Through this proposed rule, HUD continues its efforts to narrow the digital divide in low-income communities served by HUD by providing, where feasible and with HUD funding, broadband infrastructure to communities in need of such infrastructure. Broadband is the common term used to refer to a very fast connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as high-speed broadband, broadband Internet, or high-speed Internet. In this proposed rule, HUD proposes to require installation of broadband infrastructure at the time of new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing that is funded or supported by HUD. Installation of broadband infrastructure at the time of new construction or substantial rehabilitation is generally easier and less costly than when such installation is undertaken as a stand-alone effort. The proposed rule, however, recognizes that installation of broadband infrastructure may not be feasible for all new construction or substantial rehabilitation, and, therefore, the proposed rule allows limited exceptions to the installation requirements. Installing unit-based broadband infrastructure in multifamily rental housing that is newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated with or supported by HUD funding will provide a platform for individuals and families residing in such housing to participate in the digital economy, and increase their access to economic opportunities.

DATES:

Comment due date: July 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule. All communications must refer to the above docket number and title. To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified below.

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

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

No Facsimiled Comments. Facsimiled (faxed) comments are not acceptable.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For Community Planning and Development programs, Marion McFadden, Office of Community Planning and Development, Room 7204, telephone, 202-708-2111 (this is not a toll-free number). For Office of Multifamily Housing programs, Katie Buckner, Office of Housing, Room 6222, telephone 202-402-7140 (this is not a toll-free number). For Office of Public and Indian Housing programs, Dominique Blom, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Room 4130, telephone 202-402-4181 (this is not a toll-free number). The address for all individuals is Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of This Proposed Rule

The purpose of this proposed rule is to require installation of broadband infrastructure at the time of new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing that is funded or supported by HUD.1 This rulemaking does not require a HUD-funded grantee to undertake new construction or substantial rehabilitation, but when a grantee does choose to pursue such activity for multifamily rental housing with HUD funding, this proposed rule would require installation of broadband infrastructure. While the proposed rule only requires affected grantees to install one form of broadband infrastructure, HUD suggests that grantees consider whether installing more than one form of broadband infrastructure would be beneficial to encourage competition among service providers on quality and price. Installing unit-based broadband infrastructure in multifamily rental housing that is newly constructed and substantially rehabilitated with or supported by HUD funding will provide a platform for individuals and families residing in such housing to participate in the digital economy, and increase their access to economic opportunities.

1 This proposed rule applies to all projects with project-based Section 8 housing assistance payment (HAP) contracts (other than Mod Rehab or Mod Rehab Single Room Occupancy (SRO) projects), regardless of whether the properties receive specific funding to pay directly for substantial rehabilitation or new construction, as defined in this proposed rule.

B. Summary of Major Provisions of This Proposed Rule

This proposed rule would require installation of broadband infrastructure at the time of new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental units funded by the following programs:

1. Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant program;

2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, including the CDBG Disaster Recovery program;

3. Continuum of Care program;

4. HOME Investment Partnerships program;

5. Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS program;

6. Housing Trust Fund program;

7. Project-Based Voucher program;

8. Public Housing Capital Fund program;

9. Section 8 project-based housing assistance payments programs, including, but not limited to, the Section 8 New Construction, Substantial Rehabilitation, Loan Management Set-Aside, and Property Disposition programs; and

10. Supportive Housing for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities program.

The requirements of the proposed rule would not apply to multifamily rental housing that only has a mortgage insured by HUD's Federal Housing Administration or with a loan guaranteed under a HUD loan guarantee program.

HUD is proposing to define broadband infrastructure as cables, fiber optics, wiring, or other permanent infrastructure, including wireless infrastructure, as long as the installation results in broadband infrastructure in each dwelling unit meeting the definition created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which currently is 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) download, 3 Mbps upload. In addition, HUD is proposing that, for programs that do not already have a definition of substantial rehabilitation, substantial rehabilitation be defined as work on the electrical system that is equal to or greater than 75 percent of the cost of replacing the entire electrical system, or when the cost of the rehabilitation is equal to or greater than 75 percent of the total estimated cost of replacing the multifamily rental housing after the rehabilitation is complete.

C. Costs and Benefits of This Proposed Rule

The costs and benefits of this proposed rule are difficult to quantify, but they can be described qualitatively. This proposed rule only requires that the broadband infrastructure provided is to receive high-speed Internet that is “accessible” in each unit; it does not require those recipients of funding undertaking new construction or substantial rehabilitation to provide a regular subscription to broadband service (even at a cost) to current or future residents. Furthermore, the definition of broadband infrastructure in the proposed rule is broad enough to include coaxial cable television (TV) wiring that supports cable modem access or even permanent infrastructure that would provide broadband speeds to dwelling units wirelessly. The rulemaking also provides for exceptions to the installation requirements for where the installation is too costly to provide due to location or building characteristics.

A recent survey by the National Association of Homebuilders found that just 4 percent of the surveyed multifamily housing developers never installed landline wires and jacks in multifamily units completed in the past 12 months.2 In recent years, HUD's competitive grants for new construction under the Choice Neighborhoods program have sought the provision of broadband access. Therefore, this rulemaking simply proposes to codify what is considered common practice in the private market today when new construction or substantial rehabilitation is undertaken.

2 NAHB, Multifamily Market Survey 3rd Quarter 2015. November 2015. There were 90 responses, and of the responses, 18 percent indicated it was Not Applicable, presumably because they had not completed any projects in the past 12 months. The survey covers all multifamily construction including lower quality Class B and Class C. It does not provide details on the developers or projects that did not install landlines.

Given the wide range of technologies that may be employed to meet the requirements of this proposed rule, it is not possible to specify the cost of the technology and how much additional burden this may be for owners or developers building or providing substantial rehabilitation to HUD-assisted rental housing. If the broadband infrastructure is wiring connected to proximate telephone or cable company networks, the cost is not expected to be significant, as all electrical work in a multifamily project is estimated to be only about 10 percent of the construction cost; 3 running an additional cable through existing electrical conduits would be a minimal incremental cost. If the broadband infrastructure is wireless, the cost will be for the equipment, which varies greatly by the design and size of the project, as does the cost per unit. Given that the costs of installation of broadband infrastructure are only a portion of the 10 percent of construction costs, the requirement proposed by this rulemaking is not expected to measurably reduce the size of the housing or the number of units to be constructed. At most, installation of broadband infrastructure may reduce the provision of other amenities or nonessential finishes, but HUD considers even these reductions. Additionally, the proposed rule only applies to new construction or substantial rehabilitation that is supported with HUD-provided resources.

32015 National Building Cost Manual. Ed. Ben Moselle. Carlsbad, CA: Craftsman Book Company. https://www.craftsman-book.com/media/static/previews/2015_NBC_book_preview.pdf, pg. 19.

Materials on the benefits of narrowing the digital divide are voluminous. Having broadband Internet in the home increases household income 4 and yields higher education achievement for students.5 On July 2015, the Council of Economic Advisers issued the report “Mapping the Digital Divide,” which examines progress in the United States in narrowing the digital divide and the work that still needs to be done, especially in the Nation's poorest neighborhoods and most rural communities.6 However, this proposed rule's limited scope in only requiring the installation of infrastructure instead of providing Internet access also limits the benefits of the proposed rule. The benefit of the proposed rule is that where broadband Internet service can be made available, the tenant, residing in housing with broadband infrastructure, will be assured of the ability to access broadband Internet service, whether they choose and are able to afford Internet service or not. This puts broadband Internet service within reach, especially where other charitable and public social programs, including HUD's ConnectHome program, provide free or reduced-cost service.

4 Ericsson, Arthur D. Little, and Chalmers University of Technology. Socioeconomic Effects of Broadband Speed. September 2013. http://www.ericsson.com/res/thecompany/docs/corporate-responsibility/2013/ericsson-broadband-final-071013.pdf.

5 Davidson, Charles M. and Michael J. Santorelli. “The Impact of Broadband on Education.” December 2010. https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/about/US_Chamber_Paper_on_Broadband_and_Education.pdf, pg. 24.

6 See Council of Economic Advisers. “Mapping the Digital Divide.” Issue Brief. July 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/wh_digital_divide_issue_brief.pdf.

II. Background

On March 23, 2015, President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum on “Expanding Broadband Deployment and Adoption by Addressing Regulatory Barriers and Encouraging Investment and Training.” 7 In this memorandum, the President noted that access to high-speed broadband is no longer a luxury, but it is a necessity for American families, businesses, and consumers. The President further noted that the Federal Government has an important role to play in developing coordinated policies to promote broadband deployment and adoption, including promoting best practices, breaking down regulatory barriers, and encouraging further investment.

7 See Barack Obama. “Presidential Memorandum—Expanding Broadband Deployment and Adoption by Addressing Regulatory Barriers and Encouraging Investment and Training.” March 23, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/23/presidential-memorandum-expanding-broadband-deployment-and-adoption-addr.

On July 15, 2015, HUD launched its Digital Opportunity Demonstration, known as “ConnectHome,” in which HUD provided a platform for collaboration among local governments, public housing agencies, Internet service providers, philanthropic foundations, nonprofit organizations, and other relevant stakeholders to work together to produce local solutions for narrowing the digital divide in communities across the nation served by HUD. The demonstration, or pilot, commenced with the participation of 28 communities.8 Through contributions made by the Internet service providers and other organizations participating in the pilot, residents living in public and HUD-assisted housing in these 28 communities will receive discounted broadband service, technical assistance, literacy training, and electronic devices that provide for accessing high-speed Internet.

8 See Connect Home. “About the Pilot.” http://connecthome.hud.gov/pilot.

The importance of all Americans having access to the Internet cannot be overstated. As HUD stated in its announcement of the Digital Opportunity Demonstration, published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2015, at 80 FR 18248, knowledge is a pillar to achieving the American Dream—a catalyst for upward mobility as well as an investment that ensures each generation has opportunities to succeed. Many low-income Americans do not have broadband Internet at home, contributing to the estimated 66 million Americans who lack basic digital literacy skills.9 Without broadband adoption and the skills to use Internet technology at home, children and adults can miss out on the high-value educational, economic, and social impact that high-speed Internet provides. It is for these reasons that HUD is exploring ways, beyond ConnectHome, to narrow the digital divide for the low-income individuals and families served by HUD multifamily rental housing programs. This proposed rule presents one such additional effort.

9 See Connect Minnesota. “Digital Literacy: A Critical Skill for all Minnesotans.” July 2013. http://www.connectednation.org/sites/default/files/mn_digital_literacy_final.pdf.

III. This Proposed Rule A. Multifamily Rental Housing Covered by This Proposed Rule

This proposed rule would apply to new construction and substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing in the HUD programs that authorize and fund such activities. These programs are listed in Section II.B of this preamble. The proposed rule would not apply to multifamily rental housing with a mortgage insured by HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or with a loan guaranteed under a HUD loan guarantee program.10 Further, this proposed rule would not apply to new construction or substantial rehabilitation of single-family or single-unit housing.

10 See the Section 108 Loan Guarantee program, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 570, subpart M; the Loan Guarantee program for Indian Housing, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 1005; the Section 184 Loan Guarantees for Native Hawaiian Housing, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 1007; and the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 1000, subpart E.

HUD proposes to require installation of broadband infrastructure in individual housing units at the time of new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing, because while such installation is not without cost, the cost can be reduced by providing the installation at the time when housing is first being built or substantially rehabilitated.

B. HUD Programs Covered by This Proposed Rule

As provided in section I.B. of this preamble, this proposed rule would apply to multifamily rental housing that is to be newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated with funds under the following HUD programs, as implemented through the regulations or under authorities cited below:

1. Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant program, for which the requirements are found in HUD notices of funding availability (NOFAs);

2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 570;

3. Continuum of Care (CoC) program, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 578;

4. HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 92;

5. Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 574;

6. Housing Trust Fund (HTF) program, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 93;

7. Project-Based Voucher program, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 983;

8. Public Housing Capital Fund program, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 905;

9. Section 8 project-based housing assistance payments programs, including, but not limited to, the Section 8 New Construction, Substantial Rehabilitation, Loan Management Set-Aside, and Property Disposition programs; and

10. Supportive Housing for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities program, for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 891.

One of HUD's major new construction and substantial rehabilitation programs, the Choice Neighborhoods program, already requires broadband infrastructure in new construction units and permits the use of Choice Neighborhood funds for broadband infrastructure in substantially rehabilitated units. In addition, Choice Neighborhood grantees may use up to 15 percent of their grants for Critical Community Improvements, of which neighborhood broadband programs are considered an eligible expense. The Choice Neighborhoods program supports locally driven strategies to address struggling neighborhoods with distressed public or HUD-assisted housing through a comprehensive approach to neighborhood transformation. The program is designed to catalyze critical improvements in neighborhood assets, including vacant property, housing, services, and schools. One of the three core goals of the Choice Neighborhoods program is to replace distressed public and assisted housing with high-quality, mixed-income housing.11 The Choice Neighborhoods program is implemented through annual NOFAs. HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Choice Neighborhoods NOFA requires housing to be built with broadband Internet infrastructure.12

11 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Choice Neighborhoods.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/cn.

12 See United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grants Notice of Funding Availability.” June 4, 2014. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=13CNP-FR5800N13.pdf.

C. When Installation of Broadband Infrastructure May Be Infeasible

As noted in the Summary, HUD recognizes that installation of broadband infrastructure will not be feasible for every new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing proposed to be covered by this proposed rule. For example, HUD recognizes that constructing or undertaking substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing in certain areas may make installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible. As the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated in a final rule entitled “Economic Benefits of Broadband Deployment in Rural Areas,” published on February 6, 2013,13 bringing broadband services to rural areas presents challenges because rural systems must contend with lower household density than urban systems. Similarly, the particular type or structure of covered multifamily rental housing to be substantially rehabilitated may also make the installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible. The proposed rule therefore offers exceptions to broadband installation requirements when a funding recipient determines that installing broadband infrastructure is not feasible. Recipients and owners will be responsible for maintaining documentation that justifies the recipient's determination of infeasibility. HUD will consider providing additional guidance on this issue when the final rule becomes effective.

13http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-06/pdf/2013-02390.pdf.

D. Rule Terminology Broadband

As noted in the Summary, “broadband” is the common term used to refer to a very fast connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. HUD recognizes that broadband is defined by several agencies as Internet access of at least a certain speed.14 HUD is proposing to require that, where feasible, infrastructure be installed to provide every housing unit covered by this proposed rule with the ability to access the Internet that meets the definition adopted by the FCC—currently 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload— regardless of whether any Internet service provider offers such access in a given location. This will provide the capacity for future broadband adoption without having to undertake additional renovation work. If the FCC modifies its definitions in the future, HUD's requirements for any new construction or substantial rehabilitation undertaken after the definition change will also change.

14 For example, see the U.S. Department of Agriculture definition at 7 CFR 1738.2 (requiring download speeds of at least 4 Mbps, or the Federal Communications Commission's definition in its 2015 Broadband Progress Report at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-10A1.pdf (defining broadband as having download speeds of at least 25 Mbps).

Broadband Infrastructure

The broadband infrastructure that needs to be installed to provide families in covered multifamily rental housing with broadband access will vary according to the housing being constructed or rehabilitated and the plans of the entity doing such construction or rehabilitation. Therefore, HUD proposes a flexible definition, allowing entities undertaking new construction or substantial rehabilitation to install the broadband infrastructure that is most feasible given the specifics of the construction or substantial rehabilitation to be undertaken. HUD proposes to require installation of cables, fiber optics, wiring, or other infrastructure, as long as the installation results in broadband accessibility in each dwelling unit. HUD proposes only to require the installation of broadband infrastructure on the property, not to require that grantees be responsible for ensuring an external connection between the property and an Internet service provider (ISP).

Substantial Rehabilitation

While some of the HUD programs listed in Section II.B of this preamble define what is meant by “substantial rehabilitation,” the majority of the covered programs do not define this term. Therefore, for the sole purpose of determining when substantial rehabilitation of covered multifamily rental housing would trigger installation of broadband infrastructure and, except in the HOPWA program, where substantial rehabilitation is already defined, HUD proposes to define “substantial rehabilitation” to mean:

(1) Significant work on the electrical system of the multifamily rental housing. “Significant work” is defined as work that is equal to or greater than 75 percent of the cost of replacing the entire electrical system. In the case of multifamily rental housing with multiple buildings with more than 4 units, “entire system” refers to the electrical system of the building(s) undergoing rehabilitation; or

(2) Rehabilitation of the multifamily rental housing in which the estimated cost of the rehabilitation is equal to or greater than 75 percent of the total estimated cost of replacing the multifamily rental housing after the rehabilitation is complete. In the case of multifamily rental housing with multiple buildings with more than 4 units, the replacement cost used in this determination would be the replacement cost of the building(s) undergoing rehabilitation.

E. Compliance Timeline

HUD intends for this proposed rule to apply to projects that have not yet established their budgets and had funding approved, in order to give recipients and owners adequate time to factor the installation of broadband infrastructure into their new construction or substantial rehabilitation plans.

F. Rule's Objective

With this proposed rule, HUD seeks to take another important step toward narrowing the digital divide by providing residents in covered multifamily rental housing that is to be newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated with infrastructure that supports access to broadband Internet service, thereby increasing access to educational and economic opportunities for these residents.

IV. Specific Questions for Comments

While HUD welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed rule, HUD is seeking specific comment on the following questions:

1. In light of the policy objectives discussed in the preamble, should this proposed rule be applied to other HUD programs, particularly additional multifamily housing programs (such as Rental Supplement (RS), Rental Assistance Payment (RAP), Moderate Rehabilitation Programs (Mod Rehab), etc.) or programs addressing single-family housing? Should any programs covered by this proposed rule be removed?

2. Given that the definition of the term “substantial rehabilitation” will determine which projects (other than new construction) are affected by this rulemaking, should the definition be changed in any way?

3. How much does it cost to add the installation of broadband infrastructure to a pre-planned new construction or rehabilitation project? Are HUD's estimates for the labor and materials costs for installing broadband infrastructure accurate? What data can the public share with HUD about the most cost-effective way for broadband infrastructure to be installed during a new construction or rehabilitation project?

4. The proposed rule provides exceptions to the requirements if compliance would be infeasible due to cost, location, or structural concerns. Are these exceptions too broad or too narrow? What is the best way for grantees to demonstrate to HUD that installation of broadband infrastructure is infeasible, and what would appropriate sanctions be if grantees do not comply even if it was feasible? Do any grantees have experience with a project in which installing broadband infrastructure was physically or economically infeasible, and under what circumstances was it infeasible?

5. When evaluating whether the rehabilitation being done meets the threshold in the definition of substantial rehabilitation, should HUD use the pre-rehabilitation estimates for the project alone, or should HUD include increases in rehabilitation costs that arise in the process of rehabilitation?

V. Findings and Certifications Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This proposed rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of the Executive order (although not an economically significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive order).

As discussed, this proposed rule furthers HUD's efforts to narrow the digital divide in low-income communities served by HUD. Specifically, HUD proposes to require installation of broadband infrastructure at the time of new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing that is funded by HUD. As noted in the Executive Summary, the costs and benefits of this proposed rule are difficult to quantify, but they can be described qualitatively.

A. Benefits

The evidence demonstrating the benefits of narrowing the digital divide is well documented. In just one example, a study conducted by a former Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers used data on the amount of time Internet users spend online to estimate that Internet access produces thousands of dollars of consumer surplus per user each year.15 As noted above, however, the benefits of Internet technology have not been evenly distributed and research shows that there remain substantial disparities in both Internet use and the quality of access. This digital deficit is generally concentrated among older, less educated, and less affluent populations.16

15 Council of Economic Advisers July 2015 report, supra, citing Austan Goolsbee and Peter J. Klenow, Valuing Consumer Products by the Time Spent Using Them: An Application to the Internet National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 11995 (February 2006) available online at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11995.

16 Ibid.

HUD recognizes that the proposed rule's limited scope in only requiring the installation of infrastructure, instead of providing Internet access, also limits the benefits of the proposed rule. Specifically, the benefit of the proposed rule is that where broadband Internet can be made available at a limited price, the tenant, residing in housing with broadband infrastructure, will be assured of the ability to access broadband Internet service, whether they choose and are able to afford Internet service or not. This proposed rule, therefore, would put broadband Internet service within reach where other charitable and public social programs, including HUD's ConnectHome program, provide free or reduced cost service.

B. Costs

It is not possible to specify the exact costs that recipients and owners may incur as a result of the proposed rule, given the variety of available technologies that may be used to satisfy the new broadband requirements. However, available data indicates that any costs associated with this proposed rule will be minimal.

As is displayed on table I, broadband Internet access can be provided using two general technologies: Wired and wireless, each with several specific technologies. Broadband can be delivered over wired lines using very-high-bit-rate digital subscriber lines (VDSL), cable lines, power lines (BPL), or fiber optic platforms. Using wireless technologies, broadband can be provided using satellite, fixed wireless, mobile wireless, and Wi-Fi platforms.

Table I—Types of Broadband Technologies Platform Connection type Access requirement Part of
  • infrastructure
  • Not part of
  • infrastructure
  • Wired Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL) Copper wire Yes Router & Modem. Cable Modem Copper wire Yes Router & Modem. Fiber Fiber Optic wire Yes Router & Modem. Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) Copper wire Yes Router & Modem. Wireless Satellite Over the Air—satellite None Router & Modem. Fixed Wireless Over the Air—Longer Range Directional Equipment None Router & Modem. Mobile Wireless Over the Air—Cellular None Router & Modem. Wireless Fidelity (WiFi) Over the Air—Short-Range Wireless Technology None Router & Modem.

    Whereas wired lines technologies may require some sort of physical infrastructure consisting of internal wiring within the dwelling unit, wireless technologies do not require any additional physical infrastructure within the building. With wireless technology, the signal travels through the air to the customer, who uses a connection technology, such as a modem, to access the services. For wireless technologies, the infrastructure cost to the property boundary (connection to the service provider) is nil ($0). However, the availability of wireless broadband service is limited and evolving, so HUD expects many builders will opt to install wired broadband infrastructure.

    Building costs of installing wired infrastructure are limited to in-dwelling wiring, as this is all that is required by the proposed rule. Within the unit or the building, the electrical work consists of running cable (meeting the requirements of category (Cat) 5e or Cat 6 wire), installing jacks and plates, and minor construction work (such as drilling and patching walls). Fiber optic cables are rarely run in the dwelling unit but are installed by the service provider outside the unit; the non-fiber optic wiring then makes broadband accessible within the unit. Depending on the market, some of the cost is also born by the service provider.

    The average per-unit cost for wiring for broadband Internet is approximately $200 17 (see table II). These costs are simply estimates of one method of complying with the requirements of the proposed rule. Labor costs will also vary based on the region and whether the installation is being done as part of substantial rehabilitation or new construction. At most, installation of broadband infrastructure may reduce the provision of other amenities or nonessential finishes, but even these reductions are considered unlikely.

    17http://www.homewyse.com/services/cost_to_install_electrical_wiring.html

    Table II—Sample Cost To Install Electrical Wiring (1 Wiring) Item Quantity Low High Electrical Wiring Labor (Hours)
  • Labor estimate to install electrical wiring, route, secure, and connect new NMB-B wiring run for single receptacle, up to a 40' run. Includes planning, equipment, and material acquisition, area preparation and protection, setup and cleanup.
  • 2.1 hours $160.07 $205.10
    Electrical Wiring Materials and Supplies
  • Cost of related materials and supplies typically required to install electrical wiring including connectors, fittings, and mounting hardware.
  • 1 Wiring (unit) 20.00 25.00
    Total Costs (1 Wiring) 180.07 230.10

    HUD also notes that the proposed rule is drafted so as to minimize the costs of the new installation requirements. For example, the proposed rule does not mandate any rehabilitation or construction, and the decision to undertake such activities appropriately remains with recipients and owners. Rather, the scope of the proposed regulatory changes is limited to requiring the installation of broadband infrastructure if the recipient or owner elects to undertake new construction or substantial rehabilitation. The proposed rule minimizes the economic impacts on recipients and owners by recognizing that the installation of broadband infrastructure is generally less burdensome and costly at the time of new construction or substantial rehabilitation than when such installation is undertaken as a stand-alone effort.

    Moreover, this proposed rule only requires the installation of broadband infrastructure that is “accessible” in each unit. The proposed rule does not require recipients or owners to provide a regular subscription to broadband Internet service (even at a cost) to residents. Also minimizing the economic costs of the proposed regulatory changes is the fact that the proposed definition of broadband infrastructure is broad enough to include cable television, fiber optic cabling, and wireless infrastructure providing appropriate broadband connectivity to the individual units. As discussed above in this Executive Summary, multifamily HUD or standard- market new construction typically provides telephone landline and cable TV connectivity. Further, HUD's competitive grants for new construction under the Choice Neighborhoods program have, in recent years, sought the provision of broadband.

    A review of HUD internal databases, summarized on table III, shows that in 2013, the 58,677 units within the targeted programs were newly constructed or rehabilitated. However, HUD's data did not contain specific information to be able to determine how many of the units that underwent rehabilitation met the definition of “substantial rehabilitation” contained in the proposed rule, so the number of affected units would be smaller than is contained in the table. In addition, data on affected units newly constructed using CDBG funding is unavailable, as grantee reports do not separate multifamily from single-unit new construction.

    Table III—HUD-Assisted New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation Sec. 8 RAD 811 PRAC 202 PRAC Sec. 8 202 HOPE VI PIH CDBG HOME
  • Rental
  • Totals
    New Construction 2012 506 2,405 146 703 2013 110 583 2,034 44 297 19,424 22,492 2014 100 482 1,592 11,596 Rehabilitation 2012 25 36 2013 199 15 109 16 20,918 14,928 36,185 2014 28 15 15,716 6,965 FY 2013 Totals 58,677

    Further, a review found that multifamily (5-plus unit) HUD or standard-market new construction typically provides telephone landline and many provide cable TV connectivity.18 A recent survey by the National Association of Homebuilders found that just 4 percent of the surveyed multifamily housing developers did not install landline wires and jacks in multifamily units completed in the past 12 months.18 19 In recent years, HUD's competitive grants for new construction under the Choice Neighborhoods program have required the provision of broadband.20 Therefore, this proposed rule simply codifies what is considered common practice in several programs.

    18 For example under “Class 4 Low Average Quality” the Craftsman 2015 National Building Cost Manual lists cable TV as a standard feature. Only “Class 5” minimum quality does not list cable or a computer network as a standard feature. All electrical work is estimated to be 10 percent of project cost. 2015 National Building Cost Manual, supra, p. 19.

    18 NAHB, Multifamily Market Survey, supra.

    19 Note that HUD's definition of accessibility is more restrictive than the FCC's because HUD considers only the building itself.

    20 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grants Notice of Funding Availability,” supra, p. 32. “Broadband Access. All FY2014 and FY2015 Implementation Grantees will be required, as part of their Transformation Plan, to include infrastructure that permits unit-based access to broadband Internet connectivity in all new units. Grantees may use Choice Neighborhoods funds to provide unit-based broadband Internet connectivity, which includes the costs of installing broadband infrastructure and hardware in units, but not the costs of Internet service for residents. Regular and informed Internet adoption can increase access to the job market, as well as health, education, financial and other services. Further, in-home broadband Internet access is an attractive, and in most cases, standard amenity that can be used to market the mixed-income community created through the Transformation Plan.”

    Accordingly, most recipients and owners already meet the standards established in the proposed rule, and the new regulatory requirements will impose minimal, if any, new economic costs. HUD has addressed those rare situations where the proposed new requirements may prove too costly by granting exceptions to the installation requirements where the installation is economically infeasible due to location or building characteristics.

    The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulation Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The proposed rule would provide that for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing funded by HUD, as part of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation to be undertaken, such activity must include installation of broadband infrastructure. None of the HUD-covered programs listed in this proposed rule require a grantee to undertake new construction or substantial rehabilitation. Instead, new construction and substantial rehabilitation are eligible activities that grantees may take using HUD funds. Therefore, small entities will not incur any costs than they otherwise would incur by voluntarily undertaking new construction or substantial rehabilitation, since the costs of these activities, including the installation of broadband infrastructure, are funded by HUD. For these reasons, this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this proposed rule that will meet HUD's objectives, as described in this preamble.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule will not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of the UMRA.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule must be submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) for review and approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The burden of the information collections in this proposed rule is estimated to be minimal. The reporting of new construction or substantial rehabilitation activity under the programs covered by this proposed rule is not increased through the installation of broadband infrastructure. However, the information collection that is new is the documentation required of the grantee that the location of proposed new construction makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible, or that the cost of installing the infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden. The total number of grantees that undertake new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined in this proposed rule, with HUD funds is currently low, and this is reflected in the respondents.

    Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Response
  • frequency
  • (average)
  • Burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Documentation of inability to undertake installation of broadband infrastructure 1,000 1 2 2,000 Totals 1,000 1 2 2,000

    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning this collection of information to:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in this proposed rule. Comments must refer to the proposal by name and docket number (FR-5890-P-01) and must be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Fax number: 202-395-6947, and Collette Pollard, Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410.

    Environmental Review

    A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection, during regular business hours, in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500, or online at www.regulations.gov. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the FONSI by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments nor preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers applicable to the programs that would be affected by this rule are: 14.218, 14.225, 14.228, 14.239, 14.241, 14.267, 14.850, 14.871, and 14.872.

    List of Subjects 24 CFR Part 5

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Claims, Crime, Government contracts, Grant programs-housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs-housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Penalties, Pets, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.

    24 CFR Part 92

    Administrative practice and procedure, Low and moderate income housing, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 93

    Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 570

    Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Community development block grants, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-housing and community development, Guam, Indians, Loan programs-housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Virgin Islands.

    24 CFR Part 574

    Community facilities, Grant programs-housing and community development, Grant programs-social programs, HIV/AIDS, Low and moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 578

    Community development, Community facilities, Grant programs-housing and community development, Grant programs-social programs, Homeless, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 880

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

    24 CFR Part 881

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

    24 CFR Part 883

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

    24 CFR Part 884

    Grant programs-housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.

    24 CFR Part 886

    Grant programs-housing and community development, Lead poisoning, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 891

    Aged, Grant programs-housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs-housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 905

    Grant programs-housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 983

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

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR parts 5, 92, 93, 570, 574, 578, 880, 881, 883, 884, 886, 891, 905, and 983 as follows:

    PART 5—GENERAL HUD PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS; WAIVERS 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 1437n, 3535(d), Sec. 327, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2936, Sec. 607, Pub. L. 109-162, 119 Stat. 3051, E.O. 13279, and E.O. 13559.

    2. In § 5.100, add the definitions of “Broadband infrastructure” and “Substantial rehabilitation” in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
    § 5.100 Definitions.

    Broadband infrastructure means cables, fiber optics, wiring, or other permanent (integral to the structure) infrastructure that is capable of providing access to Internet connections in individual housing units that meet the definition of “advanced telecommunications capability” determined by the Federal Communications Commission under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 1302).

    Substantial rehabilitation, for the purposes of determining when installation of broadband infrastructure is required as part of substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing, unless otherwise defined by a program, means work that involves:

    (1) Significant work on the electrical system of the multifamily rental housing. “Significant work” means complete replacement of the electrical system or other work that is equal to or greater than 75 percent of the cost of replacing the entire electrical system. In the case of multifamily rental housing with multiple buildings with more than 4 units, “entire system” refers to the electrical system of the building undergoing rehabilitation; or

    (2) Rehabilitation of the multifamily rental housing in which the estimated cost of the rehabilitation is equal to or greater than 75 percent of the total estimated cost of replacing the multifamily rental housing after the rehabilitation is complete. In the case of multifamily rental housing with multiple buildings with more than 4 units, the replacement cost must be the replacement cost of the building undergoing rehabilitation.

    PART 92—HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM 3. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12701-12839.

    4. Amend § 92.251 by revising the introductory text of (a)(2) and adding paragraphs (a)(2)(vi) and (b)(1)(x) to read as follows:
    § 92.251 Property standards.

    (a) * * *

    (2) HUD requirements. All new construction projects must also meet the requirements described in this paragraph:

    * * *

    (vi) Broadband infrastructure. If the housing is a building with more than 4 rental units, the construction must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the participating jurisdiction documents that:

    (A) The location of the new construction makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible; or

    (B) The cost of installing the infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (x) Broadband infrastructure. If the housing is a building with more than 4 rental units, any substantial rehabilitation, as defined in 24 CFR 5.100, must provide for installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the participating jurisdiction documents that:

    (A) The location of the substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (B) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (C) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 93—HOUSING TRUST FUND 5. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 12 U.S.C. 4568.

    6. Amend § 93.301 by revising the introductory text of (a)(2) and adding paragraphs (a)(2)(vi) and (b)(1)(x) to read as follows:
    § 93.301 Property standards.

    (a) * * *

    (2) HUD requirements. All new construction projects must also meet the requirements described in this paragraph:

    * * *

    (vi) Broadband infrastructure. If the housing is a building with more than 4 rental units, the construction must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the grantee documents that:

    (A) The location of the new construction makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible; or

    (B) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (x) Broadband infrastructure. If the housing is a building with more than 4 rental units, any substantial rehabilitation, as defined in 24 CFR 5.100, must provide for installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the grantee documents that:

    (A) The location of the substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (B) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (C) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 570—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS 7. The authority citation for part 570 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5301-5320.

    8. In § 570.202, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 570.202 Eligible rehabilitation and preservation activities.

    (g) Broadband infrastructure. Any substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the grantee documents that:

    (1) The location of the substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    9. In § 570.204 add paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
    § 570.204 Special activities by Community-Based Development Organizations (CBDOs).

    (a) * * *

    (5) Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the grantee documents that:

    (i) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (ii) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (iii) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    10. Add paragraph (c)(4) to § 570.482 to read as follows:
    § 570.482 Eligible activities.

    (c) * * *

    (4) Broadband infrastructure in housing. Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the State documents that:

    (i) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (ii) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (iii) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 574—HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS 11. The authority citation for part 574 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12901-12912.

    12. Add § 574.350 to subpart D to read as follows:
    § 574.350 Additional standards for broadband infrastructure.

    Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as substantial rehabilitation is defined by 24 CFR 574.3, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the grantee documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 578—CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRAM 13. The authority citation for part 578 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    14. In § 578.45, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 578.45 Rehabilitation.

    (d) Broadband infrastructure. Any substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the grantee documents that:

    (1) The location of the substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    15. In § 578.47, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 578.47 New construction.

    (c) Broadband infrastructure. Any new construction of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the grantee documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible; or

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden.

    PART 880—SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION 16. The authority citation for part 880 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), 12701, and 13611-13619.

    17. Add § 880.212 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 880.212 Broadband infrastructure.

    Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the owner documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 881—SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM FOR SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION 18. The authority citation for part 881 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), 12701, and 13611-13619.

    19. Add § 881.212 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 881.212 Broadband infrastructure.

    Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the owner documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 883—SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM—STATE HOUSING AGENCIES 20. The authority citation for part 883 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.

    21. Add § 883.314 to subpart C to read as follows:
    § 883.314 Broadband infrastructure.

    Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the owner documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 884—SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM, NEW CONSTRUCTION SET-ASIDE FOR SECTION 515 RURAL RENTAL HOUSING PROJECTS 22. The authority citation for part 884 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.

    23. Add § 884.125 to subpart A to read as follows:
    § 884.125 Broadband infrastructure.

    Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the owner documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 886—SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM—SPECIAL ALLOCATIONS 24. The authority citation for part 886 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.

    25. Add § 886.139 to subpart A to read as follows:
    § 886.139 Broadband infrastructure.

    Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the owner documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    26. Add § 886.339 to subpart C to read as follows:
    § 886.339 Broadband infrastructure.

    Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the owner documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 891—SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 27. The authority citation for part 891 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1701q; 42 U.S.C. 1437f, 3535(d), and 8013.

    28. In § 891.120, add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 891.120 Project design and cost standards.

    (f) Broadband infrastructure. Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the owner documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    29. Add § 891.550 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 891.550 Broadband infrastructure.

    Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the owner documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 905—THE PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND PROGRAM 30. The authority citation for part 905 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 1437g, 42 U.S.C. 1437z-2, 42 U.S.C. 1437z-7, and 3535(d).

    31. In § 905.312, add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 905.312 Design and construction.

    (e) Broadband infrastructure. Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined in 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the PHA documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    PART 983—PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER (PBV) PROGRAM 32. The authority citation for part 983 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    33. Add § 983.157 to subpart D to read as follows:
    § 983.157 Broadband infrastructure.

    Any new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by 24 CFR 5.100, of a building with more than 4 rental units must include installation of broadband infrastructure, as this term is also defined in 24 CFR 5.100, except where the owner documents that:

    (1) The location of the new construction or substantial rehabilitation makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible;

    (2) The cost of installing broadband infrastructure would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in an undue financial burden; or

    (3) The structure of the housing to be substantially rehabilitated makes installation of broadband infrastructure infeasible.

    Dated: April 21, 2016. Julián Castro, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11352 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 91 [Docket No. FR 5891-P-01] RIN 2506-AC41 Modernizing HUD's Consolidated Planning Process To Narrow the Digital Divide and Increase Resilience to Natural Hazards AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD's Consolidated Plan is a planning mechanism designed to help States and local governments to assess their affordable housing and community development needs and to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The consolidated planning process serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue to identify housing and community development priorities that align and focus funding from HUD's formula block grant programs. This proposed rule would amend HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations to require that jurisdictions consider two additional concepts in their planning efforts.

    The first concept is how to address the need for broadband access for low- and moderate-income residents in the communities they serve. Broadband is the common term used to refer to a high-speed, always on connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. Specifically, the proposed rule would require that States and localities that submit a consolidated plan describe the broadband access in housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households. If low-income residents in the communities do not have such access, States and jurisdictions must consider providing broadband access to these residents into their decisions on how to invest HUD funds. The second concept to be added to the Consolidated Plan process would require jurisdictions to consider incorporating resilience to natural hazard risks, taking care to anticipate how risks will increase due to climate change, into development of the Plan in order to begin addressing impacts of climate change on low- and moderate-income residents.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments responsive to this proposed rule to the Office of General Counsel, Regulations Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0001. All submissions should refer to the above docket number and title. Submission of public comments may be carried out by hard copy or electronic submission.

    1. Submission of Hard Copy Comments. Comments may be submitted by mail or hand delivery. Each commenter submitting hard copy comments, by mail or hand delivery, should submit comments to the address above, addressed to the attention of the Regulations Division. Due to security measures at all federal agencies, submission of comments by mail often results in delayed delivery. To ensure timely receipt of comments, HUD recommends that any comments submitted by mail be submitted at least 2 weeks in advance of the public comment deadline. All hard copy comments received by mail or hand delivery are a part of the public record and will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change.

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

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

    Public Inspection of Comments. All comments submitted to HUD regarding this rule will be available, without charge, for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number). Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lora Routt, Senior Advisor, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, 451 7th Street SW., Suite 7204, Washington, DC 20410 at 202-402-4492, (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339.

    Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of This Proposed Rule

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to require States and local governments to evaluate the availability of broadband access and the vulnerability of housing occupied by low- and moderate income households to natural hazard risks, many of which may be increasing due to climate change, in their consolidated planning efforts. These evaluations will be conducted using readily available data sources developed by Federal government agencies and other available data and analyses, including State, Tribal, and local hazard mitigation plans that have been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Where access to broadband Internet service is not currently available or is minimally available (such as in certain rural areas), States and local governments must consider ways to bring broadband Internet access to low- and moderate-income residents, including how HUD funds could be used to narrow the digital divide for these residents. Further, where low- and moderate-income communities are at risk of natural hazards, including those that are expected to increase due to climate change, States and local governments must consider ways to incorporate appropriate hazard mitigation and resilience into their community planning and development goals, codes, and standards, including the use of HUD funds. These two planning considerations reflect emerging needs of communities in this changing world. Broadband access provides access to a wide range of resources, services, and products and such access not only can assist individuals in improving their economic outlook, but also assists communities in this same way. Analysis of natural hazards, including the anticipated effects of climate change on those hazards, is important to help ensure that jurisdictions are aware of existing and developing vulnerabilities in the geographic areas that they serve that can threaten the health and safety of the populations they serve.

    B. Summary of Major Provisions of This Proposed Rule

    The current regulations require that local governments and States consult public and private agencies that provide assisted housing, health services, and social and fair housing services during preparation of the consolidated plan. Under the current regulations, local governments and States are also required in their citizen participation plan to encourage the participation of local and regional institutions and businesses in the process of developing and implementing their consolidated plans. The proposed rule would require States and local governments, in preparing their consolidated plans, to add to the list of public and private agencies and entities that they now must consult with for preparation of their plans, to consult with public and private organizations, including broadband Internet service providers, organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide (e.g., schools, digital literacy organizations), and agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of floodprone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies. Jurisdictions must also encourage the participation of these entities in implementing relevant components of the plan.

    The proposed rule would also require jurisdictions to describe broadband access in housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households based on an analysis of data for its low- and moderate-income neighborhoods in the National Broadband Map 1 created by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce. Grantees may also use broadband availability data in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Form 477 2 or other data identified by the jurisdiction, for which the source is cited in the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. These needs include the need for broadband wiring and for connection to the broadband service in the household units, the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction.

    1 See http://www.broadbandmap.gov.

    2 See https://www.fcc.gov/general/broadband-deployment-data-fcc-form-477.

    The proposed rule would also require that jurisdictions provide, as part of their required housing market analysis, an assessment of natural hazard risks, including risks expected to increase due to climate change, to low- and moderate-income residents based on an analysis of data, findings, and methods in (1) the most recent National Climate Assessment,3 the Climate Resilience Toolkit,4 the Impact of Climate Change and Population Growth on the National Flood Insurance Program Through 2100,5 or the Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); 6 (2) other climate risk-related data published by the Federal government or other State or local government climate risk related data, including FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans which incorporate climate change; or (3) other climate risk data identified by the jurisdiction, for which the source is cited in the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. Grantees may request Technical Assistance through their HUD Field Office or directly at www.HUDExchange.info/get-assistance.

    3 See http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights#submenu-highlights-overview.

    4 See https://toolkit.climate.gov.

    5 See http://www.acclimatise.uk.com/login/uploaded/resources/FEMA_NFIP_report.pdf.

    6 See http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1197.pdf.

    C. Costs and Benefits of This Proposed Rule

    HUD's Consolidated Plan process, established by regulation in 1994, provides a comprehensive planning process for HUD programs administered by HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development, specifically the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program and the Housing with Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). Comprehensive community planning provides officials with an informative profile of their communities in terms of population, housing, economic base, community facilities, and transportation systems, and such information aids officials in their investment decisions. HUD's Consolidated Planning process assists State and local officials that are recipients of HUD funds under the above-listed programs in determining the housing and community development needs of their respective communities. Requiring consolidated plan jurisdictions to consider the broadband and natural hazard resilience needs of their communities helps to ensure a more complete profile of the needs of their communities. As discussed in this preamble, the importance of providing broadband access to all cannot be overstated. Broadband access is not only important to increasing opportunity for an individual's success, but to the success of a community. Consideration of the impact of natural hazard risks, many of which are anticipated to increase due to climate change, in one's community, and how communities can help mitigate any such adverse impacts, is equally important as it will help to guide the best use of land and orderly and sustainable growth. In brief, the benefits of this proposed rule are to promote a balanced planning process that more fully considers the housing, environmental, and economic needs of communities.

    HUD does not anticipate that the costs of the revised consultation and reporting requirements will be significant since the regulatory changes proposed by this proposed rule merely build upon similar existing requirements for other elements covered by the consolidated planning process rather than mandating completely new procedures. Further, the required assessments will be based on data readily available on the Internet. Therefore, jurisdictions will not have to incur the expense and administrative burdens associated with collecting data. Moreover, this proposed rule does not mandate that actions be taken to address broadband needs or climate change adaptation needs. Consolidated plan jurisdictions are in the best position to decide how to expend their HUD funds. However, HUD believes that the additional analyses required by this rule may highlight areas where expenditure of funds would assist in opening up economic opportunities through increased broadband access or mitigate the impact of possible natural hazards, including those that may be exacerbated due to climate change. HUD leaves it to jurisdictions to consider any appropriate methods to promote broadband access or protect against the adverse impacts of climate change, taking into account the other needs of their communities, and available funding, as identified through the consolidated planning process.

    II. Background A. Broadband

    On March 23, 2015, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on “Expanding Broadband Deployment and Adoption by Addressing Regulatory Barriers and Encouraging Investment and Training.” 7 In this memorandum, the President noted that access to high-speed broadband is no longer a luxury, but it is a necessity for American families, businesses, and consumers.8 The President further noted that the Federal government has an important role to play in developing coordinated policies to promote broadband deployment and adoption, including promoting best practices, breaking down regulatory barriers, and encouraging further investment.

    7 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/23/presidential-memorandum-expanding-broadband-deployment-and-adoption-addr.

    8 The Web page for the National Broadband Map explains that “broadband refers to a high-speed, always-on connection to the Internet. The primary factors that people consider when deciding what type of broadband Internet service to subscribe to include service availability, connection speed, technology and price. Organizations define broadband in different ways. For information to be included on the National Broadband Map, the technology must provide a two-way data transmission (to and from the Internet) with advertised speeds of at least 768 kilobits per second (kbps) downstream and at least 200 kbps upstream to end users.” Please see http://www.broadbandmap.gov/.

    The memorandum established an interagency Broadband Opportunity Council, including representatives from the Executive Branch agencies, for the purposes of consulting with State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, as well as telecommunications companies, utilities, trade associations, philanthropic entities, policy experts, and other interested parties to identify and assess regulatory barriers and opportunities to broadband adoption. The council's report, published by the White House on September 21, 2015, included a number of specific actions that agencies (including HUD) agreed to take to promote greater broadband deployment and adoption. This change to the Consolidated Planning process is one of those actions.9

    9 See, Broadband Opportunity Council, Report to President Obama at p. 14 (Aug. 20, 2015), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/broadband_opportunity_council_report_final.pdf .

    On July 15, 2015, HUD launched its Digital Opportunity Demonstration, known as “ConnectHome,” in which HUD provided a platform for collaboration among local governments, public housing agencies, Internet service providers, philanthropic foundations, nonprofit organizations and other relevant stakeholders to work together to produce local solutions for narrowing the digital divide in communities across the nation served by HUD.10 The demonstration, or pilot as it is also called, commenced with the participation of 28 communities. Through contributions made by the Internet service providers and other organizations participating in the pilot, these 28 communities will benefit from the ConnectHome collaboration by receiving, for the residents living in HUD public and assisted housing in these communities, broadband infrastructure, technical assistance, literacy training, and electronic devices that provide for accessing high-speed Internet.

    10 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/15/fact-sheet-connecthome-coming-together-ensure-digital-opportunity-all.

    On March 9, 2016, President Obama launched the ConnectALL initiative to ensure that more Americans have the broadband they need to get a job, engage their community, and deliver opportunity to their children.11 ConnectALL will increase the affordability of broadband for low-income Americans; deliver digital literacy skills; increase access to affordable devices; develop a tool to support broadband planning; bring together private sector corporations helping to deliver affordable connectivity; and marshal philanthropic support for digital inclusion. The goal of ConnectALL is to create a national effort to connect 20 million more Americans to broadband by 2020.

    11https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/09/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-connectall-initiative.

    The importance of all Americans having access to the Internet cannot be overstated. As HUD stated in its announcement of the Digital Opportunity Demonstration, published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2015, at 80 FR 18248, “[k]nowledge is a pillar to achieving the American Dream—a catalyst for upward mobility as well as an investment that ensures each generation is as successful as the last.” 12 Many low-income Americans do not have broadband Internet at home, contributing to the estimated 66 million Americans who are without the most basic digital literacy skills. Without broadband access and connectivity and the skills to use Internet technology at home, children will miss out on the high-value educational, economic, and social impact that high-speed Internet provides. It is for these reasons that HUD is exploring ways, beyond ConnectHome, to narrow the digital divide for the low-income individuals and families served by HUD multifamily rental housing programs. This proposed rule presents one such additional effort.

    12 80 FR18248, at 18249.

    B. Natural Hazards Resilience

    On November 1, 2013, President Obama signed Executive Order 13653, on “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.” 13 The Executive Order recognizes that the impacts of climate change—including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise—are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges. Research has developed the concept of social vulnerability, which describes characteristics (age, gender, socioeconomic status, special needs, race, and ethnicity) of populations that influence their capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazards and disasters, including the sensitivity of a population to climate change impacts and how different people or groups are more or less vulnerable to those impacts. Social vulnerability and equity in the context of climate change are important because some populations may have less capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from climate-related hazards and effects.14 Executive Order 13653 asserts that managing these risks requires deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the federal government, State, Tribal, and local governments, and stakeholders. Further, the Executive Order calls upon Federal agencies to identify opportunities to support and encourage smarter, more climate-resilient investments by States, local communities, and tribes, through grants and other programs, in the context of infrastructure development.

    13 Executive Order 13653 was subsequently published in the Federal Register on November 6, 2013, at 78 FR 66819.

    14 A summary of research on social vulnerability is provided in Kathy Lynn, Katharine MacKendrick, and Ellen M. Donoghue, Social Vulnerability and Climate Change: Synthesis of Literature (United States Department of Agriculture, August 2011), available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr838.pdf.

    Section 7 of Executive Order 13653 established the President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Change Resilience and Preparedness (Task Force). Co-chaired by the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Task Force consisted of 26 governors, mayors, county officials, and Tribal leaders from across the United States. Members brought first-hand experiences in building climate preparedness and resilience in their communities and conducted broad outreach to thousands of government agencies, trade associations, planning agencies, academic institutions, and other stakeholders, to inform their recommendations to the Administration.

    The President charged the Task Force with providing recommendations on how the Federal government can respond to the needs of communities nationwide that are dealing with the impacts of climate change by removing barriers to resilient investments, modernizing Federal grant and loan programs to better support local efforts, and developing the information and tools they need to prepare, among other measures. In November 2014, Task Force members presented their recommendations for the President at a White House meeting with Vice President Biden and other senior Administration officials.15 Among other actions, the Task Force called on HUD to consider strategies within existing grant programs to facilitate and encourage integrated hazard mitigation approaches that address climate-change related risks, land use, development codes and standards, and capital improvement planning. This proposed rule represents one step that HUD is taking to implement these recommendations.

    15https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/resilience/taskforce.

    III. This Proposed Rule

    HUD's consolidated planning process serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue to identify housing and community development priorities that align and focus funding from the HUD formula block grant programs: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program. HUD's regulations for the consolidated planning are codified at 24 CFR part 91(entitled “Consolidated Submissions for Community Planning and Development Programs”).

    The Consolidated Plan, which may have a planning duration of between 3 and 5 years, is designed to help States and local governments assess their affordable housing and community development needs, in the context of market conditions at the time of their planning, and to make data-driven, place-based decisions on how to expend HUD funds in their jurisdictions. In developing their consolidated plans, States and local governments are required to engage their communities, both in the process of developing and reviewing the proposed plan, and as partners and stakeholders in the implementation of the plan. By consulting and collaborating with other public and private entities, States and local governments can better align and coordinate community development programs with a range of other plans, programs, and resources to achieve greater impact. A jurisdiction's consolidated plan is carried out through annual action plans, which provide a concise summary of the actions, activities, and the specific Federal and non-federal resources that will be used each year to address the priority needs and specific goals identified by the Consolidated Plan. States and local governments report on accomplishments and progress toward consolidated plan goals in the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER).

    The regulatory amendments proposed by this rule would require States and local governments to consider broadband access and natural hazard resilience as part of their consolidated planning efforts. As provided in this proposed rule, States and local governments will need to consider the broadband needs of their low- and moderate-income residents, and the extent that available broadband Internet service providers and technology support these residents' broadband access needs. Where the required analysis demonstrates that such support is not currently available or is minimally available, States and local governments should consider ways to bring broadband Internet access to these residents, such as the extent to which broadband Internet service providers could be solicited to contribute to the broadband access needs of low-income residents, or how HUD funds could be used to narrow the digital divide for low- and moderate-income residents.

    Further, where the required analysis demonstrates that low- and moderate-income communities are at risk of natural hazards, including those that may be exacerbated due to climate change, States and local governments should consider ways to incorporate hazard mitigation and resilience into their community planning and development goals, development codes, and standards, including how HUD funds could be used to mitigate natural hazard risks, including increasing risks due to climate change, with other Federal, State, local, philanthropic, and private sector funding. In this regard, President Obama's Administration is committed to giving communities across the United States the information and tools they need to plan for current and future climate change impacts, such as flooding and sea-level rise. In March 2014, the Administration launched the Climate Data Initiative, an effort to make vast Federal data resources on climate change risks and impacts openly available to the public.16 Following a major disaster designation, jurisdictions should consider reviewing and possibly revising the required resilience analysis. Such a review would assist jurisdictions in determining whether the disaster has introduced new or unanticipated hazard risks and consequences or unmet needs. Such a review would assist jurisdictions in deciding how best to use HUD funds to address new resilience-related and disaster recovery-related needs. HUD specifically invites public comments on the need for this type of post-disaster review and the possibility of requiring such a reevaluation at the final rule stage.

    16 See http://www.data.gov/climate/.

    This proposed rule is one part of a broader set of Administration and HUD initiatives to narrow the digital divide and enhance climate resilience in low-income communities. Given the focus of the consolidated plan on housing needs, the assessments required by the proposed rule are limited to broadband access in housing and the vulnerability of housing to natural hazard risks. HUD, however, is cognizant of the critical non-housing needs of low-income communities. The adoption of broadband, which includes digital literacy by low-income residents is an equally critical component of closing the digital divide. Likewise, the evaluation of vulnerability to natural hazard risks on a broader, community-wide, level is an equally significant component of ensuring the resilience of low-income households. Under 24 CFR 91.215 (for local governments) and 24 CFR 92.315 (for States), jurisdictions must provide a description of priority non-housing community development needs eligible for assistance under HUD's community development programs. Given the importance of broadband adoption to communities and the goals of this rulemaking, HUD strongly encourages jurisdictions to consider implementing such actions in their non-housing community development efforts. Similarly, HUD strongly encourages jurisdictions to consider the use of block grant funds for actions that enhance the resilience of communities to natural hazard risks as a whole. To this end, jurisdictions should consider basing such actions on the FEMA-approved State, Tribal, and local hazard mitigation plans that may be used to conduct the housing-specific assessments required by the proposed rule.

    In addition, HUD continues to encourage regional planning considerations, and maintains the requirement for local governments and States to, in their citizen participation plan, encourage the participation of local and regional institutions and businesses in the process of developing and implementing their consolidated plans.

    The proposed rule would make the following changes to the Consolidated Plan regulations:

    1. Consultation and citizen participation requirements (§§ 91.100.91.105. 91.110, 91.115). The current regulations require that local governments and States consult public and private agencies that provide assisted housing, health services, and social and fair housing services during preparation of the consolidated plan. Under the current regulations, local governments and States are also required, in their citizen participation plan, to encourage the participation of local and regional institutions and businesses in the process of developing and implementing their consolidated plans. The proposed rule would amend these requirements to specify that local governments and States must consult with public and private organizations, including broadband Internet service providers, and other organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide. Further, the citizen participation plan must encourage their participation in implementing any components of the plan designed to narrow the digital divide for low-income residents. The proposed rule would also require local governments and States to consult with agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of floodprone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies in the process of developing the consolidated plan.

    2. Contents of Consolidated Plan (§§ 91.5, 91.200, 9.200, 91.210, 91.300, 91.310). The proposed rule would make several changes to subparts C and D of HUD's regulations 24 CFR part 91, which establish the required contents of the consolidated plan. First, the proposed rule would require that, in describing their consultation efforts, local governments and States describe their consultations with public and private organizations, including broadband Internet service providers, other organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide, agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of floodprone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies.

    Second, the jurisdiction must also describe broadband needs in housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households based on an analysis of data for its low- and moderate-income neighborhoods in the National Broadband Map. The National Broadband Map Web site may be accessed at http://www.broadbandmap.gov/. Grantees may also use broadband availability data in the FCC Form 477 or other data identified by the jurisdiction, for which the source is cited in the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. These needs include the need for broadband wiring and for connection to the broadband service in the household units, the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction.

    Third, the proposed rule would also require the jurisdiction to provide an assessment of natural hazard risk to low- and moderate-income residents based on an analysis of data, findings and methods in (1) the most recent National Climate Assessment, the Climate Resilience Toolkit, the Impact of Climate Change and Population Growth on the National Flood Insurance Program Through 2100, or the Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); (2) other climate risk-related data published by the Federal government or other State or local government climate risk related data, including FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans which incorporate climate change; or (3) other climate risk data identified by the jurisdiction, for which the source is cited in the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.

    The National Climate Assessment, located at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/, summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.17

    17http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.

    The Climate Resilience Toolkit, located at http://toolkit.climate.gov provides science-based tools, information, and expertise to help people manage their climate-related risks and opportunities, and improve their resilience to extreme events. The site is designed to serve interested citizens, communities, businesses, resource managers, planners, and policy leaders at all levels of government. The Climate Resilience Toolkit was developed over a six-month period in 2014 by a partnership of federal agencies and organizations led by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.18

    18https://toolkit.climate.gov/content/about-climate-resilience-toolkit.

    FEMA sponsored the report on Impact of Climate Change and Population Growth on the National Flood Insurance Program (available at http://www.acclimatise.uk.com/login/uploaded/resources/FEMA_NFIP_report.pdf) to fulfill a recommendation made by the Government Accountability Office to analyze the potential long-term implications of climate change and population growth on the National Flood Insurance Program. The study addresses riverine and coastal flood response to climate change, with projections at 20-year intervals through 2100, and found that the national average increase in floodprone areas by the year 2100 may approximate 40-45% for riverine areas and coastal areas.

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems, located at http://www.nist.gov/el/resilience, provides a six-step planning process that towns, cities, and counties can apply to better withstand hazard events and recovery more quickly. It provides a practical approach to help communities set priorities, allocate resources, and adopt codes and standards to reduce natural hazard and climate change risks by improving their resilience.

    By undertaking these two analyses as part of their consolidated planning, HUD believes that jurisdictions become better informed of two emerging community needs in the world today: (1) The importance of broadband access, which opens up opportunity to a wide range of services, markets, jobs, educational, cultural and recreational opportunities; and (2) the importance of being cognizant and prepared for environmental and geographical conditions that may threaten the health and safety of communities. As noted earlier in this preamble, HUD is not mandating that jurisdictions take actions in either of these areas, but HUD believes that these are two areas that must be taken into consideration in a jurisdiction's planning for its expenditure of HUD funds.

    IV. Findings and Certifications Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order (although not an economically significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order).

    As noted in this preamble, the proposed regulatory amendments are designed to assist Consolidated Plan jurisdictions assess two emerging needs of communities in this changing world. Specifically, the proposed rule will direct States and local governments to consider broadband access and natural hazard resilience in their consolidated planning efforts by using readily available online data sources. Where access to broadband Internet service is either not currently available or only minimally available, jurisdictions will be required to consider ways to bring broadband Internet access to low- and moderate-income residents, including how HUD funds could be used to narrow the digital divide for these residents. Further, where low- and moderate-income communities are at risk of natural hazards, including those that may be exacerbated due to climate change, States and local governments must consider ways to incorporate hazard mitigation and resilience into their community planning and development goals, including the use of HUD funds.

    Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Rule A. Benefits

    The Consolidated Planning process benefits jurisdictions by establishing the framework for a community-wide dialogue to identify housing and community development needs for over a thousand communities across the Nation.19 Rather than a piecemeal approach to planning based on differing program requirements, the Consolidated Plan enables a holistic approach to the assessment of affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions. HUD established the Consolidated Plan, through a 1994 final rule, for the explicit purpose of linking disparate program planning requirements, thereby ensuring “that the needs and resources of . . . [jurisdictions] are included in a comprehensive planning effort to revitalize distressed neighborhoods and help low-income residents locally.” 20 The Consolidated Plan replaced a dozen separate planning mechanisms with a unified approach enabling communities to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions.21

    19 The Consolidated Plan is used by 1,255 jurisdictions. This number includes 1,205 localities all 50 States.

    20 60 FR 1878 (January 5, 1994).

    21 See footnote 15.

    New housing and community development needs have arisen in the 21 years since the Consolidated Plan was created. As noted in this preamble, two of the most pressing emerging needs facing communities in the twenty-first century are the digital divide and climate change:

    • In a recent analysis, the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) noted that the benefits of broadband Internet technology have not been evenly distributed.22 Research shows that there remain substantial disparities in both Internet use and the quality of access. This “digital divide” is concentrated among older, less educated, and less affluent populations, as well as in rural parts of the country that tend to have fewer choices and slower connections.23

    22 The Digital Divide and Economic Benefits of Broadband Access, Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) Issue Brief (March 2016) available online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160308_broadband_cea_issue_brief.pdf.

    23 Thom File and Camille Ryan, Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013 (U.S. Census Bureau, November 2014) available online at: http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-28.pdf.

    • As President Obama has noted, climate change is happening now; it is not a distant threat. Its effects are already being felt in communities across the Nation. In some regions, droughts, wildfires, and floods are becoming more frequent and/or intense.24 Average temperatures across the United States have increased between 1.3 and 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since recordkeeping began in 1895.25 Heat waves, hurricanes, and severe storms have all become more intense, and sea level rise is causing some communities to flood at high tides and threatening homes and critical infrastructure. Climate impacts have affected every region across the nation and inflicted large costs on the economy.26

    24https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change.

    25http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/climate-trends.

    26http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.

    Despite the benefits described above of a comprehensive approach to planning and the allocation of scarce Federal dollars, jurisdictions are not currently required to consider either the digital divide or climate change resilience in development of their Consolidated Plans. Jurisdictions may therefore place a low priority on assessing, and using Federal dollars to address, these critical issues than on other needs included in the Consolidated Plan. As a worst case scenario, it could mean that communities elect to defer considering these needs.

    The direct benefits provided by the proposed rule are, therefore, to help ensure that Consolidated Plan jurisdictions consider broadband access and natural hazard resilience as part of their comprehensive assessment and planning efforts, including the most effective use of HUD grant funds. The CEA broadband analysis discussed above noted that closing the digital divide can increase productivity and open ladders of opportunity. Likewise, community investment in natural hazard resilience may help to insure security and quality of life against the rising environmental tolls associated with climate change.27

    27 See http://www.nist.gov/el/helping-to-build-a-nation-of-resilient-communities.cfm.

    B. Costs

    HUD does not anticipate that the costs of the revised consultation and reporting requirements will be substantial since the regulatory changes proposed by this proposed rule merely build upon similar existing requirements for other elements covered by the consolidated planning process rather than mandating completely new procedures. The economic costs of completing the Consolidated Plan are not significant. A complete Consolidated Plan that contains both a Strategic Plan and Annual Action Plan is submitted once every 3 to 5 years. An Annual Action Plan is submitted once a year. HUD data indicate that the cost of preparing the Strategic Plan for a locality is $5,236, and for a State is $14,382. The cost of preparing the Annual Action Plan is $1,904 for a locality and $6,392 for each State. While these are not trivial amounts, they are not substantial when considered in proportion to HUD grant funding (for example, the average CDBG grant to entitlement communities in FY 2012 was approximately $1.7 million).28

    28 Eugene Boyd, Community Development Block Grants: Recent Funding History (Congressional Research Service, February 6, 2014), available online at: https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=750383.

    HUD does not anticipate the proposed regulatory changes will add much, if anything, to these costs. As noted above, the required assessments will be based on data that are already readily available on the Internet. Therefore, jurisdictions will not have to incur the expense and administrative burdens associated with collecting data. Moreover, the proposed rule does not mandate that actions be taken to address broadband needs or climate change needs. Consolidated plan jurisdictions are in the best position to decide how to expend their HUD funds. However, HUD believes that the additional analyses required by this proposed rule may highlight areas where expenditure of funds would assist in opening up economic opportunities through increased broadband access or mitigate the impact of possible natural hazard risks and climate change impacts. HUD leaves it to jurisdictions to consider any appropriate methods to promote broadband access or protect against the adverse impacts of climate change, taking into account the other needs of their communities, and available funding, as identified through the consolidated planning process.

    Accordingly, HUD believes that the benefits of enhancing the ability of State and local government to comprehensively plan for housing and community development needs outweigh the minimal costs that may be associated with the revised Consolidated Plan requirements. The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulation Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The burden of the information collections in this rule is estimated as follows:

    Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Information collection Number of respondents Response
  • frequency
  • (average) *
  • Burden hours per response Total burden hours
    Citizen participation plan for localities (§ 91.105) and States (§ 91.115) 1,205 localities and 50 States 1 2 2,510 Housing market analysis for local governments (§ 91.210) and States (§ 91.310) 1,205 localities and 50 States 1 2 2,510 Totals 1,255 1 4 5,020 * A complete Consolidated Plan is submitted once every 3-5 years. This response number reflects one response per Consolidated Plan submission.

    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting from members of the public and affected agencies comments on the following concerning this collection of information:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in this rule. Under the provisions of 5 CFR part 1320, OMB is required to make a decision concerning this collection of information between 30 and 60 days after the publication date. Therefore, a comment on the information collection requirements is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives the comment within 30 days of the publication. This time frame does not affect the deadline for comments to the agency on the proposed rule, however. Comments must refer to the proposal by name and docket number (5891-P-01) and must be sent to:

    HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Fax number: 202-395-6947, and Ms. Colette Pollard, Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 2204, Washington, DC 20410

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

    Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    As noted above in this preamble, the proposed regulatory amendment will impose minimal, if any, economic burdens on HUD grantees, irrespective of their size. The proposed rule will amend the Consolidated Plan regulations to require that States and local governments consider (1) broadband Internet service access for low- and moderate-income households to; and (2) the risk of potential natural hazards, including those that may be exacerbated due to climate change, to low- and moderate-income residents in their jurisdictions. The regulatory changes build upon their existing consolidated planning process rather than mandating completely new procedures. As discussed above, the economic costs of preparing the Consolidated Plan are not significant, and it is unlikely that the proposed changes will increase those costs since the required assessments will be mostly based on data that has already been compiled and readily available on the Internet. Jurisdictions will, therefore, not have to incur the expense and administrative burdens associated with collecting and analyzing data.

    Moreover, the proposed rule does not mandate that any actions be taken in response to the required assessments. Where access to broadband Internet service is not currently available or is minimally available, States and local governments must consider ways to bring broadband Internet access to low- and moderate-income residents, including how HUD funds could be used to narrow the digital divide for these residents. Further, where low- and moderate-income communities are at risk of natural hazards, including those that may be exacerbated due to climate change, States and local governments must consider ways to incorporate hazard mitigation and resilience into their community planning and development goals, including the use of HUD funds. However, jurisdictions retain the discretion to consider the most appropriate methods to address their assessments, taking into account other needs identified as part of the consolidated planning process as well as financial and other resource constraints. This proposed rule therefore, which only requires consideration of the broadband and natural hazards resilience needs of low-income communities, has a minimal cost impact on all grantees subject to the Consolidated Planning process, whether large or small, and will not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities.

    Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives, as described in this preamble.

    Environmental Review

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

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule imposes either substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 91

    Aged, Grant programs—housing and community development, Homeless, Individuals with disabilities, Low- and moderate-income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend part 91 as follows:

    PART 91—CONSOLIDATED SUBMISSIONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-11388, 12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912.

    2. In § 91.100, add a sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 91.100 Consultation; local governments.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * * When preparing the consolidated plan, the jurisdiction shall also consult with public and private organizations, including broadband Internet service providers, organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide, agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of floodprone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies.

    3. In § 91.105, add a sentence at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 91.105 Citizen participation plan; local governments.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) * * * The jurisdiction shall encourage the participation of public and private organizations, including broadband Internet service providers, organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide, agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of floodprone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies in the process of developing the consolidated plan.

    4. In § 91.110, add a sentence at the end of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 91.110 Consultation; States.

    (a) * * * When preparing the consolidated plan, the State shall also consult with public and private organizations, including broadband Internet service providers, organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide, agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of floodprone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies.

    5. In § 91.115, add a sentence at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 91.115 Citizen participation plan; States.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) * * * The State shall also encourage the participation of public and private organizations, including broadband Internet service providers, organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide, agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of floodprone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies in the process of developing the consolidated plan.

    6. In § 91.200, redesignate paragraph (b)(3)(iv) as paragraph (b)(3)(vi), and add new paragraph (b)(3)(iv) and paragraph (b)(3)(v) to read as follows:
    § 91.200 General.

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iv) Public and private organizations, including broadband Internet service providers and organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide;

    (v) Agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of floodprone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies; and

    7. Revise § 91.210(a) to read as follows:
    § 91.210 Housing market analysis.

    (a) General characteristics. (1) Based on information available to the jurisdiction, the plan must describe the significant characteristics of the jurisdiction's housing market, including the supply, demand, and condition and cost of housing and the housing stock available to serve persons with disabilities, and to serve other low-income persons with special needs, including persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.

    (2) Data on the housing market should include, to the extent information is available, an estimate of the number of vacant or abandoned buildings and whether units in these buildings are suitable for rehabilitation.

    (3) The jurisdiction must also identify and describe any areas within the jurisdiction with concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and/or low-income families, stating how it defines the terms “area of low-income concentration” and “area of minority concentration” for this purpose. The locations and degree of these concentrations must be identified, either in a narrative or on one or more maps.

    (4) The jurisdiction must also describe the broadband needs of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households based on an analysis of data for its low- and moderate-income neighborhoods in the National Broadband Map. Jurisdictions may also use broadband availability data in the FCC Form 477 or other data identified by the jurisdiction, for which the source is cited in the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. These needs include the need for broadband wiring and for connection to the broadband service in the household units, the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction.

    (5) The jurisdiction must also describe the vulnerability of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households to increased natural hazard risks associated with climate change based on an analysis of data, findings, and methods in:

    (i) The National Climate Assessment, the Climate Resilience Toolkit, the Impact of Climate Change and Population Growth on the National Flood Insurance Program, or the NIST Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems;

    (ii) Other climate risk-related data published by the Federal government or other State or local government climate risk-related data, including hazard mitigation plans approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that incorporate climate change; or

    (iii) Other climate risk data identified by the jurisdiction, for which the source is cited in the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.

    8. In § 91.300, remove the word “and” following the semicolon at the end of paragraph (b)(3)(iii), redesignate paragraph (b)(3)(iv) as paragraph (b)(3)(vi), and add new paragraph (b)(3)(iv) and paragraph (b)(3)(v) to read as follows:
    § 91.300 General.

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iv) Public and private organizations, including broadband Internet service providers and organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide;

    (v) Agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of floodprone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies; and

    9. Revise § 91.310(a) to read as follows:
    § 91.310 Housing market analysis.

    (a) General characteristics. (1) Based on data available to the State, the plan must describe the significant characteristics of the State's housing markets (including such aspects as the supply, demand, and condition and cost of housing).

    (2) The State must describe the broadband needs of housing in the State based on an analysis of data in the National Broadband Map. States may also use broadband availability data in the FCC Form 477 or other data identified by the jurisdiction, for which the source is cited in the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. These needs include the need for broadband wiring and for connection to the broadband service in the household units, the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction.

    (3) The State must also describe the vulnerability of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households to increased natural hazard risks due to climate change based on an analysis of data, findings, and methods in:

    (i) The National Climate Assessment, the Climate Resilience Toolkit, the Impact of Climate Change and Population Growth on the National Flood Insurance Program, or the NIST Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems;

    (ii) Other climate risk-related data published by the Federal government or other State or local government climate risk-related data, including hazard mitigation plans approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that incorporate climate change; or

    (iii) Other climate risk data identified by the jurisdiction, for which the source is cited in the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.

    Dated: April 15, 2016. Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11350 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Parts 1000, 1003, 1005, 1006, and 1007 [Docket No. FR 5861-N-02] RIN 2577-AC96 Equal Access to Housing in HUD's Native American and Native Hawaiian Programs—Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity; Correction AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 9, 2016, HUD published a proposed rule that would revise regulations for HUD's Native American and Native Hawaiian programs to incorporate existing rules that require HUD programs to be open to all eligible individuals and families regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. After publication, HUD discovered an inadvertent mistake in the preamble to the document. The preamble contained incomplete information in the For Further Information Contact section. This document revises the For Further Information Contact section of the preamble.

    DATES:

    This document corrects the proposed rule published on May 9, 2016 (81 FR 28037). The comment due date for that proposed rule remains unchanged as July 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    With respect to this supplementary document, contact Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10238, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2016-10753, beginning on page 28037 in the issue of May 9, 2016, make the following correction in the For Further Information Contact section. On page 28037 in the 3rd column, revise the information in the For Further Information Contact section to read as follows:

    “Randy Akers, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Native American Housing Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4126, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-401-7914 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.”

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11747 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0051; FRL-9946-51-Region 10] Extension of the Attainment Date for the Oakridge, Oregon 24-Hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a 1-year extension of the attainment date for the Oakridge, Oregon nonattainment area to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, on the basis that the State has met the criteria for such an extension under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0051 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information that is restricted by statute from disclosure. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Justin Spenillo at (206) 553-6125, or email address [email protected],gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background for the Proposed Action II. Criteria for an Extension of the Attainment Date III. Meeting the Criteria for the 1-Year Extension A. Oakridge Air Quality Data for 2015 B. Oakridge Requirements and Commitments in the Applicable SIP IV. Summary of Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background for the Proposed Action

    On October 17, 2006, the EPA issued its final action to revise the PM2.5 NAAQS to establish revised 24-hour standards (71 FR 61144). In that action, we promulgated identical revised primary and secondary PM2.5 standards designed to protect public health and welfare that specified a 24-hour PM2.5 average concentration of 35 μg/m3. Specifically, the 2006 standards require that the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile concentration may not exceed 35 μg/m3.

    On November 13, 2009, the EPA issued a final rule designating all areas throughout the country for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, effective December 14, 2009 (74 FR 58688). In that action, the EPA designated Oakridge, Oregon and a small surrounding area as a nonattainment area (Oakridge NAA) based on monitor values at the Willamette Activity Center in Oakridge. As a result of this nonattainment area designation, Oregon is required to prepare and submit to the EPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to meet attainment plan requirements and to bring the Oakridge NAA into attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The State submitted an attainment plan submission for the Oakridge NAA to the EPA by letter dated December 12, 2012 (2012 Oakridge Plan).

    On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, holding that the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS only pursuant to the provisions of subpart 1 of the Act, rather than the particulate matter specific provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). The Court did not vacate the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but remanded it to the EPA with instructions to promulgate a new implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of both subpart 1 and subpart 4. On June 6, 2013, consistent with the Court's remand decision, the EPA withdrew its March 2012 Implementation Guidance recommending that states rely on the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule for development of attainment plans for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, the EPA withdrew the guidance it initially provided to states for meeting attainment plan requirements for purposes of areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, such as the Oakridge NAA.

    On June 2, 2014, in response to the NRDC decision that it implement the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to subpart 4, the EPA promulgated the “PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and Deadline Rule” (79 FR 31566). In that action, the EPA classified all areas currently designated nonattainment for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as “Moderate” nonattainment areas. That rule also provided guidance to states on how to meet the subpart 4 requirements and set a deadline of December 31, 2014 for states to submit any revisions to previously submitted attainment plan submissions, as necessary to meet subpart 4 requirements. Thus, the EPA classified the Oakridge NAA as a Moderate nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and provided an opportunity for the state to revise the 2012 Oakridge Plan.

    A Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area's ambient air quality status is determined in accordance with Appendix N of 40 CFR part 50. To show attainment of the current 24-hour and annual standards for PM2.5, data from the most recent three consecutive years prior to the area's attainment date must show that PM2.5 concentrations over the prior three year period are at or below the levels of the standards. A complete year of air quality data, as described in part 50, Appendix N, is comprised of all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing data from at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days.

    The EPA begins processing and analyzing data related to the attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS after the applicable attainment date for the affected areas. Current EPA regulations, under 40 CFR part 58, set the deadline for the state to certify its air quality data in the Air Quality System (AQS) database by May 1 of the following year. Under section 179(c), the EPA is required to determine as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 6 months after the applicable attainment date, whether a nonattainment area has attained the relevant NAAQS. In the case of a state with an area that qualifies for an extension of the attainment date under section 188(d), however, the EPA has discretion instead to extend the attainment date for an area if the state requests the extension and meets the statutory criteria for such an extension.

    II. Criteria for an Extension of the Attainment Date

    CAA section 188(d) allows states to apply for, and the EPA the discretion to grant, a 1-year extension to the statutory attainment date for Moderate PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of a nominal 10 micrometers) nonattainment areas. Section 188(d) establishes two criteria that the EPA must consider to grant a requested attainment date extension: (1) The state has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan, and (2) no more than one exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS level for PM10 has occurred in the area in the year preceding the extension year and the annual mean concentration of PM10 in the area for such year is less than or equal to the level of the annual standard. Section 188(d) also provides for the possibility that the EPA may grant a second 1-year extension if the Moderate area meets the specified criteria. No more than two 1-year attainment date extensions may be granted for a single nonattainment area.

    The provisions of section 188(d) thus allow a state an opportunity to demonstrate that a Moderate area should continue to be classified as Moderate and not reclassified to Serious, even if the area has monitor data exceeding the level of the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS in the calendar year preceding the otherwise applicable attainment date. Although section 188(d) provides the criteria for such an extension, the EPA believes that there are some ambiguities in the statutory language that warrant interpretation. Thus, in this action the EPA is proposing to interpret the requirements of section 188(d) in evaluating the extension request from the State.

    The most significant issue that the EPA must address is how to interpret the air quality requirement of section 188(d)(2) in light of the fact that the statutory language refers to PM10 rather than to PM2.5, and the fact that the air quality requirement is phrased as “no more than one exceedance” of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the year prior to the otherwise applicable attainment date. Based upon the NRDC decision, there can be no doubt that the EPA must interpret the references to PM10 in section 188(d)(2) to encompass PM2.5. Given that fact, however, the EPA cannot read the “no more than one exceedance” requirement to apply literally to the PM2.5 NAAQS because of the distinct differences in the form of the PM10 NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS.

    The statutory language addressing PM10 in CAA section 188 explicitly sets ambient air quality conditions for an attainment date extension in terms that relate factually to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS that was in effect at the time of the 1990 Amendments of the CAA, which has a statistical form that is substantially different from the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement in 188(d)(2) states that an extension may be granted if “no more than one exceedance of the 24-hour national ambient air quality standard level for PM10 has occurred in the area in the year preceding the Extension Year, and the annual mean concentration of PM10 in the area for such year is less than or equal to the standard level.” Given the form of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, the requirement that an area have no more than one “exceedance” meant that there could be no more than one monitored value over the numerical level of the NAAQS. Such an approach is logical when the form of the 24-hour NAAQS allows one exceedance per year, on average, over a three year period. By having no more than one exceedance, the state was meeting the NAAQS in that last year, even if it did not yet meet the requirements for attainment over the requisite three year period. In other words, the state would be close to attaining the NAAQS, thus making one year extension a potentially appropriate way provide additional time for a state to come into attainment without the need for a reclassification to Serious and additional SIP planning efforts. By contrast, the form of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is a 98th percentile-based form and not a “one expected exceedance” form as is the PM10 NAAQS. Under the form of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, there can be a number of exceedances of the numerical level of the NAAQS that are permitted and are not considered a violation of the NAAQS. Thus, under the form of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS an area could be close to attaining the NAAQS in the year prior to the attainment date, even if there were one or more dates with monitored “exceedances.” Therefore the statutory language requires some interpretation with regard to how it applies to the PM2.5 NAAQS.

    For this action, the EPA is proposing to interpret section 188(d) for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in a way that is equivalent to the “no more than one exceedance” condition that Congress imposed for purposes of the PM10 NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA interprets the requirement to demonstrate that the area had “no more than one exceedance” of the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to mean that the state must demonstrate that the area had “clean data” in the year proceeding the extension year. Thus, a state seeking an attainment date extension for a Moderate nonattainment area for a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be required to demonstrate that the area had monitor data showing no monitored violations of the NAAQS in light of the statistical form of that particular standard (i.e., for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 98th percentile value did not exceed 35 μg/m3) in the calendar year prior to the applicable attainment date for the area.

    An additional issue that the EPA must address concerning the air quality requirement of section 188(d)(2) is whether a state seeking an extension for purposes of a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS only, must nevertheless meet the portion of section 188(d)(2) that refers to the annual ambient air quality of such an area. The EPA notes that statutory language of section 188(d) does provide that a state seeking an extension of a Moderate area attainment date must have not more than one exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS “and” meet an annual ambient level requirement as well. The EPA believes that reading this provision to require a state to meet both tests, even when the state has an area that is designated nonattainment only for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is seeking an extension of only the attainment date for such NAAQS, is not a logical interpretation of the provision. Such a reading would be logical were the area at issue designated nonattainment for both the 24-hour NAAQS and the annual NAAQS, but not if designated nonattainment only for one of those standards.

    The EPA is proposing to interpret section 188(d) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to require a state only to establish that it meets the air quality requirement with respect to the 24-hour NAAQS when seeking an extension of the attainment date only for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA believes this interpretation of section 188(d)(2) is appropriate for two main reasons. First, while most PM10 nonattainment areas were designated nonattainment for either just the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS or for both the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS, the majority of current PM2.5 nonattainment areas are, in contrast, designated for either the 24-hour or the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and should arguably only need to demonstrate clean data for the NAAQS for which the area is designated nonattainment. For those few PM2.5 nonattainment areas designated for both 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA believes it also is appropriate that a state must only demonstrate clean data for the specific NAAQS for which the state is seeking an attainment date extension because such an approach is consistent with the statute's overall approach to designating nonattainment areas and implementing control strategies for each separate PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, if an area is designated as nonattainment for both the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards and receives an extension for one standard while still working toward a later attainment date for the other standard, the EPA maintains that public health protection would not be delayed because the state would still be subject to the ongoing mandate to adopt and implement measures to ensure expeditious attainment of the other standard.

    Section 188(d)(1) of the Act also provides that the state must have “. . . complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan.” As with section 188(d)(2), the EPA believes that there are some ambiguities in the statutory language that warrant interpretation in order to evaluate the State's extension request. The EPA proposes to interpret this provision to mean that the state has submitted a SIP submission to address the attainment plan requirements for the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS and that the state has implemented the control measures in the SIP submission. This proposed interpretation is based on the plain language of section 188(d) that does not explicitly require that the state comply with all requirements applicable to the area in the CAA, but merely requires that the state comply with all requirements in the applicable SIP. In other words, the EPA believes that section 188(d)(1) should be interpreted to mean that so long as the state has submitted the necessary attainment plan for the area for the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS and is implementing the control measures in the submission, the fact that the EPA has not yet acted on such submission to make it an approved part of the applicable SIP should not be a barrier to the state obtaining an extension of the attainment date under section 188(d)(1).

    Under this proposed interpretation, therefore, the state has to demonstrate that it has submitted an attainment plan to the EPA for the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS and that the state is implementing control measures in that SIP submission. Because the extension at issue under section 188(d) is an extension of a Moderate area attainment date, it follows that the control measures in the attainment plan submission would be those measures that the State intended to meet the RACM and RACT requirements. The EPA interprets the requirement of section 188(d)(1) that the state have complied with the “requirements and commitments” of the applicable implementation plan to mean that the state must be implementing the control measures in the submitted attainment plan. The state must have adopted and submitted the attainment plan SIP revision to the EPA, but the state can qualify for the extension even if the EPA has not yet taken action on the SIP submission.

    In sum, in order for the EPA to make a decision on whether to grant a 1-year attainment date extension, the state is required to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that it has both complied with all requirements and commitments in the applicable implementation plan, and that it had “clean” air quality data in the attainment year, as explained above. Any decision made by the EPA to extend the attainment date for an area would be based on facts specific to the nonattainment area at issue.

    Section 188(d) does not specify the process by which the EPA should evaluate and act upon requests from states for an extension of the Moderate PM2.5 area attainment date. However, the EPA believes that an attainment date extension should only be granted after the EPA provides notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for the public to comment. Requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking allows for appropriate evaluation of the relevant criteria and facts in order to assure that the extension is granted or denied after full evaluation. This process also is consistent with past practice by the EPA in granting attainment date extensions for PM2.5 areas. If this proposal is finalized, then the nonattainment area would remain classified as Moderate for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS throughout the 2016 calendar year. After the December 31, 2016 attainment date, the EPA will evaluate air quality data and other relevant information to determine whether the area has attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2016 attainment date.

    III. Meeting the Criteria for the 1-Year Extension

    On December 14, 2015, the State of Oregon submitted a request to extend the Moderate area attainment date for the Oakridge NAA for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016. This request contained documentation intended to demonstrate that the State meets the criteria for a 1-year attainment date extension for this area pursuant to CAA section 188(d). On February 11, 2016, the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) submitted an Oakridge Extension Request Follow-up, that provides the final quality-assured air quality data for 2015 and documentation of efforts to implement the 2012 Oakridge plan during the 2015-16 winter. The EPA is evaluating this request in light of its statutory interpretations of section 188(d) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    A. Oakridge Air Quality Data for 2015

    The LRAPA implements the CAA on behalf of the State in the Oakridge NAA. The LRAPA monitors ambient PM2.5 at one monitoring site in the Oakridge NAA at the Willamette Activity Center, the area of expected highest concentrations. The air monitor began operation in 1989 and has monitored continuously to the present. The monitor is a Federal Reference Method sampler, sampling every third day. The EPA has previously approved the State's monitoring network including the PM2.5 network for Oakridge. The EPA verified in 2010 and 2013 that the PM2.5 sample collection and filter handling procedures met Federal requirements for quality assurance and control. The LRAPA reviews and certifies all data from this monitor for compliance with these procedures and submits the data to the ODEQ. The ODEQ then submits the certified data to the EPA AQS data system.

    The ODEQ submitted complete certified PM2.5 monitor data for calendar year 2015 into the EPA AQS data system before February 28, 2016. Likewise, the state has submitted certified data for calendar years 2013 and 2014 to the EPA AQS data system. Thus, the EPA AQS data system contains sufficient data for the EPA to evaluate whether the Oakridge NAA attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the statutory attainment date of December 31, 2015, but also the requisite data to determine whether the Oakridge NAA was meeting the NAAQS in calendar year 2015 in order to qualify for a one year extension under section 188(d).

    As explained above, the EPA is interpreting the air quality criterion of section 188(d)(2) in order to reflect the different form of the NAAQS for the PM10 NAAQS in effect at the time of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA versus the form of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Under this proposed interpretation, a state could qualify for a one year extension of the Moderate area attainment date if the monitor data reflects that the area has ambient air quality that is at or below the level of the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS for the calendar year preceding the otherwise applicable attainment date, i.e., for the calendar year prior to the requested extension year. The three year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 values for 2013-2015 in the Oakridge NAA is 37 μg/m3 and thus the EPA cannot find that the area has attained the 24-hour standards for this 3-year period. However, the 98th percentile value for the single year of 2015 in this area is 28.9 μg/m3, which is below the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/m3.

    Because the Oakridge NAA is designated nonattainment only for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the State only seeks a one year extension of the attainment date with respect to this NAAQS. As explained above, the EPA is interpreting the air quality criterion of section 188(d) to apply only with respect to the specific NAAQS for which a state seeks an extension. Thus, for a state seeking an extension of an attainment date for an area designated nonattainment only for the 24-hour NAAQS, section 188(d) does not require the EPA to evaluate the ambient air quality in the area with respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS as well. Under this proposed approach, the monitored annual ambient level of PM2.5 in the Oakridge NAA is not germane to the EPA's evaluation the extension request. However, the EPA notes that the annual design value for the Oakridge monitor is 9.2 μg/m3 for the 2012-2014 period and the preliminary design value is 9.6 μg/m3 for the 2013-2015 period. Thus, even if the annual ambient monitored PM2.5 level were relevant to this extension request, the monitored PM2.5 level in the Oakridge NAA is well below the 15 μg/m3 level of the 2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as the 12 μg/m3 level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to find that the State meets the ambient air quality criterion for a 1-year attainment date extension for the Oakridge NAA pursuant to CAA section 188(d)(2).

    B. Oakridge Requirements and Commitments in the Applicable SIP

    On December 12, 2012, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted a SIP revision to address attainment plan requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA (2012 Oakridge Plan). The State intended this SIP submission to meet the statutory requirements for an attainment plan for purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS based upon the statutory requirements and the EPA guidance for those requirements available at that time. Although the EPA anticipates that the state may elect to make an additional SIP submission to revise and update the 2012 Oakridge Plan, to date the State has not done so.

    The State developed the 2012 Oakridge Plan in order to address the ambient PM2.5 problem in this area through a control strategy designed to focus on the dominant sources of emissions in the area. The State has concluded that the violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Oakridge NAA are primarily due to emissions of direct PM2.5 from residential wood combustion (RWC) from winter time home heating. Oakridge is a small rural community located in a valley of the western slope of the Cascade mountain range. Therefore, the State has ascertained that reducing emissions of PM2.5 to prevent violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS rests primarily on RWC curtailment.

    The 2012 Oakridge Plan included new control measures to address RWC emissions by requiring the curtailment of RWC during times when elevated levels of PM2.5 are predicted or occur. The RWC curtailment control measure was adopted, and is enforceable as a City of Oakridge ordinance. This ordinance, in addition to Oregon's state-wide Heat Smart program, also requires the replacement of old uncertified wood stoves with EPA certified stoves when houses containing uncertified wood stoves are sold, and requires the installation of EPA certified wood stoves in new construction. The State provided documentation in the attainment date extension request to demonstrate the implementation of the Oakridge RWC curtailment ordinance.

    Subsequent to the submission of the 2012 Oakridge Plan submission, the City of Oakridge enacted revisions on November 15, 2012 and again on October 15, 2015 to strengthen the RWC ordinance which included lowering the threshold for triggering a curtailment or “burn ban,” imposing a more stringent opacity limit, and requiring that only dry, seasoned wood be burned for RWC. The State plans to submit a SIP revision to the EPA in December 2016 that will include the most recent RWC ordinance revisions. The State and LRAPA provided evidence of the adoption and implementation of the new revised ordinance in support of the extension request. Although the State has not yet submitted the ordinance revisions to the EPA for evaluation, and thus the revisions are not yet part of the applicable implementation plan, the Agency nevertheless considers these revisions an important part of the State's strategy for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Oakridge NAA.

    As explained above, the EPA is proposing to interpret the compliance with applicable implementation plan criterion of section 188(d)(1) to require that a state have made a submission intended to meet the attainment plan requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and that the state be implementing the control measures in that attainment plan submission. Under this proposed interpretation, a state could qualify for a 1-year extension of the Moderate area attainment date if the state has submitted an attainment plan for the relevant PM2.5 NAAQS and demonstrates that it is actively implementing the commitments and requirements of the attainment plan at the time of attainment date extension request.

    The State developed and submitted the 2012 Oakridge Plan to the EPA for evaluation. The State also submitted information to establish that the control measures in the 2012 Oakridge Plan are in effect and are being implemented by the LRAPA at this time as part of the attainment date extension request. The EPA has reviewed the control measures of the submitted 2012 Oakridge Plan and the documentation of implementation submitted as part of the extension request. The docket provides documentation of this including the official extension request that describes supplemental strategies currently underway, an expanded city ordinance that enhances controls designed to reduce emissions from residential home heating, and local strategies and efforts to reduce emissions. Based upon this information, the EPA believes that the State and the LRAPA are complying with the requirements and commitments of the applicable implementation plan, as contemplated by section 188(d)(1).

    For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to find that the State meets the compliance with the applicable implementation plan criterion for a 1-year attainment date extension for the Oakridge NAA pursuant to CAA section 188(d)(1).

    IV. Summary of Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to find that the State has met the criteria for receiving a 1-year extension to the Moderate area attainment date for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Oakridge NAA as provided in section 188(d) of the Act. The State is implementing the requirements and commitments in the applicable attainment plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area, and the 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 air quality value for 2015 is below 35 μg/m3. Accordingly, the State has established that it meets the criteria of section 188(d) as the EPA is proposing to interpret those requirements for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is therefore proposing to exercise the discretion granted to the Administrator by section 188(d) of the CAA to extend the Moderate area attainment date for the Oakridge NAA from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 9, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11628 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0164; FRL-9946-358-Region 9] Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area in California AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. This proposed determination is based on the most recent three-year period (2012-2014) of sufficient, quality-assured, and certified data. Preliminary data for 2015 are consistent with continued attainment of the standard in the San Joaquin Valley.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0164 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the EPA's full 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:

    Anita Lee, (415) 972-3958, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. The EPA's Analysis A. Analysis of Ambient Air Quality Data B. Analysis of 1-Hour Ozone Trends in the San Joaquin Valley C. Analysis of Monitoring Network Adequacy III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for certain widespread pollutants, such as ozone, that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.1 In 1979, we promulgated an ozone NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million (ppm), one-hour average (“1-hour ozone standard”).2

    1 See sections 108 and 109 of the Act.

    2 See 44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979.

    An area is considered to have attained the 1-hour ozone standard if there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance with the regulation codified at 40 CFR 50.9, based on three consecutive calendar years of complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data. A violation occurs when the ambient ozone air quality monitoring data show greater than one (1.0) “expected number” of exceedances per year at any site in the area, when averaged over three consecutive calendar years. An “expected number” of exceedances is a statistical term that refers to an arithmetic average. An “expected number” of exceedances may be equivalent to the number of observed exceedances plus an increment that accounts for incomplete sampling.3 An exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during any day exceeds 0.124 ppm.4

    3 See 40 CFR part 50, appendix H. Because, in this context, the term “exceedances” refers to days (during which the daily maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), the maximum possible number of exceedances in a given year is 365 (or 366 in a leap year).

    4 For more information, please see “National 1-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone” (40 CFR 50.9) and “Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone” (40 CFR part 50, appendix H).

    The Act, as amended in 1990, required the EPA to designate as nonattainment any ozone areas that were still designated nonattainment under the 1977 Act Amendments, and any other areas violating the 1-hour ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through 1989 period.5 The 1990 CAA Amendments further classified these areas, based on the severity of their nonattainment problem, as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme.

    5 See section 107(d)(4) of the Act. See also 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991.

    The control requirements and date by which attainment of the one-hour ozone standard was to be achieved varied with an area's classification. Marginal areas were subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993, while Severe and Extreme areas were subject to more stringent planning requirements and were provided more time to attain the standard.

    The San Joaquin Valley (SJV or “Valley”) covers approximately 23,000 square miles and includes all of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, as well as the western half of Kern County.6 The Valley is home to approximately four million residents. On November 6, 1991, the EPA classified the San Joaquin Valley as “Serious” nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard with an applicable attainment date of November 15, 1999.7 The Valley was later reclassified by operation of law as “Severe” based on our determination that the Valley had failed to attain the standard by the 1999 deadline.8 Later, the EPA approved a request by the State of California to reclassify the Valley as “Extreme” for the 1-hour ozone standard, with an applicable attainment date of November 15, 2010.9

    6 See 40 CFR 81.305.

    7 See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991.

    8 See 66 FR 56476, November 8, 2001.

    9 See 69 FR 20550, April 16, 2004.

    In 1997, the EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm (“1997 8-hour ozone standard”), to replace the 1-hour ozone standard.10 Although the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in 2005, we continue to determine whether areas attain, or fail to attain, the 1-hour ozone standard. This is because, under the EPA's regulations governing the transition from implementation of the revoked ozone standard to implementation of the replacement ozone standard, “anti-backsliding” provisions require the continued applicability of certain 1-hour ozone control requirements in areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, that are designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the connection between some of those requirements and attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.11 In 2008, we tightened the 8-hour ozone standard (“2008 8-hour ozone standard”),12 and in 2015, we revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, but the principles of anti-backsliding continue to apply to both revoked ozone standards.13

    10 See 62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997.

    11 See, generally, 40 CFR 51.905.

    12 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).

    13 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). See, generally, 40 CFR 51.1105.

    In this action, we are proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone standard. Under 40 CFR 50.1118, if this action is finalized as proposed and to the extent not already fulfilled, the requirement for this area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated planning requirements related to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, including reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures for failure to attain, or make reasonable progress, shall be suspended until such time as the area is redesignated as attainment for the current ozone NAAQS or a redesignation substitute for the 1-hour ozone standard is approved, at which time the requirements no longer apply.14 If, however, prior to such redesignation or approval of such redesignation substitute, the EPA determines that the area has violated the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, then the area is again required to submit such attainment-related plans.

    14 See 40 CFR 50.1118 and 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015.

    Over the decades since the 1990 CAA Amendments, despite high rates of growth in population and regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 1-hour ozone concentrations in San Joaquin Valley have decreased, primarily due to emissions reductions from mobile source and consumer product control measures adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and from stationary source control measures adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or “District”). For instance, despite regional growth, 1-hour ozone exceedance-days within the Valley (i.e., number of days in a year during which the 0.12 ppm standard was violated at a (i.e., at least one) monitoring site) decreased from 45 in 1990 to 7 in 2010.15 Nonetheless, upon review of the ambient data for the three years preceding the November 15, 2010 attainment date (i.e., 2008-2010), we determined that the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by that date.16

    15 See table A-1 in appendix A to the San Joaquin Valley 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, adopted by the District on September 19, 2013.

    16 See 76 FR 82133, December 30, 2011.

    Since then, the trend towards fewer 1-hour ozone exceedance-days has continued, and on February 11, 2016, CARB requested that the EPA determine that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone standard (also referred to as a “clean data determination”).17 As part of its request for a clean data determination for the 1-hour ozone standard for the San Joaquin Valley, CARB submitted its own staff report and appendices, a letter dated July 13, 2015 from the District to the EPA and CARB requesting a clean data determination, the District's staff report to support its clean data determination request, and an ozone study final report prepared for the District.18

    17 See Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated February 11, 2016.

    18 See “San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination” dated February 8, 2016, prepared by CARB; “San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination—Appendices” dated February 8, 2016 prepared by CARB; letter from Seyed Sadredin, Executive Officer/Air Pollution Control Officer, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Region IX, and Richard Corey, CARB, dated July 13, 2015; “Attainment Determination Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard” dated July 13, 2015 prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; and “Sonoma Technology, Inc., “Ozone Concentrations In and Around the City of Arvin,” final report prepared for the District, May 2014 (“Arvin Ozone Saturation Study”).

    In addition to the request for a clean data determination, the District provided documentation in its staff report intended to support a finding that attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In our final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone standard (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015), we established a mechanism, referred to as a “redesignation substitute,” through which an area may shift to contingency status those requirements, such as penalty fee program requirements under CAA section 185, to which an area had remained subject under the EPA's anti-backsliding regulations governing the transition from revoked ozone standards (such as the 1-hour ozone standard) to current ozone standards. To invoke this mechanism, a state must submit a demonstration that the area has attained the revoked ozone NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions and that the area will maintain the revoked NAAQS for 10 years from the date of the EPA's approval of this showing.19 In this action, we are not taking action on the District's demonstration that attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions because it is not relevant for the purposes of a clean data determination, but we will consider the District's demonstration in a separate rulemaking if and when it is supplemented with the 10-year maintenance demonstration element also needed to invoke the redesignation substitute mechanism in 40 CFR 51.1105(b).

    19 40 CFR 51.1105(b).

    II. The EPA's Analysis

    A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is generally based upon three years of complete, quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in the nonattainment area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.20 A determination of whether an area meets the 1-hour ozone standard relies upon a review of the daily maximum ozone levels. Under 40 CFR part 50, appendix H, a daily maximum ozone level is defined to be the highest hourly ozone value recorded for the day. This daily maximum value is considered valid if 75 percent of the hours from 9:01 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. were measured or if the highest hour is greater than the level of the standard. A missing daily maximum ozone value may be assumed to be less than the level of the standard if the valid daily maxima on both the preceding day and the following day do not exceed 75 percent of the NAAQS. Data from air monitors operated by state or local agencies in compliance with the EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to the AQS database. Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on data in its AQS database when determining the attainment status of an area.21

    20 Generally, a “complete” data set for determining attainment of the ozone standard is one that includes three years of data with an average percent of days with valid monitoring data greater than 90 percent with no single year less than 75 percent. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I.

    21 See 40 CFR 50.9; 40 CFR part 50, appendix H; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D and E. All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix H.

    A. Analysis of Ambient Air Quality Data

    When the EPA determined that the San Joaquin Valley had failed to attain the November 15, 2010 attainment date, the Agency made its determination based on 2008 to 2010 data from a network of 22 ozone monitoring sites.22 By 2015, the number of ozone monitoring sites in San Joaquin Valley had increased to 27, 24 of which are designated as regulatory and from which data may be compared to the NAAQS.23 All of these sites monitor ozone concentrations on a continuous basis using ultraviolet absorption monitors.

    22 76 FR 56694, at 56698 (September 14, 2011).

    23 Relevant changes in the ozone monitoring network include the relocation of the Fresno-North First Street site (AQS ID: 06-019-0008) approximately 0.25 miles north to the Fresno-Garland site (AQS ID: 06-019-0011), the relocation of the Arvin-Bear Mountain site (AQS ID: 06-029-5001) approximately 2 miles north to the Arvin-Di Giorgio site (AQS ID: 06-029-5002), and the establishment of new ozone monitors at Tranquility (AQS ID: 06-019-2009) in Fresno County, at Bakersfield Municipal Airport (AQS ID: 06-029-2012) in Kern County, in the City of Madera (AQS ID: 06-039-2010) in Madera County, and in Porterville (AQS ID: 06-107-2010) in Tulare County.

    CARB or SJVAPCD operates 23 of the monitoring sites: Seven within Kern County, six within Fresno County, two within Madera, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and one within Kings and Merced counties.24 CARB annually certifies that the data the agency submits to AQS are quality-assured, including data collected by CARB at monitoring sites in San Joaquin Valley.25 SJVAPCD does the same for monitors operated by the District.26 In addition, the National Park Service (NPS) operates two ozone monitoring sites in Sequoia National Park in Tulare County; the Tachi-Yokut Tribe operates a monitoring site at the Santa Rosa Rancheria in Kings County; and the Chukchansi Indians of California operate a monitoring site at the Picayune Rancheria in Madera County.

    24 See figure 1 in SJVAPCD's 2015 Air Monitoring Network Plan (August 28, 2015) for a map of the ambient air monitors in the San Joaquin Valley.

    25 See, e.g., letter from Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment Branch, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 2014 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, dated May 8, 2015.

    26 See, e.g., letter from Sheraz Gill, Director of Strategies and Incentives, letter to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 2014 ambient air quality data and quality assurance data, dated July 8, 2015.

    The Sequoia National Park—Ash Mountain (AQS ID 06-107-0009) NPS monitoring site is designated as regulatory and comparable to the NAAQS. NPS annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are quality-assured.27 One NPS site within Tulare County, Sequoia National Park—Lower Kaweah (AQS ID 06-107-0006), is designated as non-regulatory and not comparable to the NAAQS. The EPA notes that the two monitoring sites located in Indian country, Santa Rosa Rancheria (AQS ID 06-031-0500) and Picayune Rancheria (AQS ID 06-019-0500), are designated as non-regulatory and not comparable to the NAAQS.

    27 See, e.g., letter from Barkley Sive, Program Manager, NPS, to Lew Weinstock, U.S. EPA, certifying 2014 ozone data, incorrectly dated April 29, 2014, received by EPA via electronic mail on April 30, 2015.

    Table 1 summarizes the expected 1-hour ozone exceedances, per year and as an average over the 2012-2014 period, at the regulatory monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley. Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley have occurred in the central and southern portions of the nonattainment area, but in recent years, the highest ozone concentrations have occurred in the central portion of the valley (i.e., within Fresno County). As shown in Table 1, the highest three-year average of expected exceedances at any site in the San Joaquin Valley for 2012-2014 is 0.7 at Fresno—Sierra Skypark in Fresno County. The calculated exceedance rate of 0.7 represents attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (a three-year average of expected exceedances less than or equal to 1). Thus, taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable ozone monitoring network, and the data collected and summarized in Table 1, we propose to determine that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (as defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix H). Preliminary 2015 data have not been certified but are consistent with the continued attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.

    Table 1—One-Hour Ozone Data for the San Joaquin Valley One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 1 Site (AQS ID) Expected exceedances by year 2012 2013 2014 Expected
  • exceedances
  • 3-yr average
  • 2012-2014
    FRESNO COUNTY: Clovis—Villa (06-019-5001) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fresno—Drummond Street (06-019-0007) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Fresno—Garland (06-019-0011) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Fresno—Sierra Skypark (06-019-0242) 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 Parlier (06-019-4001) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Tranquility (06-019-2009) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KERN COUNTY: Arvin—Di Giorgio (06-029-5002) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bakersfield—Muni (06-029-2012) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 Bakersfield—California (06-029-0014) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Edison (06-029-0007) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maricopa (06-029-0008) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oildale (06-029-0232) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shafter (06-029-6001) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KINGS COUNTY: Hanford—Irwin (06-031-1004) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MADERA COUNTY: Madera—Pump Yard (06-039-0004) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Madera—City (06-039-2010) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MERCED COUNTY: Merced—Coffee (06-047-0003) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY: Stockton—Hazelton (06-077-1002) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tracy—Airport (06-077-3005) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 STANISLAUS COUNTY: Modesto—14th Street (06-099-0005) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turlock (06-099-0006) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TULARE COUNTY: Porterville (06-107-2010) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sequoia National Park—Ash Mountain (06-107-0009) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Visalia—Church Street (06-107-2002) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 Source: Quicklook Report, “20160311_QLRpt_SJV_1hrO3_2012-2015.pdf,” March 11, 2016; and “20160411_QLRpt_SJV_1hrO3_2012-2015.xlsx,” April 11, 2016 (in the docket for this proposed action). 2 Based on CARB's missing data analysis for this site, at most one exceedance could have been recorded during the first half of 2012 if the site had been operational during that period. Assuming such an exceedance had occurred, the 3-year average of expected exceedances for the 2012-2014 period at the Bakersfield-Municipal Airport site would have been 0.3, which is less than the corresponding value at Fresno-Sierra Skypark (0.7) and less than the NAAQS.

    As noted above, a “complete” data set for determining attainment of the ozone standard is generally one that includes three years of data with an average percent of days with valid monitoring data greater than 90 percent with no single year less than 75 percent. Based on these criteria, the data summarized in Table 1 from all of the sites meet the criteria over the 2012 to 2014 period except for the Bakersfield—Municipal Airport site (AQS ID: 06-029-2012). The Bakersfield—Municipal Airport site began operation on July 1, 2012 and although completeness was greater than 90 percent for the period of the year it was operating, total completeness for the entire year, including the period prior to establishment of the monitor, was 48 percent. Completeness was greater than 90 percent at the Bakersfield—Municipal Airport site in 2013 and 2014.

    To address the data gap at the Bakersfield—Municipal Airport, CARB prepared a missing data analysis to identify an upper bound on the ozone concentrations and exceedance days that might have been recorded at this site during the first half of 2012 if it had been operational during that time.28 To identify an upper bound, CARB calculated the maximum differences between daily maximum 1-hour ozone measurements occurring on the same days from the three surrounding sites (Oildale, Bakersfield—California Avenue, and Edison) and the Bakersfield—Municipal Airport site during the first six months of 2013 and 2014 and applied the maximum differences to the highest daily maximum hourly concentrations measured at the three nearby ozone sites during the first half of 2012. The results showed that at most one exceedance could have been measured at the Bakersfield—Municipal Airport during the first six months of 2012 if it had been operational during that time. Based on our review, we find CARB's methods for estimating an upper bound on ozone concentrations and exceedances at the Bakersfield—Municipal Airport site to be acceptable and agree with CARB's conclusions drawn from the analysis. Thus, we find that incompleteness of the 2012 data set from the Bakersfield—Municipal Airport site does not preclude an attainment determination for the San Joaquin Valley that relies, in part, on 2012 data.

    28 See CARB's missing data analysis in appendix A to “San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination” dated February 8, 2016.

    B. Analysis of 1-Hour Ozone Trends in the San Joaquin Valley

    In support of its request to EPA for a Clean Data Determination, CARB submitted analyses of the 1-hour ozone design value and concentration trends, along with analyses of topography, meteorology, and ozone precursor emissions in the Valley. Based on its analyses, CARB concluded that the ozone site within the Valley with the maximum 1-hour ozone concentration is currently located in the Fresno Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Between 1990 and 2007, the maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations in the Valley alternated between the Bakersfield MSA in the southern portion of the Valley and the Fresno MSA in the central portion of the Valley.29 In 2008 the location of the maximum 1-hour ozone concentration site shifted from the Bakersfield MSA (at the Edison monitoring site for 2006-2007) to the Fresno MSA (at the Clovis—N. Villa Avenue monitoring site in 2008-2010), where it has remained through 2015 (at the Fresno—Sierra Skypark monitoring site in 2012-2014).30 CARB provided detailed evidence that the maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations in the Bakersfield MSA have decreased and the location of the maximum 1-hour ozone concentration has occurred in the Fresno MSA over last seven years (2008-2014).

    29 See pp. 21-22, CARB “San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination” dated February 8, 2016.

    30 See Table 9, p.22, CARB “San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination” dated February 8, 2016.

    CARB's analyses suggest that the Valley's topography, weather, and transport patterns strongly influence the geographic distribution of ozone, resulting in lower levels in the north, with higher levels in the central and southern portions of the Valley. In addition, CARB's analysis of emission inventories show decreasing trends in anthropogenic emissions of nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases throughout the Valley from 2000 to 2014, with the fastest rates of decrease expected in the Bakersfield MSA, providing further support that the Valley's design value is likely to continue to occur in the Fresno MSA.

    The Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site in the Bakersfield MSA was closed in 2010. Prior to its ceasing operation, a monitor intended to replace it began operating nearby at the Arvin—Di Giorgio site. The request to replace the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site with the Arvin—Di Giorgio monitoring site and the EPA's analysis of the request are discussed in section II.C., below. At the time of its closure, the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site had not recorded the maximum ozone concentration in the Valley in more than five years. However, in order to ensure that all sites that had been violating the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would be attaining the standard, CARB conducted a detailed analysis of the daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations expected at the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site following its closure in 2010 because it had been one of the Valley sites that, in some prior years, recorded the highest ozone concentration in the Valley. CARB conducted rank-by-rank regression analyses and comparisons using 2010 data from the Arvin—Bear Mountain, Arvin—Di Giorgio, and Edison monitoring sites to estimate daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations and estimated expected exceedances at the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site for 2011-2015 had the monitor remained operational until this time. CARB's analyses indicated that the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site would have attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2012-2014 period and would have continued to attain the standard for 2013-2015 based on the most recent preliminary data for 2015.31 CARB's analyses also concluded that the three-year average of estimated expected exceedances of 0.3 at the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site for both the 2012-2014 and 2013-2015 periods would have been less than the corresponding values at the Fresno—Sierra Skypark monitoring site (0.7 for 2012-2014 and 0.4 for 2013-2015).

    31 See pp. 18-19 and Appendix B, CARB “San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination” dated February 8, 2016.

    In addition to CARB's analyses, the District conducted predictive regression calculations of daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations for 2012 through 2014 at the Arvin—Bear Mountain and Arvin—Di Giorgio monitoring sites.32 Although the District used different methods, their results are consistent with the results from CARB's analyses, indicating that ozone concentrations at the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site would have attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during 2012-2014. The District's analyses also indicate the location of the maximum 1-hour concentration ozone site within the Fresno MSA and provide support for the shift, in 2008, of the Valley's maximum site from the Bakersfield region to the Fresno region. This is further supported by monitoring data at the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site that show that in the last five years of Arvin—Bear Mountain's monitor operation prior to its 2010 closure, the Valley's maximum 1-hour ozone concentration did not occur at the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site.

    32 See “Attainment Determination Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard” dated July 13, 2015 prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

    Based on our review of the submitted documentation, we find that CARB's and the District's methods and analyses regarding 1-hour ozone trends in the San Joaquin Valley and estimates of post-2010 ozone concentrations and expected exceedances at the Arvin—Bear Mountain site to be reasonable and agree with the conclusions drawn therefrom.

    C. Analysis of Monitoring Network Adequacy

    Within the San Joaquin Valley, CARB and the District are jointly responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements. The SLAMS network of ozone monitors in the Valley includes monitors operated by the District and monitors operated by CARB. The District submits annual monitoring network plans to the EPA. The District's network plans describe the various monitoring sites operated by the District as well as those operated by CARB. These plans discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR 58.10.33

    33 See SJVAPCD's “2015 Air Monitoring Network Plan”, dated August 28, 2015.

    The EPA reviews the District's annual network plans and conducts technical systems audits and has generally found the combined ambient air monitoring network meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS monitoring sites for ozone and is in compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58 for ozone except for the requirement to identify a maximum concentration ozone site within the Bakersfield MSA.34

    34 See, e.g., letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, dated October 22, 2012, transmitting the findings from the EPA's 2011 Technical Systems Audit.

    Specifically, 40 CFR part 58 requires, among other things, that at least one ozone site for each MSA must be designated to record the maximum concentration for that particular area. The closure of the Arvin—Bear Mountain site without subsequent approval of a replacement site prevented the designation of a maximum concentration ozone site for the Bakersfield MSA. On April 29, 2016, CARB submitted a request letter to the EPA for the relocation of the San Joaquin Valley Arvin—Bear Mountain ozone air monitoring site to the Arvin—Di Giorgio air monitoring site, which is 2.2 miles away and began operation prior to closure of the Arvin—Bear Mountain site.35 On May 2, 2016, EPA approved the relocation request based on a thorough review of all nearby available site options.36 Approval of the replacement site for the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site resolves the ozone ambient air monitoring network issue for the Bakersfield MSA. The EPA is determining that the ozone monitoring network in the Valley is adequate based on the following: The foregoing analyses provided by CARB and the District indicating that the Valley's maximum 1-hour ozone concentration site has shifted away from the Bakersfield MSA to sites located in the Fresno MSA and that 1-hour ozone design values that would have occurred at the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site post-2010 are consistent with attainment; the EPA's approval of the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site relocation request; and the fact that the replacement for the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site (i.e., Arvin—Di Giorgio) has been in operation since prior to the closure of the Arvin—Bear Mountain monitoring site.

    35 See letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, California Air Resources Board, to Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, dated April 29, 2016.

    36 See letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, California Air Resources Board, dated May 2, 2016.

    III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    The EPA is proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone standard based on sufficient, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. Preliminary data for 2015 are consistent with the continued attainment of the standard in San Joaquin Valley.

    If we finalize this determination as proposed, to the extent not already fulfilled, the requirements for the state to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures for failure to attain or make reasonable progress and other plans related to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard for San Joaquin Valley shall be suspended until such time as the area is redesignated as attainment for the current ozone NAAQS or a redesignation substitute for the 1-hour ozone standard is approved, at which time the requirements no longer apply.37 If, however, prior to such redesignation or approval of such redesignation substitute, the EPA determines that San Joaquin Valley has violated the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, then the area is again required to submit such attainment-related plans.38

    37 See 40 CFR 51.1118.

    38Id.

    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these comments before taking final action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality data and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed clean data determination does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 3, 2016. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11630 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0711; FRL-9946-60-Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Revisions to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone and Particulate Matter AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve and conditionally approve revisions to the State of California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area. The revisions consist of an update to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (“budgets”) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or “standard”) for the SJV ozone nonattainment area; for NOX and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard for the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area; and for NOX and course particulate matter (PM10) for the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard for the SJV PM10 maintenance area. The EPA is proposing to approve the SJV ozone and PM2.5 revised budgets and conditionally approve the PM10 budgets in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) and the EPA's regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0711 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket and documents in the docket for this action are generally available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karina O'Connor, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (775) 434-8176, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

    Table of Contents I. What action is the EPA proposing? II. Background A. Standards Applicable to Today's Action B. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity C. What is the EMFAC model? D. What versions of EMFAC are currently in use in California? E. What changes does EMFAC2014 reflect? F. Existing Adequate or Approved Budgets G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based on EMFAC2014 III. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals IV. What are the criteria for approval of revised budgets? V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and the EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24-Hour PM10 Standard VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing action on a SIP revision submitted by the State of California (“State”) on November 13, 2015. The SIP submittal revises budgets applicable to control strategy or maintenance plans for the SJV for three different NAAQS. We are proposing to approve revised budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. We are also proposing to conditionally approve revised budgets for the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard. Should the EPA later finalize the revised budgets as proposed herein, they will replace the SJV's existing budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard. At that time, the previously-approved or adequate budgets would no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes, and the revised budgets would need to be used as of the effective date of the final approval.

    II. Background A. Standards Applicable to Today's Action

    In 1997, the EPA revised the ozone standard to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 parts per million, averaged over an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).1 On April 15, 2004, the EPA designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and classified the area as “Serious” under CAA section 181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1. See 69 FR 23858 at 23888-89 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 81.305. In 2007, California requested that the EPA reclassify the SJV from “Serious” to “Extreme” nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under CAA section 181(b)(3). We granted California's request on May 5, 2010 and reclassified the SJV to Extreme for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard effective June 4, 2010. See 75 FR 24409.

    1 In 2008, the EPA revised and further strengthened the 8-hour ozone standard by setting the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (“2008 8-hour ozone standard”). 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). In 2015, the EPA further tightened the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.070 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).

    In 2006, the EPA revised the PM2.5 24-hour standard to provide increased protection of public health by lowering its level from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 μg/m3 (40 CFR 50.13). On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). This designation became effective on December 14, 2009 (40 CFR 81.305).2

    2 The SJV area is also designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards.

    In 1987, the EPA revised the particulate matter standard, replacing standards for total suspended particulates with new standards applying only to PM10. 52 FR 24633 (July 1, 1987). In 1990, the SJV was designated nonattainment for PM10. 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). In 2006, the 24-hour PM10 standard was retained, but the annual standard was revoked effective December 18, 2006. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).3 In 2008, the EPA approved a PM10 maintenance plan and redesignated the SJV to attainment for the 24-hour PM10 standard. 73 FR 66759 (November 12, 2008).

    3 In 2013, the EPA again retained the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 ug/m3. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).

    For all three pollutants, the SJV nonattainment area includes all of seven counties, including Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and the western half of Kern County. See the NAAQS-specific tables in 40 CFR 81.305.

    B. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment and maintenance areas for a given NAAQS. These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans include motor vehicle emissions budgets of on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. SIP budgets are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to on-road vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for RFP, attainment or maintenance. The budget serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. For more information about budgets, see the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans, Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and transportation projects must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or delay an interim milestone. The transportation conformity regulations can be found at 40 CFR part 93.

    Before budgets can be used in conformity determinations, the EPA must affirmatively find the budgets adequate. However, adequate budgets do not supersede approved budgets for the same CAA purpose. If the submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same purpose, the EPA must approve the budgets, and can affirm that they are adequate at the same time. Once the EPA approves the submitted budgets, they must be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. The EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

    C. What is the EMFAC model?

    The EMFAC model (short for EMission FACtor) is a computer model developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB updates EMFAC on a regular basis and releases new versions generally every three or four years. The current version can estimate emission rates for on-road mobile sources (“motor vehicles”) operating in California for calendar years from 2000 to 2050. Pollutant emissions for VOCs,4 carbon monoxide (CO), NOX, PM10, PM2.5, lead, carbon dioxide (CO2), and sulfur oxides are outputs generated by the model. Emissions are calculated for fifty-one different vehicle classes composed of passenger cars, various types of trucks and buses, motorcycles, and motor homes.

    4 California plans sometimes use the term Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG.

    EMFAC is used to calculate current and future inventories of motor vehicle emissions at the state, air district, air basin, or county level. EMFAC contains default vehicle activity data, and the option of modifying that data, so it can be used to estimate a motor vehicle emissions inventory in tons/day for a specific year, month, or season, and as a function of ambient temperature, relative humidity, vehicle population, mileage accrual, miles of travel and speeds. Thus the model can be used to make decisions about air pollution policies and programs at the local or state level. Inventories based on EMFAC are also used to meet the federal CAA's SIP and transportation conformity requirements.

    D. What versions of EMFAC are currently in use in California?

    Most budgets in the California SIP were developed using EMFAC2007 (released by CARB in October 2007) or EMFAC2011 (released by CARB in September 2011). The EPA approved EMFAC2007 at 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008) and EMFAC2011 at 78 FR 14533 (March 16, 2013) for all areas in California.

    EMFAC2011 was considered a major update to previous versions of EMFAC and most budgets in the California SIP were updated with EMFAC2011 in the 2012-2014 timeframe. EMFAC2011 included a new model structure, new data and methodologies regarding calculation of motor vehicle emissions, and revisions to implementation data for control measures.

    E. What changes does EMFAC2014 reflect?

    The EPA approved EMFAC2014 for use in SIP revisions and transportation conformity at 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). EMFAC2014 includes significant changes to its model interface, new data and methodologies regarding calculation of motor vehicle emissions and revisions to implementation data for control measures. EMFAC2014 includes updated data on car and truck activity, and emissions reductions associated with CARB's Advanced Clean Cars regulations.5 Motor vehicle fleet age, vehicle types and vehicle population have also been updated based on 2000-2012 California Department of Motor Vehicle data. EMFAC2014 incorporates new temperature and humidity profiles. Each of these changes impact emission factors for each area in California. In addition to changes to truck activity, EMFAC incorporates updated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for all vehicle classes. The new model interface for EMFAC2014 allows users to update the default VMT data and speed profiles by vehicle class for different future scenarios. CARB's Web site describes these and other model changes at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#onroad_motor_vehicles.

    5 For further information, see the EPA's January 9, 2013 waiver of preemption for the Advanced Clean Cars regulations at 78 FR 2112.

    F. Existing Adequate or Approved Budgets

    The EPA previously approved the SJV budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 24-hour PM10 standard. The ozone budgets were included in the EPA's approval of the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan (“2007 Ozone Plan”) at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012), which established NOX and VOC budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023.6 The PM10 budgets were included in the EPA's approval of the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation (“2007 PM10 Plan”) at 73 FR 66759 (November 12, 2008), which established direct PM10 and NOX budgets for 2005 and 2020.7

    6 The approved 2007 Ozone Plan includes the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan (as revised 2008 and 2011) and SJV-related portions of CARB's 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011).

    7 The approved SIP includes the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, September 20, 2007, and technical corrections by CARB to the 2020 budgets for Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare counties in the 2007 PM10 Plan. See May 13, 2008 letter to Mr. Wayne Nastri from James N. Goldstene.

    The EPA previously proposed to approve the SJV budgets for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The PM2.5 budgets were included in the EPA's proposed approval of the SJV 2012 PM2.5 Plan (“2012 PM2.5 Plan”) at 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015). The EPA found the 2017 PM2.5 budgets in the SJV 2012 PM2.5 Plan to be adequate at 81 FR 22194 (April 15, 2016), establishing direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 2017. As of May 2, 2016, these budgets must be used to determine conformity of transportation plans and TIPs to the control strategy plan for the SJV for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.8

    8 Also see letter, Elizabeth J. Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, April 1, 2016 with enclosures.

    The current EPA-approved budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and PM10 standard were developed using EMFAC2007, and the adequate budgets for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard were developed using EMFAC2011. In the SJV, the eight county-level Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) are the relevant transportation agencies that must use approved or adequate budgets in determining the conformity of transportation plans and TIPs within the SJV region.

    G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based on EMFAC2014

    The revised budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 24-hour PM10 standards were adopted by the CARB on October 22, 2015.9 They were submitted to the EPA on November 13, 2015.10

    9 CARB Resolution No. 15-50, October 22, 2015.

    10 Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 13, 2015 with enclosures.

    III. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.

    CARB satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the revised budgets. In the documentation included as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal, CARB provided evidence of the required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its October 22, 2015 public hearing and adoption of the revised budgets. We find, therefore, that the submittal of the revised budgets meets the procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).

    CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any plan submittal that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will be deemed complete by operation of law six months after the date of submittal. The EPA's SIP completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The EPA determined that CARB's November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal was complete on April 21, 2016.11

    11 Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, dated April 21, 2016.

    IV. What are the criteria for approval of revised budgets?

    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, SIP revisions must not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment or RFP or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Generally, the EPA reviews budgets for adequacy or approval in the context of the Agency's review of a control strategy implementation plan (i.e., attainment or RFP plan) or maintenance plan. However, revisions to budgets can be approved without comprehensive updates to the related control strategy implementation or maintenance plan if the plan, with the new level of motor vehicle emissions contained in the revised budgets, continues to meet applicable requirements (i.e., RFP, attainment, or maintenance). EPA policy guidance suggests that a state may revise the motor vehicle emissions inventories and related budgets without revising their entire SIP consistent with section 110(l) if: (1) The SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with new MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories; and (2) the state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.12 The EPA's policy guidance for MOVES can be applied to EMFAC because EMFAC is a California-specific emissions model analogous to MOVES.

    12Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes, EPA-420-B-14-008, July 2014. See question and answer #6 on page 7. Available online at: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b14008.pdf. MOVES is a model that states use to estimate on-road emissions for SIP development, transportation conformity determinations, and other purposes. Also see examples of EPA rulemakings involving replacement of budgets in response to a MOVES update, e.g., Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (79 FR 28435, May 16, 2014) and Beaumont/Port Arthur (78 FR 7672, February 4, 2013).

    In addition, revised budgets that are intended to replace adequate (but not approved) budgets must meet the adequacy criteria found in our transportation conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). These criteria include endorsement by the Governor (or designee); prior consultation among relevant air and transportation agencies; clear identification and precise quantification of the budgets; consistency of the budgets, when considered with all other emissions sources, with applicable requirements for RFP, attainment or maintenance; consistency with and clear relation to the emissions inventory and control measures; and explanation and documentation of changes relative to previously submitted budgets. In this instance, the adequacy criteria do not apply to our review of the revised budgets for the 2007 Ozone Plan or the 2007 PM10 Plan because the budgets they would replace are approved budgets. The adequacy criteria do, however, apply to our review of the revised budgets for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan because the budgets from that plan have been found adequate, but are not yet approved.

    V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and the EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal

    Table 1 lists the revised budgets by subarea included in the State's submittal for the SJV budgets applicable to the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and the 24-hour PM10 standards. CARB developed the revised budgets using EMFAC2014 and the travel activity projections provided by the San Joaquin Valley MPOs consistent with the 2015 Federal TIP. As such, we find that the revised budgets reflect the most recent planning forecasts and are based on the most recent emission factor data and approved calculation methods. A comparison of the current approved or adequate budgets with the revised budgets and a discussion of the EPA's proposed action on each set of budgets is provided further below.

    13 The county-specific budgets are set forth in attachment A to CARB Resolution 15-50. Attachment A constitutes the SIP revision adopted by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on November 13, 2015. CARB provided information and analysis supporting the SIP revision in a staff report titled Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM 2.5, and PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date September 21, 2015.

    Table 1—San Joaquin Valley Revised Budgets Developed Using EMFAC2014 13 County subarea 1997 8-hour ozone standard NOX
  • (tons per summer day)
  • 2017 2020 2023 VOC
  • (tons per summer day)
  • 2017 2020 2023 2006 24-hour PM2.5
  • standard
  • Direct PM2.5
  • (tons per winter day)
  • NOX
  • (tons per winter day)
  • 2017 PM10 standard Direct PM10
  • (tons per annual day)
  • NOX
  • (tons per annual day)
  • 2020
    Fresno 29.9 24.3 14.6 8.7 6.8 5.6 1.0 32.1 7.0 25.4 Kern (SJV) 26.8 22.4 12.9 6.9 5.7 4.8 0.8 28.8 7.4 23.3 Kings 5.5 4.7 2.7 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.2 5.9 1.8 4.8 Madera 5.5 4.5 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.3 0.2 6.0 2.5 4.7 Merced 10.3 8.5 5.1 2.7 2.1 1.7 0.3 11 3.8 8.9 San Joaquin 14.1 11.3 7.3 6.4 5.1 4.3 0.6 15.5 4.6 11.9 Stanislaus 11.3 9.2 5.8 4.1 3.2 2.7 0.4 12.3 3.7 9.6 Tulare 10.3 8.1 4.9 4.0 3.1 2.5 0.4 11.2 3.4 8.4 Note: CARB calculated the revised budgets for the SJV plans by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC, PM2.5 and PM10; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county's contribution to the total; and then rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method.
    A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

    Tables 2 and 3 below compare the current EPA-approved NOX and VOC budgets developed using EMFAC2007 with the revised budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The budgets are provided by subarea and apply to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

    Table 2—Comparison of San Joaquin Valley Ozone Budgets for NOX for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard [Tons per summer day] County subarea 2017 Current Revised Net
  • change
  • 2020 Current Revised Net
  • change
  • 2023 Current Revised Net
  • change
  • Fresno 22.6 29.9 7.3 17.7 24.3 6.6 13.5 14.6 1.1 Kern (SJV) 31.7 26.8 −4.9 25.1 22.4 −2.7 18.6 12.9 −5.7 Kings 6.7 5.5 −1.2 5.3 4.7 −0.6 4.0 2.7 −1.3 Madera 5.8 5.5 −0.3 4.7 4.5 −0.2 3.6 2.7 −0.9 Merced 12.4 10.3 −2.1 9.9 8.5 −1.4 7.4 5.1 −2.3 San Joaquin 15.6 14.1 −1.5 12.4 11.3 −1.1 10.0 7.3 −2.7 Stanislaus 10.6 11.3 0.7 8.4 9.2 0.8 6.4 5.8 −0.6 Tulare 10.1 10.3 0.2 8.1 8.1 0.0 6.2 4.9 −1.3 Totals 115.5 113.7 −1.8 91.6 93.0 1.4 69.7 56.0 −13.7 Note: CARB calculated the revised ozone budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and nearest tenth of a ton for VOC; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county's contribution to the total; and then rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The previously approved budgets for ozone were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.
    Table 3—Comparison of San Joaquin Valley Ozone Budgets for VOC for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard [Tons per summer day] County subarea 2017 Current Revised Net
  • change
  • 2020 Current Revised Net
  • change
  • 2023 Current Revised Net
  • change
  • Fresno 9.3 8.7 −0.6 8.3 6.8 −1.5 8.0 5.6 −2.4 Kern (SJV) 8.7 6.9 −1.8 8.2 5.7 −2.5 7.9 4.8 −3.1 Kings 1.8 1.4 −0.4 1.7 1.1 −0.6 1.6 0.9 −0.7 Madera 2.2 2.0 −0.2 2.0 1.6 −0.4 1.9 1.3 −0.6 Merced 3.2 2.7 −0.5 2.9 2.1 −0.8 2.8 1.7 −1.1 San Joaquin 7.2 6.4 −0.8 6.4 5.1 −1.3 6.3 4.3 −2.0 Stanislaus 5.6 4.1 −1.5 5.0 3.2 −1.8 4.7 2.7 −2.0 Tulare 5.8 4.0 −1.8 5.3 3.1 −2.2 4.9 2.5 −2.4 Totals 43.8 36.2 −7.6 39.8 28.7 −11.1 38.1 23.8 −14.3 Note: CARB calculated the revised ozone budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county's contribution to the total; and then rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The previously approved budgets for ozone were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.

    The revised NOX and VOC budgets for 2017, 2020, and 2023 are intended to replace the EPA-approved NOX and VOC budgets in 2007 Ozone Plan developed for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. A comparison of the current budgets with the revised budgets is shown in tables 2 and 3. The tables show that the NOX and VOC totals for the revised budgets are less than the current budgets for all years, except 2020 for NOX, which shows a slight increase of 1.4 tpd or 1.4% when compared to the prior budget.

    First, we note that the 2007 Ozone Plan relied upon motor vehicle emissions inventories, from which the budgets 14 were derived, to demonstrate compliance with RFP and attainment requirements. With respect to the RFP requirement, we found that the 2007 Ozone Plan provided a significant surplus of NOX emissions reductions beyond those necessary to meet the RFP requirement. See table 11 of our proposed approval of the 2007 Ozone Plan (76 FR 57862, September 16, 2011). As shown in tables 2 and 3, with one exception, the revised regional total motor vehicle emissions estimates submitted by CARB for VOC and NOX for 2017, 2020 and 2023 are lower than the corresponding estimates from the plan as approved in 2012. As such, the replacement of the older budgets with the revised budgets would not change the conclusion that the 2007 Ozone Plan meets the requirements for RFP. The exception, the 1.4 tpd of NOX in 2020, is too minor to affect the conclusion that the 2007 Ozone Plan will continue to meet the RFP requirement in that year given the significant surplus in NOX emissions reductions in that year.

    14 In San Joaquin Valley plans, the motor vehicle emissions inventories are essentially the same as the budgets. Historically, CARB has set the budget for the SJV MPOs by rounding the motor vehicle emissions estimate to the nearest tenth of a ton. With more recent plans and for the revised budgets, CARB rounds the regional total motor vehicle emissions inventories up to the nearest whole ton (for NOX) or the nearest tenth of a ton (for ROG, PM2.5 and PM10) and then re-allocates the emissions to the various counties based on the ratio of the county-specific motor vehicle emissions to the regional total. The re-allocated county-specific emissions estimate is rounded conventionally to the nearest tenth of a ton, which then constitutes the budget. See the attachment to CARB's staff report included in the November 13, 2015 submittal in support of the SIP revision (i.e., the revised budgets).

    Second, we have reviewed the analysis CARB prepared in support of the revised budgets and contained in the staff report included with the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. In that analysis, CARB prepared updated NOX and VOC emissions inventories from all sources (i.e., stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) in the SJV for 2017, 2020, and 2023. These updated inventories provide a basis for comparison with the corresponding inventories from the 2007 Ozone Plan. We would expect that most current emissions estimates from all sources in SJV in 2017, 2020, and 2023 would be lower than those included in the 2007 Ozone Plan because they reflect control measures adopted since the plan was approved, and as shown below in tables 4 and 5, the updated regional emissions for 2017, 2020, and 2023, including the revised budgets, are approximately 20 tpd, 15 tpd, and 34 tpd lower for NOX and 0 tpd, 4 tpd, and 12 tpd lower for VOCs, respectively, than the corresponding figures in the EPA-approved plan. The most significant differences between the inventories are from large decreases in the actual reported emissions for several point source categories (i.e., cogeneration, oil and gas production, food and agriculture, glass manufacturing and composting), compared to their projected emissions in the EPA-approved plan.15 Other significant differences include updates to: (1) Agricultural acreage burned; (2) CARB's off-road source emissions using a newer suite of category-specific models developed to support recent CARB regulations; and (3) animal population estimates and VOC emission factors for livestock operations. The current emissions estimates for 2023 (161 tpd of NOX, and 327 tpd of VOC) are consistent with the attainment target level 16 for the 1997 ozone standard (141 tpd of NOX, and 342 tpd of VOC) given the continued implementation of the long-term element of the control strategy of the 2007 Ozone Plan to develop new technologies or to improve existing control technologies as approved by EPA under section 182(e)(5).

    15Comparing the Emission Inventories for the San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plans, CARB, March 30, 2016. Attachment to email from Dennis Wade, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9, March 30, 2016.

    16 See table 9 on page 57858 of our proposed approval of the 2007 Ozone Plan at 76 FR 57846 (September 16, 2011).

    Therefore, we find that the 2007 Ozone Plan will continue to meet applicable requirements for RFP and attainment when the previously-approved EMFAC2007-based budgets are replaced with the revised EMFAC2014-based budgets, and that the changes in the growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources do not change the overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone Plan. As such, we find that approval of the revised NOX and VOC budgets for the 2007 Ozone Plan for 2017, 2020 and 2023 as shown in table 1 would not interfere with attainment or RFP or any other requirement of the Act and would thereby comply with section 110(l), and we propose to approve them on that basis.

    17 The emissions shown for the approved ozone plan are from appendix A-3 and B-3 of CARB's 2011 update to the 2007 Ozone Plan titled “Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins” (release date: June 20, 2011). CARB's updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB's staff report submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal.

    Table 4—Comparison of NOX Inventories Associated With Current and Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard [Tons per summer day] 17 Inventory category Emissions inventory in approved ozone plan 2017 2020 2023 Updated emissions inventory 2017 2020 2023 Net change 2017 2020 2023 Stationary and Area 55 53 53 36 36 35 −19 −17 −18 On-road 115 91 69 113 92 55 −2 1 −14 Non-road 89 80 73 89 82 70 0 2 −3 Totals 259 225 195 239 210 161 −20 −15 −34 Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction in emissions, and a positive number indicates an increase in emissions relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 Ozone Plan. Table 5—Comparison of VOC Inventories Associated With Current and Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard [Tons per summer day] 18 Inventory category Emissions inventory in approved ozone plan 2017 2020 2023 Updated emissions inventory 2017 2020 2023 Net change 2017 2020 2023 Stationary and Area 229 235 244 255 263 272 26 28 28 On-road 43 39 37 36 29 24 −7 −10 −13 Non-road 57 57 57 38 35 32 −19 −22 −25 Totals 329 331 339 329 327 327 0 −4 −12 Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction in emissions, and a positive number indicates an increase in emissions relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 Ozone Plan. B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard

    18 The emissions shown for the approved ozone plan are from appendix A-3 and appendix B-3 of CARB's 2011 update to the 2007 Ozone Plan titled Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins (release date June 20, 2011). CARB's updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB's staff report submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal.

    Table 6 below compares the current direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets developed using EMFAC2011 that were recently found adequate for transportation conformity purposes with the revised budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The budgets are provided by subarea and apply to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

    Table 6—Comparison of San Joaquin Valley 2017 PM2.5 Budgets for PM2.5 and NOX for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard [Tons per winter day] County subarea Direct PM2.5 Current Revised Net change NOX Current Revised Net change Fresno 0.9 1.0 0.1 25.2 32.1 6.9 Kern (SJV) 1.0 0.8 −0.2 34.4 28.8 −5.6 Kings 0.2 0.2 0.0 7.2 5.9 −1.3 Madera 0.2 0.2 0.0 7.0 6.0 −1.0 Merced 0.4 0.3 −0.1 13.7 11 −2.7 San Joaquin 0.6 0.6 0.0 15.9 15.5 −0.4 Stanislaus 0.5 0.4 −0.1 12.0 12.3 0.3 Tulare 0.4 0.4 0.0 10.7 11.2 0.5 Totals 4.2 3.9 −0.3 126.1 122.8 −3.3 Note: CARB calculated the revised PM2.5 budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for direct PM2.5; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county's contribution to the total; and then rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The existing adequate PM2.5 budgets were calculated in the same manner.

    The revised 2017 direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets are intended to replace the adequate 2017 PM2.5 and NOX budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan developed for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. A comparison of the prior budgets with the revised budgets, as shown in table 6, indicates that the totals for the revised direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets are less than the current budgets.

    First, we note that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan relied upon motor vehicle emissions inventories, from which the budgets were derived, for year 2017 to demonstrate compliance with RFP requirements for that year. In our proposed partial approval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, we proposed to approve the RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) for year 2017 based on emissions projections in the plan for that year that reflect full implementation of a control strategy that satisfies the Moderate area control requirements (i.e., RACM/RACT at a minimum). See 80 FR 1816, at 1834-1837 (January 13, 2015). We deemed such a showing to be sufficient to meet the RFP requirement in an area that cannot practicably attain the PM2.5 standard by the applicable Moderate area attainment date. The revised motor vehicle emissions estimates used to develop the revised budgets continue to reflect full implementation of a control strategy that satisfies the Moderate area control requirements, and as such, replacement of the EMFAC2011-based motor vehicle emissions budgets from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan with the revised EMFAC2014-based motor vehicle emissions budgets would not change the proposal to approve the RFP demonstration for 2017 in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

    Second, we have reviewed the analysis that CARB prepared in support of the revised budgets and contained in the staff report included with the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. In that analysis, CARB included a comparison of the estimated direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions inventories from all sources (i.e., stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) for 2017 with those from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. As shown below in table 7, the total emissions for 2017 associated with the revised budgets are approximately 7 tpd lower for direct PM2.5 and 6 tpd lower for NOX when compared to the total emissions inventory in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan containing the current budgets. The differences include updates to: Agricultural acreage burned; locomotive and recreational boat emissions; and farming operations.

    Therefore, we find that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan continues to meet applicable requirements for RFP in 2017 when the EMFAC2011-based budgets are replaced with the new EMFAC2014-based budgets, and that the changes in the growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources do not change the overall conclusions regarding the 2012 PM2.5 Plan's demonstration of RFP for 2017. As such, we find that approval of the revised direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for year 2017 as shown in table 1 would not interfere with attainment or RFP or any other requirement of the Act and would thereby comply with section 110(l), and we propose to approve them on that basis.

    In addition, we have reviewed the revised direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets for compliance with the adequacy criteria and find that, in addition to being consistent with the 2017 RFP demonstration, they are clearly identified and precisely quantified and meet all of the other criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(i)-(vi). See the EPA memorandum documenting review of the budgets for compliance with the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e) that has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

    Lastly, approval of the revised budgets would not affect our January 13, 2015 proposal, or rationale therein, to approve the trading mechanism as described on page C-32 in appendix C of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as enforceable components of the transportation conformity program in the SJV for the 2006 PM2.5 standard with the condition, as explained in our January 13, 2015 proposal, that trades are limited to substituting excess reductions in NOX for increases in PM2.5. See 80 FR at 1816, at 1841 (January 13, 2015).

    19 CARB's updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB's staff report submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal.

    Table 7—Comparison of 2017 PM2.5 and NOX Inventories Associated With Current and Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard [Tons per winter day] 19 Inventory category 2017 emissions
  • inventory in 2012 PM2.5 plan
  • PM2.5 NOX Updated 2017 emissions
  • inventory
  • PM2.5 NOX Net change PM2.5 NOX
    Stationary 8.9 27.4 8.7 28.5 −0.2 1.1 Area 46.8 15.6 41.2 11.7 −5.6 −3.9 On-road 4.2 125.6 3.7 122.3 −0.5 −3.3 Non-road 3.6 64.3 4.1 62.9 0.5 −1.4 Totals 63.6 232.9 57.7 225.4 −5.9 −7.5 Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction, and a positive number indicates an increase relative to the corresponding figure in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.
    C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24-Hour PM 10 Standard

    Table 8 below compares the current EPA-approved direct PM10 and NOX budgets developed using EMFAC2007 with the revised budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The budgets are provided by subarea and apply to the 24-hour PM10 standard.

    Table 8—Comparison of San Joaquin Valley PM10 2020 Budgets for Direct PM10 and NOX for the PM10 Standard [Annual average tons per day] County subarea Direct PM1020 Current Revised Change NOX Current Revised Change Fresno 16.1 7.0 −9.1 23.2 25.4 2.2 Kern (SJV) 14.7 7.4 −7.3 39.5 23.3 −16.2 Kings 3.6 1.8 −1.8 6.8 4.8 −2.0 Madera 4.7 2.5 −2.2 6.5 4.7 −1.8 Merced 6.4 3.8 −2.6 12.9 8.9 −4.0 San Joaquin 10.6 4.6 −6.2 17.0 11.9 −5.1 Stanislaus 6.7 3.7 −3.0 10.8 9.6 −1.2 Tulare 9.4 3.4 −6.0 10.9 8.4 −2.5 Totals 72.2 34.2 −38.0 127.6 97.0 −30.6 Note: CARB calculated the revised PM10 budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOX and to the nearest tenth of a ton for direct PM10; then re-allocating to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county's contribution to the total; and then rounding each county's emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The previously approved budgets for PM10 were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.

    The revised direct PM10 and NOX budgets for 2020 are intended to replace the EPA-approved PM10 and NOX budgets developed using EMFAC2007 for the 2007 PM10 Plan.

    20 The direct PM10 budgets include PM10 emissions from paved road dust, unpaved road dust, and road construction dust, as well as PM10 from vehicle exhaust and brake and tire wear.

    First, we note that the 2007 PM10 Plan relied upon motor vehicle emission inventories, from which the budgets were derived, to demonstrate maintenance of the PM10 standard through 2020. Maintenance through 2020 was demonstrated in the 2007 PM10 Plan using a combination of chemical mass balance receptor modeling to identify emission source contributions by chemical species and rollback techniques. See pages 6-11 of the 2007 PM10 Plan. Given the modeling methods used to demonstrate maintenance, it is not possible to precisely calculate the change in concentration associated with the substitution of the approved budgets with the revised budgets. However, given that the revised budgets, when summed for the SJV region, are lower than the regional sum for the approved budgets, replacement of the approved budgets with the revised budgets would not undermine the maintenance demonstration in the 2007 PM10 Plan.

    Second, we have reviewed the analysis CARB prepared in support of the revised budgets. To further demonstrate that the changes to the direct PM10 and NOX budgets are consistent with the 2007 PM10 Plan for the 24-hour PM10 standard, CARB's analysis included a comparison of the estimated direct PM10 and NOX emissions inventories from all sources (including stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) for 2020. As shown below in table 9, the total emissions for 2020 associated with the revised budgets are approximately 10.2 tpd lower for direct PM10 and 121.0 tpd lower for NOX when compared to the total emissions inventory in the 2007 PM10 Plan. The lower estimates for NOX are primarily due to greater reductions in NOX from stationary sources than had been assumed in the 2007 PM10 Plan.21

    21 The 2007 PM10 Plan estimated a reduction in stationary source emissions of NOX from 106 tpd to 103 ptd from 2005 to 2020. See CARB's staff report titled “Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan,” appendix B. Instead, controls on such sources, as well as corrections and updates to inventory methods, are now expected to reduce such emissions 30 tpd.

    The primary differences between the inventories in the 2007 PM10 Plan and the supporting documentation for the revised budgets are from: (1) New or revised CARB mobile source measures (e.g., heavy-duty truck retrofit requirements and new or revised emissions standards for transportation refrigeration units, portable diesel engines, and large spark ignition engine regulation, among other categories) and new or revised San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or “District”) stationary and area source measures (e.g., regulations affecting open burning; boilers, steam generators and process heaters; dryers, dehydrators and ovens; and internal combustion engines, among others); (2) corrections to the Manufacturing and Industrial and Food and Agriculture categories; (3) updates to agricultural and managed burned acreage and the reclassification of Wildfire Use as a natural source category; and (4) updates to CARB's emission estimation models for locomotives, commercial and recreational boats, transportation refrigeration units, construction equipment, oil drilling and workover equipment, cargo handling equipment, and farm equipment.

    Table 9 shows that CARB's current estimates of NOX emissions for 2020 differ substantially from those projected in the 2007 PM10 Plan. The changes in growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources do not change the overall conclusions of the 2007 PM10 Plan because they reflect, among other things, additional controls that support continued maintenance of the PM10 standard in the SJV beyond those assumed in the plan. While the changes in emissions estimates lend support to the conclusion that the 2007 PM10 Plan, with the revised budget, continues to meet the underlying purpose of the plan, i.e., to provide for maintenance of the PM10 standard through 2020, the EPA also reviewed the ambient PM10 concentration data collected over the past several years in the SJV to see if they too are consistent with the continued maintenance of the standard.

    Table 9—Comparison of 2020 PM10 and NOX Emissions Reductions Associated with Current and Revised Budgets for the PM10 Standard [Annual average tons per day] 22 Inventory category 2020 Emissions inventory in
  • approved PM10 plan
  • Direct PM10 NOX Updated 2020 emissions
  • inventory
  • Direct PM10 NOX Net change Direct PM10 NOX
    Stationary 26.4 103.7 15.3 29.5 −11.1 −74.2 Area 247.8 17.1 251.7 8.4 +3.9 −8.7 On-road 9.7 124.7 7.6 96.7 −2.1 −28.0 Non-road 6.1 82.4 5.6 72.2 −0.5 −10.2 Totals 290.0 327.8 280.2 206.8 −10.2 −121.0 Note: For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction, and a positive number indicates an increase relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 PM10 Plan.

    From our review of the available, quality-assured, and certified PM10 ambient air monitoring data in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) for 2013 and 2014, along with preliminary data for 2015, we determined that the SJV PM10 maintenance area experienced multiple exceedances of the PM10 standard in 2013 and 2014. In response to the exceedances, the EPA evaluated whether the District implemented the contingency plan in its 2007 PM10 Plan. In its contingency plan, the District established an action level of 155 μg/m3 of PM10 over a 24-hour period. Should the action level be reached, the District committed to evaluating the exceedance and take appropriate action within 18 months of the event date. The following major steps comprise the District's contingency plan:

    22 The 2020 emissions inventory in the approved 2007 PM10 Plan is from CARB's Staff Report titled “Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan,” appendix B, which was approved as part of the 2007 PM10 Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(A)(2). The updated 2020 emissions inventory is attached to a December 15, 2015 email from Dennis Wade, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9.

    Step 1. The District will examine the event and determine if it needs to be classified as a natural or exceptional event in accordance with the EPA's final rulemaking (72 FR 13560). If the data qualify for flagging under this rule, the District would proceed with preparing and submitting the necessary documentation for a natural/exceptional event, and would not consider the monitored level as a trigger for the maintenance plan contingency plan.

    Step 2. If the event does not qualify as a natural or exceptional event, the District would then analyze the event to determine its possible causes. It would examine emission reductions from adopted rules or rule commitments in adopted and approved plans to see if emission reductions not used in demonstrating maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS would address the violation.

    Step 3. If reductions from Step 2 above are insufficient, the District would proceed with identifying control measures from any feasibility studies (e.g., from the 2007 Ozone Plan) completed to date that recommend future controls and prioritize development of the measures most relevant to reducing PM10 levels.

    In a March 11, 2016 letter to the EPA,23 the District summarized the steps they had taken in response to the PM10 exceedances, including implementation of the contingency plan in their 2007 PM10 Plan. Specifically, the District identified seventeen exceedances of the PM10 standard that occurred at five monitoring sites. Of these, the District characterized ten exceedances as high wind events that qualify as exceptional events per criteria in 40 CFR 50.1(j). CARB indicated they will be submitting to the EPA exceptional event documentation for some or all of these events; however, the EPA has not yet received the documentation in support of determining whether the ten exceedances qualify as exceptional events. The District characterized the remaining seven exceedances as exceptional events caused by “exceptional drought conditions” coinciding with stagnant air conditions, and indicated they will be submitting to CARB exceptional event documentation for these events. On February 16, 2016, the District requested that CARB flag five exceedances in AQS as possible exceptional events caused by the drought conditions.24 On March 10, 2016, CARB responded to the District's February 16, 2016 request and indicated that the five exceedances could not be flagged as exceptional events because they did not meet the definition of an exceptional event in 40 CFR 50.1(j).25

    23 Letter, Samir Sheikh, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, SJVAPCD, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, March 11, 2016.

    24 Email, Shawn Ferreria, SJVAPCD, to Theresa Najita, CARB, February 16, 2016.

    25 Email, Theresa Najita, CARB, to Shawn Ferreria, SJVAPCD, March 10, 2016.

    In their March 11, 2016 letter to the EPA, the District identified multiple rules and regulations that reduce PM10 or PM10 precursors beyond commitments in the 2007 PM10 Plan. Based on our analysis of the March 11 letter, the EPA has determined there is uncertainty regarding whether the rules and regulations identified by the District, when combined with the PM10 revised budgets, are sufficient for maintenance of the PM10 standard. Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA may conditionally approve a plan revision based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year after the EPA approval of the plan or plan revision. In this instance, the District indicated in their March 11, 2016 letter that adequate measures have been adopted to provide continued maintenance of the PM10 standard; however, the EPA has determined that the State's revised budgets submittal and the District's March 11, 2016 letter alone are not sufficient for the EPA to determine the area will maintain the 24-hour PM10 standard. To help remedy this situation, in an April 29, 2016 letter to the EPA, CARB committed to submit a SIP revision by June 1, 2017 that will provide additional documentation on the nature and causes of each of the recent PM10 exceedances. To the extent that data is available, the State committed to the following: 26

    26 For additional background on the District's response to the 2013-2014 PM10 exceedances and the State's April 29, 2016 letter, please see the docket for today's action.

    • Evaluation of PM10 filter-based and continuous data across the SJV to understand the local or regional nature of each exceedance;

    • Analysis of PM2.5 data to determine whether fine or coarse particles are contributing to the exceedance;

    • Analysis of available chemical speciation data including additional filter speciation analysis as appropriate to assess potential source types contributing to each exceedance; and

    • Analysis of wind speed and direction, along with geographic visualization tools to help identify the types of sources impacting each monitor.

    Based on these analyses, CARB and the District will determine the appropriate remedy to address the nature of each exceedance. This may include submittal of documentation for exceptional events, or analysis and evaluation of the further emission reductions that will accrue from ongoing implementation of current control programs or development of new control measures as part of upcoming attainment plans.

    For exceedances that qualify as natural or exceptional events, CARB and the District will follow the notification and data flagging process that is contained in the EPA's revised Exceptional Event Rule (“EE Rule”). This will include a commitment to notify the EPA by July 1 of each year of the PM10 data that has been flagged. Subsequent submittal of documentation for each event will follow requirements specified in the EE Rule. In addition, CARB and the District commit to ensuring ongoing network adequacy and data completeness through existing mechanisms such as data certification and the annual network plan review.

    Based on the 2020 revised direct PM10 and NOX budgets in table 8 above, the updated inventory estimates in table 9 above, and the commitments in CARB's April 29, 2016 letter, the EPA concludes that a conditional approval of the 2020 revised direct PM10 and NOX budgets supports continued maintenance of the PM10 standard and is consistent with applicable CAA requirements; thus, we propose to conditionally approve the 2020 revised direct PM10 and NOX budgets as a revision to the 2007 PM10 Plan.27 If we finalize this proposed conditional approval, CARB must adopt and submit the SIP revisions it has committed to submit by June 1, 2017. If CARB fails to comply with this commitment, the conditional approval will convert to a disapproval.

    27 To comply with CAA section 175A(a), a maintenance plan must provide for the maintenance of standard (for which an area is being redesignated) for 10 years from redesignation to attainment, under CAA section 175A(b), states are required, within eight years of redesignation to attainment, to submit a revision to the SIP that provides for the maintenance of the standard an additional ten years after expiration of the initial 10-year period. For the SJV and PM10, California must submit a subsequent 10-year maintenance plan by December 12, 2016. We expect that the subsequent SJV PM10 maintenance plan will address the recent exceedances described in today's action.

    Lastly, approval of the revised budgets would not affect the trading mechanism first included in the SJV Amended 2003 PM10 Plan and approved by the EPA at 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) and later carried forward and approved as part of the 2007 PM10 Plan. See pages 20-21 of the 2007 PM10 Plan; 73 FR 22307, at 22317 (April 25, 2008); and 73 FR 66759, at 66772 (November 12, 2008). That is, the trading mechanism approved as part of the 2007 PM10 Plan will remain available regardless of our action on the revised budgets.

    VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    For the reasons discussed above, the EPA is proposing to approve the revised ozone and PM2.5 budgets and conditionally approve the revised PM10 budgets in California's November 13, 2015 submittal for the SJV area. The revised budgets are shown in table 1 and are based on estimates from California's EMFAC2014 model.

    More specifically, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve the revised VOC and NOX budgets for 2017, 2020, and 2023 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard because replacement of the current approved budgets with the revised budgets would not interfere with the approved RFP and attainment demonstrations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV and because emissions changes in non-motor vehicle emissions categories do not change the overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone Plan.

    Second, the EPA is also proposing to approve the revised direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 2017 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard because replacement of the current adequate budgets with the revised budgets would be consistent with our separate proposal finding that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan demonstrates RFP for year 2017, because emissions changes in non-motor vehicle emissions categories do not change the overall conclusion of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, and because the revised budgets meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi).

    Third, under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the revised direct PM10 and NOX budgets for 2020 for the 24-hour PM10 standard because, when combined with implementation of the contingency plan in the SIP-approved 2007 PM10 Plan and fulfillment of the commitments in the State's April 29, 2016 letter, they will allow the SJV to continue to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour PM10 standard. If we finalize this proposed conditional approval, CARB must adopt and submit the SIP revisions that it has committed to submit by June 1, 2017. If CARB fails to comply with this commitment, the conditional approval will convert to a disapproval. Disapproval of the revised budgets for the 2007 PM10 Plan would reinstate the existing approved budgets as the budgets that must be used in transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations after the effective date of the disapproval. See 40 CFR 93.109(c)(1). Because the submittal of the revised budgets is not a required submittal, disapproval would not trigger sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) but would nonetheless trigger a two-year clock for a federal implementation plan under CAA section 110(c), and it would not trigger a transportation conformity freeze because the disapproval does not affect a control strategy implementation plan as defined in the transportation conformity rule. See 40 CFR 93.101 and 93.120(a).

    Lastly, if the EPA takes final action to approve the revised budgets as proposed, the San Joaquin Valley MPOs and DOT must use the revised budgets for future transportation conformity determinations.

    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these comments before taking final action.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have Tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.”

    Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley air quality planning area for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 1987 24-hour PM10 standards: the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California, the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation.

    The EPA's proposed approval of the revised budgets submitted by CARB to address the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 1987 24-hour PM10 standards in the San Joaquin Valley would not have tribal implications because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed SIP approvals do not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, the EPA has concluded that the proposed action will not have tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, and would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal law. We note that none of the tribes located in the San Joaquin Valley has requested eligibility to administer programs under the CAA.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 9, 2016. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11741 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663; FRL-9946-50-OAR] RIN 2060-AS80 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam Products Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition for Propane AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that the period for providing public comments on the April 18, 2016, proposed “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam Products under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition for Propane” is being extended by 14 days.

    DATES:

    Comments. The public comment period for the proposed rule, which published April 18, 2016, (81 FR 22810) is being extended by 14 days and will close on June 16, 2016. This extension provides the public additional time to submit comments and supporting information.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663, 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 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chenise Farquharson, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205 T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-7768; email address: [email protected] Notices and rulemakings under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy program are available on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at https://www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comment Period

    The EPA is extending the public comment period for the proposed rule (81 FR 22810; April 18, 2016) an additional 14 days. The public comment period will end on June 16, 2016, rather than June 2, 2016. This will provide the public additional time to review and comment on all of the information available, including the proposed rule and other materials in the docket.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Sarah Dunham, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11627 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 [MB Docket Nos. 07-294 and 10-103, MD Docket No. 10-234; Report No. 3043] Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petitions for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by: Lawrence M. Miller, on behalf of Public Broadcasting Parties, Sylvia Strobel, on behalf of American Public Media Group, Todd D. Gray, on behalf of NCE Licensees and Joseph B. Porter, on behalf of The State University of New York.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before June 2, 2016. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before June 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Campbell, Media Bureau, (202) 418-3609, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3043, released May 9, 2016. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this Public Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Public Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subject: Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, published at 81 FR 19432, April 4, 2016, in MB Docket Nos. 07-294 and 10-103, MD Docket No. 10-234, and FCC 16-1. This Public Notice is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1).

    Number of Petitions Filed: 4

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11689 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    81 96 Wednesday, May 18, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary USDA Increases the Fiscal Year 2016 Raw Sugar Tariff-Rate Quota AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is providing notice of an increase in the fiscal year (FY) 2016 raw cane sugar tariff-rate quota (TRQ) of 127,006 metric tons raw value (MTRV).

    DATES:

    Effective May 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Souleymane Diaby, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, Stop 1021, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-1021; or by telephone (202) 720-2916; or by fax to (202) 720-8461; or by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is providing notice of an increase in the fiscal year (FY) 2016 (October 1, 2015-September 30, 2016) raw cane sugar tariff-rate quota (TRQ) of 127,006 metric tons raw value (MTRV). On June 15, 2015, the Office of the Secretary established the FY 2016 TRQ for raw cane sugar at 1,117,195 MTRV (1,231,497 short tons raw value, STRV *), the minimum to which the United States is committed under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Uruguay Round Agreements. (80 FR 34129). Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 5 to Chapter 17 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and Section 359k of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, the Secretary of Agriculture gives notice of an increase in the quantity of raw cane sugar eligible to enter at the lower rate of duty during FY 2016 by 127,006 MTRV (140,000 STRV). With this increase, the overall FY 2016 raw sugar TRQ is now 1,244,201 MTRV (1,371,497 STRV). Raw cane sugar under this quota must be accompanied by a certificate for quota eligibility and may be entered until September 30, 2016. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative will allocate this increase among supplying countries and customs areas.

    * Conversion factor: 1 metric ton = 1.10231125 short tons.

    This action is being taken after a determination that additional supplies of raw cane sugar are required in the U.S. market. USDA will closely monitor stocks, consumption, imports and all sugar market and program variables on an ongoing basis, and may make further program adjustments during FY 2016 if needed.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Alexis M. Taylor, Deputy Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11732 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture Solicitation of Commodity Board Topics and Contribution of Funding Under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program AGENCY:

    National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of opportunity for commodity boards to submit topics and contribute funding under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) strategy to implement section 7404 of Public Law 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014, NIFA is soliciting topics from eligible commodity board entities (Federal and State-level commodity boards, as defined below) which they are willing to equally co-fund with NIFA. Such topics must relate to the established priority areas of the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (AFRI) to be considered for inclusion in future AFRI Requests for Applications (RFAs).

    Commodity boards are those entities established under a commodity promotion law (as such term is defined under section 501(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401(a)) or a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity). See the “Supplementary Information” section of this Notice under the heading “Eligibility for Submitting Topics” for further information.

    If proposed topics are accepted for inclusion in an AFRI RFA after evaluation by NIFA, they will be incorporated into AFRI competitive grants program RFAs. As a condition of funding grants in a topic, NIFA will require an agreement with the commodity board to provide funds that are equal to the amount NIFA is contributing under the agreed upon topic.

    This Notice invites topic submissions from commodity boards as defined above, outlines the process NIFA will use to evaluate the appropriateness of these topics for inclusion in AFRI RFAs, and describes the commitment commodity boards will be required to make in order for NIFA to jointly fund AFRI applications competitively selected for award within a topic area submitted by the commodity boards.

    DATES:

    Topics may be submitted by commodity boards at any time; however, all topics to be considered for the fiscal year 2017 AFRI RFAs must be received by 5:00 p.m., EDT on July 18, 2016. Topics submitted by eligible commodity board entities after this date will be considered for RFAs to be issued in future years. NIFA will hold a webinar and workshop to respond to questions from commodity boards interested in submitting topics. Details including the date and time, and access information will be posted on the NIFA Web site (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/).

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit topics, identified by NIFA-2016-0001, by the following method:

    Email: [email protected]

    Instructions: Include NIFA-2016-0001 in the subject line of the message. The topic submission must be attached to the email using the template located at http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/. All topics received must include the agency name and reference to NIFA-2016-0001. Topics submitted by email will not be posted to a public site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Mirando; Phone: (202) 401-4336, or Robert Hedberg; Phone: (202) 720-5384, or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Purpose

    This Notice begins the second topic submission cycle to implement section 7404 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79, which amends section 2(b) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) to require that NIFA “establish procedures, including timelines, under which an entity established under a commodity promotion law (as such term is defined under section 501(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401(a)) or a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity) may directly submit to the Secretary [(NIFA)] for consideration proposals for requests for applications . . .” within the AFRI Program.

    Stakeholder feedback gathered as a result of the September 2014 Notice and during the initial year of implementation (in fiscal year 2016) informed this Notice and the process NIFA is using to implement section 7404. This Notice invites entities established under a commodity promotion law or State commodity boards (or other equivalent State entities) to submit topics which they are proposing for inclusion in upcoming AFRI RFAs in fiscal year 2017. Topics must relate to the established AFRI priority areas, which are plant health and production and plant products; animal health and production and animal products; food safety, nutrition, and health; bioenergy, natural resources, and environment; agriculture systems and technology; and agriculture economics and rural communities. A summary statement on AFRI is included below. To learn more about AFRI programs, including program priorities, typical award budget amounts, and examples of RFAs, please visit: http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards.

    AFRI Program Overview

    The AFRI program is the largest agricultural competitive grants program in the United States and a primary funding source for research, education, and extension projects that bring practical solutions to some of today's most critical societal challenges. AFRI programs impact all components of agriculture, including farm and ranch efficiency and profitability, bioenergy, forestry, aquaculture, rural communities, human nutrition, food safety, biotechnology, and genetic improvement of plants and animals.

    In FY 2017, NIFA will issue at least seven AFRI RFAs to solicit applications in the six statutory priority areas in AFRI (Plant health and production and plant products; Animal health and production and animal products; Food safety, nutrition, and health; Bioenergy, natural resources, and environment; Agriculture systems and technology; Agriculture economics and rural communities). It is anticipated that these will include five Challenge Area RFAs, which address the following major societal challenges: Sustainable Bioenergy; Climate Variability and Change; Water for Food Production Systems; Childhood Obesity Prevention; and Food Safety. The Challenge Area RFAs solicit grant applications for focused problem-solving efforts and provide large awards (typically $1 million or more) for periods of up to 5 years to enable collaboration among multiple organizations and the integration of research with education and/or extension. The sixth RFA is the Foundational Program RFA issued annually which solicits grant applications that focus predominately, but not exclusively, on fundamental scientific research that addresses statutory priorities. The final RFA is the AFRI Food, Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Human Sciences Education and Literacy Initiative (ELI) RFA which solicits grant applications for undergraduate research and extension experiential learning fellowships, and pre- and post-doctoral fellowships.

    Eligibility for Submitting Topics

    Eligible commodity board entities are those established under a commodity promotion law (as such term is defined under section 501(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401(a))) or a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity). Language in 7 U.S.C. 7401(a) defines a “commodity promotion law” as “a Federal law that provides for the establishment and operation of a promotion program regarding an agricultural commodity that includes a combination of promotion, research, industry information, or consumer information activities, is funded by mandatory assessments on producers or processors, and is designed to maintain or expand markets and uses for the commodity (as determined by the Secretary).” Section 7401(a) includes a list of such Federal laws.

    A current list of approved entities is maintained at (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards). Additionally, entities eligible to submit topics include a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity). This includes commodity boards authorized by State law; commodity boards that are not authorized by State law but are organized and operate within a State and meet the requirements of their authorizing statute; and commodity boards that are authorized by a State and operate within the State for commodities that have no Federal program or oversight.

    Topic Submission Guidance and Procedures

    Topics may be submitted at any time and will be evaluated by NIFA on an annual basis. However, to be considered for the proposed fiscal year 2017 AFRI RFAs, topics must be received by COB (5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time) on July 18, 2016.

    Each topic proposed must be submitted using the template provided at: http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards. Commodity boards may propose support for multiple awards for each topic proposed. For each topic the commodity board proposes to support, the minimum amount contributed by the commodity board must align with budget guidance for each AFRI area (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards) and comply with the maximum amount of $2.5 million allowed per topic. NIFA does not intend to match funding from a single commodity board in excess of $10 million in any year. Commodity boards should only submit topics that have a strong economic impact on their industry and U.S. agriculture as a whole. Examples of topics typically supported by AFRI can be found at http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards.

    If topics are accepted for funding, they will be incorporated into AFRI RFAs, and grants supporting the topic area may be awarded to AFRI eligible entities based on a competitive peer review process. As a condition of funding grants in a topic, NIFA will require an agreement to provide funds by the commodity board that is equal to the amount NIFA is contributing under the agreed upon topic. If a topic is selected for inclusion in an RFA, the commodity board submitting the topic will be required to maintain the confidentiality of the topic until the RFA is issued by NIFA. Commodity board funds must be made available to NIFA no later than the time awards are selected for funding. The grants will be fully funded at the beginning of the award, thus requiring that all commodity board funds and NIFA funds be available at the time of the award. Applications submitted under topics provided by commodity boards will be required to include a letter of support from the commodity board that proposed the topic.

    Evaluation and Notification Process

    NIFA will screen proposed research topics to ensure they were submitted by eligible commodity boards and consult with USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to determine that submissions and proposed financial contributions are consistent with commodity promotion laws and commodity boards' charters as applicable.

    Commodity board topics will be reviewed by an internal panel based on evaluation criteria that were developed using stakeholder input from commodity boards and other stakeholders from government, industry, and academe. Each topic will be evaluated based on: Alignment with one or more of the statutory AFRI priority areas (six AFRI priority areas authorized in the Farm Bill and described in 7 CFR 3430.309); alignment with the President's budget proposal for NIFA, as identified in the Department of Agriculture's annual budget submission; and alignment with the priority areas in the AFRI RFAs to be released by NIFA during the fiscal year for which the commodity board is proposing a topic for funding (for example, within the AFRI Foundational Program RFA, the AFRI Animal Health and Production and Animal Product's “Animal Reproduction” priority area).

    From those topics received by COB (5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time) on July 18, 2016, NIFA will select the topic(s) that were evaluated favorably for inclusion in the appropriate FY 2017 AFRI RFA. NIFA will notify commodity boards whether their topics will be included by August 16, 2016. Based on the evaluation, NIFA reserves the right to negotiate with commodity boards should changes be required for topics and funding amounts to be accepted. Any changes to topics and funding amounts will be reviewed by USDA's AMS to determine if such changes are consistent with applicable commodity promotion laws.

    NIFA will evaluate topics submitted after the July 18, 2016 deadline on an annual basis and notify commodity boards whether their topics will be included in subsequent RFAs within two weeks following the meeting of the internal evaluation panel, the date of which will be published on NIFA's Commodity Boards Web page at (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/).

    Done at Washington, DC this 12th day of May, 2016. Sonny Ramaswamy, Director, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11705 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-35-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 244—Riverside, California; Application for Reorganization; (Expansion of Service Area); Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the March Joint Powers Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 244, requesting authority to reorganize the zone to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on May 12, 2016.

    FTZ 244 was approved by the FTZ Board on August 21, 2000 (Board Order 1104, 65 FR 54196, September 7, 2000) and reorganized under the ASF on May 13, 2011 (Board Order 1761, 76 FR 29725, May 23, 2011). The zone currently has a service area that includes western Riverside County, California.

    The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the service area of the zone to include the City of Lake Elsinore, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the expanded service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed expanded service area is adjacent to the Los Angeles/Long Beach U.S. Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 18, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 1, 2016.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at [email protected] or (202) 482-0862.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11739 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-838] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective May 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Johnson or Terre Keaton Stefanova, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-1280, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 3, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil for the period of February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.1

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 5712 (February 3, 2016).

    On February 24, 2016, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department received a timely request from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (the petitioner),2 a domestic interested party, to conduct an administrative review of the sales of Amazonas Industrias Alimenticias S.A. (AMASA). The petitioner was the only party to request this administrative review.

    2 The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee's members are: Nancy Edens; Papa Rod, Inc.; Carolina Seafoods; Bosarge Boats, Inc.; Knight's Seafood Inc.; Big Grapes, Inc.; Versaggi Shrimp Co.; and Craig Wallis.

    On April 7, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain warmwater shrimp from Brazil with respect to AMASA.3

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 20324 (April 7, 2016).

    On April 11, 2016, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for a review of AMASA.4

    4See petitioner's letter, “Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated April 11, 2016.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioner timely withdrew its request for review before the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil covering the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

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

    This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 10, 2016. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11664 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-968] Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013 AGENCY:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Davina Friedmann, Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0698, (202) 482-1121 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 22, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Amended Final Results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order 1 on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013 period of review (POR).2 The Amended Final Results contained an inadvertent error. Specifically, we referenced CVD case number “C-570-068” at the head of the notice. The correct CVD case number is “C-570-968.” As a result, we now correct the Amended Final Results as noted above.

    1See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011) (Order).

    2See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013, 81 FR 15238 (March 22, 2016) (Amended Final Results).

    This correction to the Amended Final Results is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: May 9, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11735 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed use of the AmeriCorps NCCC Medical/Mental Health Information Form. An individual must have the physical and mental capacity required to perform the essential functions of the AmeriCorps NCCC member position, with or without reasonable accommodation, for which he or she is otherwise eligible.

    Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

    (1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, AmeriCorps NCCC; Attention Tara Lind-Zajac, Lead Medical Nurse, 3237-Q; 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20525.

    (2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    (3) Electronically through www.regulations.gov.

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Lind-Zajac, 202-360-8082, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses).

    Background

    An individual must have the physical and mental capacity required to perform the essential functions of the AmeriCorps lNCCC member position, with or without reasonable accommodation, for which he or she is otherwise eligible. Individuals applying to the AmeriCorps NCCC program provide the information collected on this form in order to be cleared to participate in the program.

    Current Action

    This is a new information collection request. The Medical/Mental Health Information Form is completed at the time individuals complete the AmeriCorps NCCC program application. This allows individuals to submit a “complete” application to AmeriCorps NCCC, allowing a shortened and simplified application/review/clearance process. The Medical/Mental Health Information Form is not reviewed until after an applicant receives a conditional invitation to participate in the AmeriCorps NCCC program. Forms are submitted via pre-addressed, tracked, UPS envelopes included with the mailings in which applicants receive the blank forms.

    Type of Review: New.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: AmeriCorps NCCC Medical/Mental Health Information Form.

    OMB Number: None.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: Applicants to AmeriCorps NCCC.

    Total Respondents: Approximately 2500/year.

    Frequency: Once per completed NCCC application.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: Approximately 625 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Charles L. Davenport, Jr., Director of Recruitment, Selection and Placement, NCCC.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11734 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (MFRC); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce a Federal advisory committee meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council. This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    Thursday, June 16, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Pentagon Conference Center B6 (escorts will be provided from the Pentagon Metro entrance).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Melody McDonald or Ms. Betsy Graham, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community & Family Policy), Office of Family Readiness Policy, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-2300, Room 3G15. Telephones (571) 372-0880; (571) 372-0881 and/or email: OSD Pentagon OUSD P-R Mailbox Family Readiness Council, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The purpose of the Council is to review and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense regarding policy and plans; monitor requirements for the support of military family readiness by the Department of Defense; and evaluate and assess the effectiveness of the military family readiness programs and activities of the Department of Defense.

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, this meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space. The process for the public entering the Pentagon has changed. Persons without Pentagon access must submit their Full Name, Full SSN, and Date of Birth by fax at 571-372-0884 or email to [email protected], no later than 5:00 p.m., on Thursday, June 9, 2016 to arrange for escort inside the Pentagon to the Conference Room area. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Council. Persons desiring to submit a written statement to the Council must submit to the email address OSD Pentagon OUSD P-R Mailbox Family Readiness Council, [email protected], no later than 5:00 p.m., on Monday, June 6, 2016.

    The purpose of this meeting is to receive an update on ongoing items of Council interest, and to determine Military Family Readiness Council focus items for Fiscal Year 2016.

    Thursday, June 16, 2016 Meeting Agenda Welcome & Administrative Remarks TRICARE for Kids (TFK) Report to Congress: Update from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Financial conditions of military members and their spouses: Survey update from the Defense Manpower and Data Center Financial Readiness and Force Education: Update from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness (Force Education) Member Discussion and Deliberation Closing Remarks Note:

    Exact order may vary.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11736 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    DoD.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The public meeting of the Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”) will be held on Friday, June 3, 2016. The meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer: The committee's Designated Federal Officer is Mr. Michael Gable, Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee, 241 18th Street South, Arlington VA 22202, [email protected], 703-697-4811. For meeting information please contact Mr. Michael Gable, [email protected], 703-697-4811; Mr. Mark Franklin, [email protected], 703-697-4849; or Ms. Scherry Chewning, [email protected], 703-697-4908.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: At this meeting, the Committee will convene and receive a series of updates on the Vietnam War Commemoration. The mission of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of Defense, through the Director of Administration and Management (DA&M), independent advice and recommendations regarding major events and priority of efforts during the commemorative program for the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War, in order to achieve the objectives for the Commemorative Program.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda for the Committee may be obtained from the Committee's Web site at http://vietnamwar50th.com. Copies will also be available at the meeting.

    Meeting Agenda 1:00 p.m.-1:10 p.m. Convene with Committee Chairman Remarks 1:10 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Committee Meeting/Agenda items • Commemoration Program Update • Communications Working Group Presentation to Full Federal Advisory Committee • Deliberation on Communications Working Group Recommendation • Closing remarks 4:00 p.m. Adjourn

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Mr. Michael Gable, Mr. Mark Franklin or Ms. Scherry Chewning at the number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Mr. Michael Gable, Mr. Mark Franklin or Ms. Scherry Chewning at the number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Procedures for Providing Public Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Committee about its mission and topics pertaining to this public meeting.

    Written comments should be received by the DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Committee for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the address for the DFO given in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in either Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word format. Please note that since the Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the Committee's Web site.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11666 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0061] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2018) Main Study Recruitment and Field Test AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0061. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-105, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2018) Main Study Recruitment and Field Test.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0888.

    Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,228.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,949.

    Abstract: The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) is an international survey of teachers and principals that focuses on the working conditions of teachers and the teaching and learning practices in schools. TALIS was first administered in 2008 and is conducted every five years. Having participated in 2013 but not in 2008, the United States will administer TALIS for the second time in 2018. TALIS is sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the United States, TALIS is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), of the Institute of Education Sciences within the U.S. Department of Education. TALIS 2018 will address teacher training and professional development, teachers' appraisal, school climate, school leadership, teachers' instructional approaches, and teachers' pedagogical practices. In February 2017, TALIS 2018 field test will be conducted to evaluate newly developed teacher and school questionnaire items and test the survey operations. This request is for recruitment and pre-survey activities for the 2017 field test sample, administration of the field test, and recruitment of schools for the 2018 main study sample.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11676 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Update on Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial Action at Active Uranium and Thorium Processing Sites AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of the Title X claims during fiscal year (FY) 2016.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces the Department of Energy's (DOE) acceptance of claims in FY 2016 from eligible active uranium and thorium processing site licensees for reimbursement under Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486, as amended). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113) provided $32,959,000 for Title X uranium and thorium reimbursements to be made available to the Title X licensees on a prorated basis. The FY 2017 Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management's Congressional Budget Request requests $30 million for the Title X Program.

    DATES:

    The closing date for the submission of FY 2016 Title X claims is September 16, 2016. The claims will be processed for payment together with any eligible unpaid approved claim balances from prior years, based on the availability of funds from congressional appropriations. If the total approved claim amounts exceed the available funding, the approved claim amounts will be reimbursed on a prorated basis. All reimbursements are subject to the availability of funds from congressional appropriations.

    ADDRESSES:

    Claims should be forwarded by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, Attn: Deborah Barr, Title X Lead for Review of Reimbursement of Claims, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, 2597 Legacy Way, Grand Junction, Colorado 81503. Two copies of the claim should be included with each submission.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theresa Kliczewski, Title X Program Coordinator, at (202)586-3301, of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Disposition Planning & Policy.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE published a final rule under 10 CFR part 765 in the Federal Register on May 23, 1994, (59 FR 26714) to carry out the requirements of Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (sections 1001-1004 of Public Law 102-486, 42 U.S.C. 2296a et seq.) and to establish the procedures for eligible licensees to submit claims for reimbursement. DOE amended the final rule on June 3, 2003, (68 FR 32955) to adopt several technical and administrative amendments (e.g., statutory increases in the reimbursement ceilings). Title X requires DOE to reimburse eligible uranium and thorium licensees for certain costs of decontamination, decommissioning, reclamation, and other remedial action incurred by licensees at uranium and thorium processing sites to remediate byproduct material generated resulting from the sales to the United States Government. To be reimbursable, costs of remedial action must be for work that is necessary to comply with applicable requirements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) or, where appropriate, with requirements established by a State pursuant to a discontinuance agreement under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Claims for reimbursement must be supported by reasonable documentation as determined by DOE in accordance with 10 CFR part 765. Funds for reimbursement will be provided from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund established at the Department of Treasury pursuant to section 1801 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g). Payment or obligation of funds shall be subject to the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341).

    Authority:

    Section 1001-1004 of Public Law 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (42 U.S.C. 2296a et seq.).

    Issued in Washington DC on May 12, 2016. Theresa Kliczewski, Office of Disposition Planning & Policy, Office of Environmental Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11700 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-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: EC16-119-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Beech Ridge Energy II LLC, Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Bethel Wind Farm LLC, Bishop Hill Energy III LLC, Bishop Hill Interconnection LLC, Buckeye Wind Energy LLC, Forward Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC, Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Gratiot County Wind LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC, Invenergy TN LLC, Judith Gap Energy LLC, Peak View Wind Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Spring Canyon Energy LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC, Vantage Wind Energy LLC, Willow Creek Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Goshen Interconnection LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of Beech Ridge Energy LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5193.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-236-002.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-5-12 Att SPS/PSCo ADIT Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5197.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-239-002.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Compliance filing: 20160512_ER16-239 ADIT Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-551-002

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 30-Day Compliance Filing to Establish Materiality Threshold for Retirement Bids to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-736-002.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Deficiency Notice issued 4/12/2016 in Docket No. ER16-736-001 to be effective 4/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5212.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1226-000.

    Applicants: New Covert Generating Company, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to March 18, 2016 New Covert Generating Company, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1682-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Compliance filing: 20160512 ER16-239 ADIT Filing to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1683-000.

    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Van Tyle Station Transmission Facilities Agreement to be effective 5/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1684-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Concurrence—Construction Agreement w/PAC Goshen-Jefferson 161 kV Line Rebuild to be effective 7/11/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5184.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1685-000.

    Applicants: Escalante Solar II, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Amendment to MBR Tariff Limits and Exemptions to be effective 7/11/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1686-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Compliance filing: Attachment O-PSCo_SPS ADIT Compliance filing to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1687-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 4458, Queue No. AA1-110 to be effective 4/27/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5219.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1688-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Three Amended SGIA's & DSA's w/Golden Springs Development Company to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5225.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF16-784-000.

    Applicants: Energy Partners II, LLC.

    Description: Form 556 of Energy Partners II, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160502-5397.

    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: May 12, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11711 Filed 5-17-16; 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: EC16-118-000.

    Applicants: Castleton Energy Services, LLC, Castleton Power, LLC, Fortistar Castleton LLC.

    Description: Application of Castleton Energy Services, LLC, et al. for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Requests for Waivers, Confidential Treatment and Expedited Action.

    Filed Date: 5/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20160510-5185.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1277-001.

    Applicants: White Pine Solar, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: White Pine Solar, LLC's Amendment to Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 5/24/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160504-5225.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1293-001.

    Applicants: White Oak Solar, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: White Oak Solar, LLC's Amendment to Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 5/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160504-5226.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1354-001.

    Applicants: Live Oak Solar, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Live Oak Solar, LLC's Amendment to the Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160504-5224.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1662-000.

    Applicants: 4C Acquisition, LLC.

    Description: Application of 4C Acquisition, LLC for Waiver of OATT, OASIS and Standards of Conduct Requirements.

    Filed Date: 5/6/16.

    Accession Number: 20160506-5280.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1663-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement with Rosamond Energy, LLC to be effective 5/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11708 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1672-000] Chaves County Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Chaves County Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 1, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11712 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1825-005.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-05-11 Filing in Compliance with April 29 Order Delaying RSI Effective Date to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5231.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-897-003.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-05-11 Filing in Compliance with April 29 Order Delaying CPM Effective Date to be effective 4/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-943-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-05-11_SA 2896 Deficiency Response METC-WPSC GIA (J392) to be effective 2/17/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5235.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1353-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-05-11_SA 2896 Deficiency Response METC-WPSC 1st Rev. GIA (J392) to be effective 4/7/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5237.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1664-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of cancellation SA 1698 among NYISO, NMPC and Roaring Brook to be effective 7/26/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1665-000.

    Applicants: Glacial Energy of California, Inc.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of market based tariff of Glacial Energy of California, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1666-000.

    Applicants: Glacial Energy of New York.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of market based tariff of Glacial Energy of New York.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5213.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1667-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA SA No. 4066, Queue No. Y1-079 per Assignment to Allegheny to be effective 7/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1669-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: SA 31 15th Rev—NITSA with Phillips 66 Company to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5232.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM16-4-000.

    Applicants: Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Coop. Inc.

    Description: Application of Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. to Terminate QF Mandatory Purchase Obligation.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5243.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings.

    Docket Numbers: RD16-5-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of the Revised Definition of Special Protection System.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/16.

    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: May 11, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11709 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1852-013; ER10-1971-026; ER11-4462-017.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company, NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC, NEPM II, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status Update of the NextEra Companies, et al.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5305.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-474-002.

    Applicants: Central Antelope Dry Ranch C LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Central Antelope Dry Ranch C LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 2/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1670-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Idaho Power Construct Agmt Goshen-Jefferson Line Rebuild to be effective 7/11/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1671-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: FPL's Open Access Transmission Tariff Clean-Up to be effective 5/12/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5262.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1672-000.

    Applicants: Chaves County Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Chaves County Solar, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5263.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1673-000.

    Applicants: Glacial Energy of New England, Inc.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of market based tariff of Glacial Energy of New England, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5264.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1674-000.

    Applicants: Glacial Energy of New Jersey, Inc.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of market based tariff of Glacial Energy of New Jersey, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5265.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1675-000.

    Applicants: Glacial Energy of Illinois, Inc.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of market based tariff of Glacial Energy of Illinois, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/11/16.

    Accession Number: 20160511-5266.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1676-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 3180 Basin Electric and Montana-Dakota Utilities Att AO to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5044.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1677-000.

    Applicants: Enterprise Solar, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Amendment to MBR Limitations and Exemptions to be effective 7/11/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1678-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 4447, Queue Position AB1-025 to be effective 4/12/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1679-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement Nos. 4448, 4449, 4450, Queue Nos. AB1-021, AB1-063, AB1-139 to be effective 4/12/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1680-000.

    Applicants: Escalante Solar I, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Amendment to MBR Tariff Limits. and Exemptions to be effective 7/11/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1681-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of BPA Agmt for Pilot Butte Sub Mtring & Trnsfr CEC to BPA BAA to be effective 7/24/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20160512-5164.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    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: May 12, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11710 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; FRL-9946-63-OAR] NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of action denying in part and granting in part petitions for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    This action provides notice that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Gina McCarthy, denied in part and granted in part petitions for reconsideration of the final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing and the final NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2015.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on May 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sharon Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2825; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    This Federal Register notice, the petitions for reconsideration, and the letters and accompanying enclosures addressing the petitions for reconsideration are available in the dockets the EPA established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing.

    All documents in the dockets are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. This Federal Register document, the petitions for reconsideration, and the letters with the accompanying enclosure addressing the petitions can also be found on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

    II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) indicates which Federal Courts of Appeals have venue for petitions for review of final EPA actions. This section provides, in part, that the petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if: (i) The agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) such actions are locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”

    The EPA has determined that its denial of the petitions for reconsideration is nationally applicable for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) because the actions directly affect the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, which are nationally applicable regulations. Thus, any petitions for review of the letters and enclosures denying the petitions for reconsideration described in this document must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by July 18, 2016.

    To the extent that EPA is granting the petitions for reconsideration with respect to certain issues, such grant is not final agency action, but only begins an agency process to consider whether the rule should be revised. If EPA in the future takes final agency action to revise the rule, notice of such action will be published in the Federal Register and judicial review will be available at that time.

    III. Description of Action

    The initial NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and initial NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing were published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26690), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subparts JJJJJ and KKKKK, respectively, pursuant to section 112 of the CAA. Those standards were challenged and subsequently vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Following the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule, the EPA collected additional data and information to support new standards for the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. This information is contained in the dockets for both rules, which are available at http://www.regulations.gov. On December 18, 2014, the EPA proposed new NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (79 FR 75622). The EPA received additional data and comments during the public comment period. These data and comments were considered and analyzed and, where appropriate, revisions to the two NESHAP were made. The NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing were finalized on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65470).

    On December 23, 2015, Kohler Company submitted a petition for reconsideration of the final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (80 FR 65470). In support of its petition, Kohler Company claimed that: (1) The final rule introduced new stack temperature monitoring requirements for demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limits without an opportunity for comment by the petitioner; (2) the EPA failed to adequately respond to the petitioner's public comments regarding visible emissions monitoring in the response to comments and final rule; (3) the EPA should reconsider its exclusion of emissions averaging from the final rule as a compliance option for clay ceramics manufacturing; (4) the EPA should reconsider its improper use of scrubber emissions data from the petitioner's South Carolina Kiln 10 for determining the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor; (5) the EPA should reconsider the frequency of onerous and unnecessary visual inspection requirements for system ductwork and control device equipment for water curtain spray booths; and (6) the EPA should clarify the testing threshold for cooling stacks to be tested to limit it to those stacks with an oxygen content at or below 20.4 percent.

    Also on December 23, 2015, the Brick Industry Association (BIA) submitted a petition for reconsideration of the final rule for BSCP Manufacturing (80 FR 65470). In support of its petition, the BIA claimed that: (1) The EPA failed to give notice that it would change its method for calculating the existing source MACT floor for emissions of non-mercury (Hg) hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals; (2) the EPA incorrectly used tests conducted below capacity in its revised MACT floor approach; (3) the EPA failed to give notice that it would include a variability calculation in its determination of the MACT floor for Hg or how it would make this variability calculation; (4) it was impracticable for the petitioner to request a variability factor for non-Hg metal emission limits for the final rule; and (5) the EPA failed to give notice that it would include opacity as a compliance method for the non-Hg HAP metals standard.

    On December 24, 2015, the Tile Council of North America, Inc. (TCNA) and its members submitted a petition for reconsideration of the final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (80 FR 65470). In support of its petition, the TCNA claimed that: (1) In promulgating the final rule, the EPA relied on legal positions/rationales for regulating ceramic tile that were advanced for the first time in the preamble to the final rule; (2) for the final rule, the EPA introduced for the first time the technical rationale that Method 23 field blank spike recoveries self-validate the dioxin/furan emissions data used to set dioxin/furan standards; and (3) the EPA failed to respond to public comments regarding the cost of the final rule to those sources that the EPA postulates might at some time in the future become subject to the rule.

    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA sets forth the criteria for reconsideration. That section states that “(o)nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. If the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impractical to raise such objection within such time or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed.”

    The EPA has carefully considered the petitions and supporting information. In separate letters to the petitioners, the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, denied in part and granted in part the Kohler Company petition, denied the BIA and TCNA petitions, and explained the reasons for the denials. These letters and the accompanying enclosures are available in the dockets for this action.

    IV. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed in the letters and accompanying enclosure to the petitioners, the petitions to reconsider the final NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and final NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing are denied in part and granted in part.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11749 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0742] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 18, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0742.

    Title: Sections 52.21 through 52.36, Telephone Number Portability, 47 CFR part 52, subpart (C) and CC Docket No. 95-116.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,631 respondents; 10,002,005 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 4 minutes-10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion and one time reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201-205, 215, 251(b)(2), 251(e)(2) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 673,460 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the respondents wish confidential treatment of their information, they may request confidential treatment under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires LECs to “provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.” Through the LNP process, consumers have the ability to retain their phone number when switching telecommunications service providers, enabling them to choose a provider that best suits their needs and enhancing competition. In the Porting Interval Order and Further Notice, the Commission mandated a one business day porting interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal port requests. The information collected in the standard local service request data fields is necessary to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal ports within the one business day porting interval mandated by the Commission and will be used to comply with section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11691 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0466] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 18, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0466.

    Title: Sections 73.1201, 74.783 and 74.1283, Station Identification.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 24,083 respondents; 24,083 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.166-1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or maintain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307 and 308.

    Total Annual Burden: 23,249 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1201(a) requires television broadcast licensees to make broadcast station identification announcements at the beginning and ending of each time of operation, and hourly, as close to the hour as feasible, at a natural break in program offerings. Television and Class A television broadcast stations may make these announcements visually or aurally.

    47 CFR 74.783(b) requires licensees of television translators whose station identification is made by the television station whose signals are being rebroadcast by the translator, must secure agreement with this television station licensee to keep in its file, and available to FCC personnel, the translator's call letters and location, giving the name, address and telephone number of the licensee or his service representative to be contacted in the event of malfunction of the translator. It shall be the responsibility of the translator licensee to furnish current information to the television station licensee for this purpose.

    47 CFR 73.1201(b)(1) requires that the official station identification consist of the station's call letters immediately followed by the community or communities specified in its license as the station's location. The name of the licensee, the station's frequency, the station's channel number, as stated on the station's license, and/or the station's network affiliation may be inserted between the call letters and station location. Digital Television (DTV) stations, or DAB Stations, choosing to include the station's channel number in the station identification must use the station's major channel number and may distinguish multicast program streams. For example, a DTV station with major channel number 26 may use 26.1 to identify a High Definition Television (HDTV) program service and 26.2 to identify a Standard Definition Television (SDTV) program service. A radio station operating in DAB hybrid mode or extended hybrid mode shall identify its digital signal, including any free multicast audio programming streams, in a manner that appropriately alerts its audience to the fact that it is listening to a digital audio broadcast. No other insertion between the station's call letters and the community or communities specified in its license is permissible. A station may include in its official station identification the name of any additional community or communities, but the community to which the station is licensed must be named first.

    47 CFR 74.783(e) permits low power TV permittees or licensees to request to be assigned four-letter call signs in lieu of the five-character alpha-numeric call signs.

    47 CFR 74.1283(c)(1) requires a FM translator station licensee whose identification is made by the primary station must arrange for the primary station licensee to furnish the translator's call letters and location (name, address, and telephone number of the licensee or service representative) to the FCC. The licensee must keep this information in the primary station's files.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11690 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to all Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10370, First Commercial Bank of Tampa, Tampa, Florida

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for First Commercial Bank of Tampa, Tampa, Florida (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of First Commercial Bank of Tampa on June 17, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11699 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 011426-060.

    Title: West Coast of South America Discussion Agreement.

    Parties: CMA CGM S.A.; Hamburg-Süd; Hapag-Lloyd AG; Mediterranean Shipping Company, SA; Seaboard Marine Ltd.; and Trinity Shipping Line, S.A.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes King Ocean Services Limited, Inc. as a party to the agreement and reflects the resignation of Trinity Shipping Line, S.A., effective June 8, 2016.

    Agreement No.: 012233-004.

    Title: UASC/CMA CGM/PIL Vessel Sharing Agreement—Asia and US West Coast Services.

    Parties: United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G.); CMA CGM S.A.; and Pacific International Lines (Pte) Ltd.

    Filing Party: Joshua P. Stein; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW., Washington DC, 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment changes the name of the agreement to the UASC/CMA CGM/PIL Vessel Sharing Agreement—Asia and US West Coast Services and deletes COSCON, CSCL and YMUK as parties to the agreement. It also deletes the structural slot exchange component of the agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012336-001.

    Title: ZIM/OOCL Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Zim Integrated Shipping Services Co., Ltd. and Orient Overseas Container Line Limited.

    Filing Party: Mark E. Newcomb; ZIM American Integrated Shipping Services, Co. LLC; 5801 Lake Wright Dr.; Norfolk, VA 23508.

    Synopsis: The amendment authorizes Zim to charter space to OOCL in the trade between the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. and Malaysia.

    Agreement No.: 012410.

    Title: WWL/Hyundai Glovis Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics AS and Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor LLP; 1200 Nineteenth St. NW.; Washington, DC 200036.

    Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes the parties to charter space to/from one another on an “as needed/as available” basis from Korea on the one hand, to ports on the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. and Puerto Rico on the other hand.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11748 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Docket No. 16-12] Pro Transport, Inc., Pro Transport Jacksonville, Inc., Pro Transport Savannah, Inc., and Pro Transport Charleston, Inc. V. Seaboard Marine of Florida, Inc. and Seaboard Marine Ltd., Inc.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a Complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) by Pro Transport, Inc., Pro Transport Jacksonville, Inc., Pro Transport Savannah, Inc. and Pro Transport Charleston, Inc., hereinafter “Complainants,” against Seaboard Marine of Florida, Inc., and Seaboard Marine Ltd., Inc., hereinafter “Respondents.” Complainants state that they are “motor carriers that provide transportation and transportation services, primarily to and from commercial ports along the southeastern seaboard of the United States.” Complainants allege that Respondents “acted as an ocean common carrier, a marine terminal operator, and/or as an agent for an ocean common carrier.”

    Complainants allege that Respondents have violated Sections 10(b)(10), 10(d)(3), and 10(d)(4) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 41104(10) and 46 U.S.C. 41106(2-3), because they refused to pay Complainants for services, terminated their relationship, and refuse to cooperate on outstanding insurance claims.

    Complainants request the following relief: That Seaboard answer the charges in the complaint; be ordered to cease and desist from the aforesaid violations of the Shipping Act; establish and put in force such practices as the Commission determines to be lawful and reasonable; pay reparations to Complainants for alleged unlawful conduct in an amount the Commission may determine to be proper, with interest and attorney's fees and costs; and that the Commission issue such other and further order(s) as the Commission determines to be proper.

    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at www.fmc.gov/16-12.

    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by May 12, 2017 and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by November 27, 2017.

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11671 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-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 June 10, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. Henderson Citizens Bancshares, Inc., Henderson, Texas; to acquire by merger 100 percent of Kilgore National Financial Corporation, and indirectly, Kilgore National Bank, both of Kilgore, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 12, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11634 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting Agenda

    Federal Retirement Thrift Investment, Joint Board Member/ETAC Meeting, May 23, 2016, 8:30 a.m. (In-Person), 77 K Street NE., Training Room, Washington, DC 20002.

    Open Session 1. Approval of the Minutes of the April 25, 2016 Board Member Meeting 2. Approval of the Minutes of the October 26, 2015 ETAC Meeting 3. Monthly Reports (a) Participant Activity Report (b) Investment Performance Report (c) Legislative Report 4. Quarterly Reports (d) Metrics (e) Project Activity 5. ExPRESS Brief 6. Blended Retirement 7. Office of Communication and Education Report Closed Session 8. Security 9. Personnel Adjourn CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: May 13, 2016. Megan Grumbine, General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11752 Filed 5-16-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0091; Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 26] Information Collection; Anti-Kickback Procedures AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension of an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning anti-kickback procedures.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405-0001. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-219-0202 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.203-7, Anti-Kickback Procedures, requires that all contractors have in place and follow reasonable procedures designed to prevent and detect in its own operations and direct business relationships, violations of 41 U.S.C. chapter 87, Kickbacks. Whenever prime contractors or subcontractors have reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of the statute may have occurred, they are required to report the possible violation in writing to the contracting agency inspector general, the head of the contracting agency if an agency does not have an inspector general, or the Department of Justice. The information is used to determine if any violations of the statute have occurred.

    There is no Governmentwide data collection process or system which identifies the number of alleged violations of 41 U.S.C. chapter 87, Kickbacks that are reported annually to agency inspectors general, the heads of the contracting agency if an agency does not have an inspector general, or the Department of Justice.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 100.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 100.

    Hours per Response: 20.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,000.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not for profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755.

    Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11686 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0078; Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 14] Submission for OMB Review; Make-or-Buy Program AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for an extension to an information collection requirement for an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning the Make-or-Buy Program.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0078, Make-or-Buy Program”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0078, Make-or-Buy Program” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0078, Make-or-Buy Program.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0078, Make-or-Buy Program, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-501-0650 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    Price, performance, and/or implementation of socio-economic policies may be affected by make-or-buy decisions under certain Government prime contracts. Accordingly, FAR 15.407-2, Make-or-Buy Programs:

    (i) Sets forth circumstances under which a Government contractor must submit for approval by the contracting officer a make-or-buy program, i.e., a written plan identifying major items to be produced or work efforts to be performed in the prime contractor's facilities and those to be subcontracted;

    (ii) Provides guidance to contracting officers concerning the review and approval of the make-or-buy programs; and

    (iii) Prescribes the contract clause at FAR 52.215-9, Changes or Additions to Make-or-Buy Programs, which specifies the circumstances under which the contractor is required to submit for the contracting officer's advance approval a notification and justification of any proposed change in the approved make-or-buy program.

    The information is used to assure the lowest overall cost to the Government for required supplies and services. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 12493 on March 9, 2016. No comments were received.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 150.

    Responses per Respondent: 3.

    Total Responses: 450.

    Hours per Response: 8.

    Total Burden Hours: 3,600.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0078, Make-or-Buy Program, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11685 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0102; Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 20] Submission for OMB Review; Prompt Payment AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension to a previously approved information collection requirement concerning prompt payment.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0102, Prompt Payment”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0102, Prompt Payment” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0102, Prompt Payment.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0102, Prompt Payment, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kathlyn Hopkins, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA 202-969-7226 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Part 32 of the FAR and the clause at FAR 52.232-5, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts, require that contractors under fixed-price construction contracts certify, for every progress payment request, that payments to subcontractors/suppliers have been made from previous payments received under the contract and timely payments will be made from the proceeds of the payment covered by the certification, and that this payment request does not include any amount which the contractor intends to withhold from a subcontractor/supplier. Part 32 of the FAR and the clause at 52.232-27, Prompt Payment for Construction Contracts, further require that contractors on construction contracts:

    (a) Notify subcontractors/suppliers of any amounts to be withheld and furnish a copy of the notification to the contracting officer;

    (b) Pay interest to subcontractors/suppliers if payment is not made by 7 days after receipt of payment from the Government, or within 7 days after correction of previously identified deficiencies;

    (c) Pay interest to the Government if amounts are withheld from subcontractors/suppliers after the Government has paid the contractor the amounts subsequently withheld, or if the Government has inadvertently paid the contractor for nonconforming performance; and

    (d) Include a payment clause in each subcontract which obligates the contractor to pay the subcontractor for satisfactory performance under its subcontract no later than seven days after such amounts are paid to the contractor, include an interest penalty clause which obligates the contractor to pay the subcontractor an interest penalty if payments are not made in a timely manner, and include a clause requiring each subcontractor to include these clauses in each of its subcontractors and to require each of its subcontractors to include similar clauses in their subcontracts.

    These requirements are imposed by Public Law 100-496, the Prompt Payment Act Amendments of 1988.

    Contracting officers will be notified if the contractor withholds amounts from subcontractors/suppliers after the Government has already paid the contractor the amounts withheld. The contracting officer must then charge the contractor interest on the amounts withheld from subcontractors/suppliers. Federal agencies could not comply with the requirements of the law if this information were not collected. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 11795 on March 7, 2016. No comments were received.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 807.

    Responses per Respondent: 11.

    Total Responses: 8,877.

    Hours per Response: .25.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,219.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755.

    Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0102, Prompt Payment, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11687 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects

    Title: Interstate Administrative Subpoena and Notice of Interstate Lien.

    OMB No.: 0970-0152.

    Description: Section 452(a)(11) of the Social Security Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to promulgate a form for administrative subpoenas and imposition of liens used by State child support enforcement (title IV-D) agencies. The Interstate Administrative Subpoena is used to collect information for the establishment, modification and enforcement of child support orders in interstate cases. Section 454(9)(E) of the Social Security Act requires each State to cooperate with any other State in using the federal form for issuance of administrative subpoenas and imposition of liens in interstate child support cases. Tribal IV-D agencies are not required to use this form but may choose to do so. OMB approval of these forms are expiring in December, 2016 and the Administration for Children and Families is requesting an extension of this form.

    Respondents: State, local or Tribal agencies administering a child support enforcement program under title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Administrative Subpoena 31,344 1 0.50 15,672 Notice of Lien 1,916,891 1 0.25 479,223

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 494,895.

    In compliance with the requirements of section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11633 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Office of the Assistant Secretary; Statement of Delegation of Authority

    Notice is hereby given that on January 27, 2016, the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families re-delegated certain responsibilities under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), as amended, to the Director of the Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP), an office within the Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary. In addition, the Assistant Secretary delegated to OTIP other authorities under sections 107(b) and 107(f) of the TVPA. By virtue of these re-delegations, certain previously delegated authorities to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) were rescinded.

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on April 30, 2004, I rescinded the following delegation to the Director of ORR made on January 11, 2008 (73 FR 5198) and re-delegated the responsibilities to the Director of OTIP, with the authority to re-delegate:

    Authority to conduct public awareness and information activities under section 106(b) of the TVPA (22 U.S.C. 7104(b)).

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on March 28, 2001 (66 FR 18642), I rescinded the following delegation to the Director of ORR made on April 10, 2001 (66 FR 19960-61) and re-delegated the responsibilities to the Director of OTIP, with authority to re-delegate:

    Authority to conduct certification activities under section 107(b)(1) of the TVPA, (22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)). In exercising this authority, personnel in OTIP will consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security.

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on March 23, 2009 (74 FR 14564), I rescinded the following delegations to the Director of ORR made on April 10, 2009 (74 FR 19233) and re-delegated the responsibilities to the Director of OTIP, with authority to re-delegate:

    Authority under section 107(b)(1) of the TVPA (22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)) to provide interim assistance to children who may have been subjected to a severe form of trafficking and to issue eligibility letters and conduct related activities. In issuing eligibility letters, personnel in the Administration for Children and Families will consult with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and nongovernmental organizations with expertise on victims of trafficking.

    Authority to train Federal staff and State and local officials to improve identification and protection for victims of a severe form of trafficking under section 107(c)(4) of the TVPA (22 U.S.C. 7105(c)(4)).

    These delegations of authority supersede any prior delegations or re-delegations on these subjects to the extent such delegations or re-delegations may be inconsistent herewith.

    I hereby affirm and ratify any actions taken by the Director of Refugee Resettlement and the OTIP Director, or his or her subordinates, which involved the exercise of authorities prior to the effective date of these January 27, 2016, delegations.

    These authorities shall be exercised under the Department's policy on regulations and the existing delegation of authority to approve and issue regulations.

    These delegations shall be exercised under financial and administrative requirements applicable to these Administration for Children and Families authorities.

    The delegations listed were effective January 27, 2016.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11731 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 28, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, Plaza Ballroom, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The hotel's telephone number is 301-468-1100. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LaToya Bonner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The committee will discuss supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 204629, empagliflozin (JARDIANCE) tablets, and sNDA 206111, empagliflozin and metformin hydrochloride (SYNJARDY) tablets. Both sNDAs are sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for the proposed additional indication in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality by reducing the incidence of cardiovascular death and to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June 14, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June 6, 2016. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 7, 2016.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact LaToya Bonner at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11678 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or mail the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Room 14A39, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email [email protected] or call the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: The Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education (THCGME) Program Eligible Resident/Fellow FTE Chart OMB 0915-0367—REVISION

    Abstract: The Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education (THCGME) Program, Section 340H of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, was established by Section 5508 of Public Law 111-148. Public Law 114-10, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) provided continued funding for the THCGME Program. The THCGME Program awards payment for both direct and indirect expenses to support training for primary care residents in community-based ambulatory patient care settings. The THCGME Program Eligible Resident/Fellow FTE Chart, published in the THCGME Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs), is a means for determining the number of eligible resident/fellow full-time equivalents (FTEs) in an applicant's primary care residency program. The current THCGME Program Eligible Resident/Fellow FTE Chart received OMB clearance on September 16, 2013. HRSA is revising the chart to provide clearer projections over a longer period of time.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The THCGME Program Eligible Resident/Fellow FTE Chart requires applicants to provide data related to the size and/or growth of the residency program over previous academic years, the number of residents enrolled in the program during the baseline academic year, and a projection of the program's proposed expansion over the next 5 academic years. It is imperative that applicants complete this chart and provide evidence of a planned expansion, as per the statute, THCGME funding may only be used to support an expanded number of residents in a residency program or to establish a new residency training program. Utilization of a chart to gather this important information has decreased the number of errors in the eligibility review process resulting in a more accurate review and funding process. In the proposed revisions, the content of the information collected has not changed; however, the order in which the information is presented on the chart has been modified to provide clearer projections over a longer period of time. This extended time frame would allow programs the flexibility to project the variations that occur during the natural expansion and scaling up of residency programs. This would better equip HRSA to make more accurate future funding projections.

    Likely Respondents: Teaching Health Centers applying for THCGME funding through a THCGME FOA, which may include new applicants and existing awardees.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and, to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:

    Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Teaching Health Center GME Program Eligible Resident/Fellow FTE Chart 90 1 90 0.5 45 Total 90 90 45

    HRSA 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.

    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11657 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received no later than July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or mail the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Room 14N-39, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email [email protected] or call the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: The Stem Cell Therapeutic Outcomes Database OMB No. 0915-0310—Revision.

    Abstract: The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, Public Law (P.L.) 109-129, as amended by the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2015, P.L. 114-104 (the Act), provides for the collection and maintenance of human blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research. HRSA's Healthcare Systems Bureau has established the Stem Cell Therapeutic Outcomes Database. Operation of this database necessitates certain record keeping and reporting requirements to perform the functions related to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation under contract to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Act requires the Secretary to contract for the establishment and maintenance of information related to patients who have received stem cell therapeutic products and to do so using a standardized, electronic format. Data is collected from transplant centers by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research and is used for ongoing analysis of transplant outcomes. The increase in burden is due to an increase in the annual number of transplants and increasing survivorship after transplantation.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: HRSA uses the information to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Information is needed to monitor the clinical status of transplantation and provide the Secretary of HHS with an annual report of transplant center-specific survival data.

    Likely Respondents: Transplant Centers.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions, to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information, to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information, and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:

    Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Baseline Pre-Transplant Essential Data (TED) 200 44 8,800 1.15 10,120 Product Form (includes Infusion, HLA, and Infectious Disease Marker inserts) 200 33 6,600 1 6,600 100-Day Post-TED 200 44 8,800 1 8,800 6-Month Post-TED 200 36 7,200 1.15 8,280 12-Month Post-TED 200 32 6,400 1.15 7,360 Annual Post-TED 200 110 22,000 1.15 25,300 * Total 200 59,800 66,460 * The Total of 200 is the number of centers completing the form. The same group of 200 centers completes each of the forms.

    HRSA 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.

    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11674 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information Collection Request Title: Rural Network Allied Health Training Program Performance Improvement Measurement System (PIMS)

    OMB No.: 0906-xxxx—NEW.

    Abstract: The Rural Network Allied Health Training Program will support the development of formal, mature rural health networks that focus on activities that achieve efficiencies, expand access to, coordinate and improve the quality of essential health care services, and strengthen the rural health care system as a whole. This purpose will be achieved through the recruitment, clinical training, and retention of allied health professionals.

    This program will further support integrated rural health networks that can partner with local community colleges and other accredited educational institutions (such as vocational and technical colleges) to develop formal clinical training programs.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: For this program, performance measures were drafted to provide data to the program and to enable HRSA to provide aggregate program data required by Congress under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. These measures cover the principal topic areas of interest to the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP), including: (a) Access to care; (b) population demographics; (c) staffing; (d) consortium/network; (e) sustainability; and (f) project specific domains. Several measures will be used for this program. All measures will speak to FORHP's progress toward meeting the goals.

    Likely Respondents: The respondents are recipients of the Rural Network Allied Health Training Program grant funding.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Rural Network Allied Health Training Program Performance Measures 10 1 10 6.55 65.5 Total 10 10 65.5
    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11672 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of an Exclusive License: The Development of an Anti-GPC3 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) Based on HN3 for the Treatment of Human Cancers AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, 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(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license to practice the inventions embodied in:

    Intellectual Property: U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/654,232 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-US-01]; PCT Patent Application PCT/US2013/043633 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-PCT-02]; Chinese Patent Application 201380039993.7 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-CN-03]; Japanese Patent Application 2015-515243 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-JP-04]; South Korea Patent Application 10-2014-7037046 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-KR-05]; Singapore Patent Application 11201407972R entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-SG-06]; United States Patent Application 14/403,896 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-US-07]; and all continuing U.S. and foreign patents/patent applications for the technology family, to Lentigen Technology, Inc.

    The patent rights to these inventions have been assigned to and/or exclusively licensed to the Government of the United States of America.

    The prospective exclusive licensed territory may be the United States, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Russia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore, and the field of use may be limited to: “The development of a glypican-3 (GPC3) chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-based immunotherapy using autologous (meaning one individual is both the donor and the recipient) primary human lymphocytes (T cells or NK cells) transfected with a lentiviral or retroviral vector, wherein the vector expresses a CAR having (1) a single antigen specificity and (2) comprising at least: (a) the complementary determining region (CDR) sequences of the anti-GPC3 antibody known as HN3; and (b) a T cell signaling domain; for the prophylaxis and treatment of GPC3-expressing cancers.”

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NCI Technology Transfer Center on or before June 2, 2016 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: David A. Lambertson, Ph.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rm 1-E530 MSC9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This invention concerns an anti-GPC3 (Glypican-3) chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) and methods of using the CAR for the treatment of GPC3-expressing cancers. GPC3 is a cell surface antigen that is preferentially expressed on certain types of cancer cells, particularly liver cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The anti-GPC3 CARs of this technology contain (1) antigen recognition sequences that bind specifically to GPC3 and (2) signaling domains that can activate the cytotoxic functions of a T cell. The anti-GPC3 CAR can be transduced into T cells that are harvested from a donor, followed by (a) selection and expansion of the T cells expressing the anti-GPC3 CAR, and (b) reintroduction of the T cells into the patient. Once the anti-GPC3 CAR-expressing T cells are reintroduced into the patient, the T cells can selectively bind to GPC3-expressing cancer cells through its antigen recognition sequences, thereby activating the T cell through its signaling domains to selectively kill the cancer cells. Through this mechanism of action, the selectivity of the a CAR allows the T cells to kill cancer cells while leaving healthy, essential cells unharmed. This can result in an effective therapeutic strategy with fewer side effects due to less non-specific killing of cells.

    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 the NIH 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 within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice.

    Complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive start-up option license. Comments and objections submitted 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: May 12, 2016. Richard U. Rodriguez, Associate Director, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11659 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Survey To Assess the Feasibility of Establishing a Gynecologic Specimen Bank (NCI) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2016 page 12111 and allowed 60 days for public comment. No comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Goli Samimi, Program Director, Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention. 9609 Medical Center Drive, MSC 9783, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number (240) 276-6582, or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: Survey to assess the feasibility of establishing a gynecologic specimen bank (NCI), 0925-NEW, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The National Cancer Institute is assessing the feasibility of developing a tissue bank that would include tube and ovary tissues from women undergoing surgery for benign conditions, risk reduction and early stage cancer. Collecting tissues from tubes and ovaries containing clinically unsuspected precursors or early stage cancer is challenging, especially among women that are not at increased genetic risk. However, given that many pathology laboratories have enhanced their processing protocols for gynecologic surgical specimens removed for benign indications, it may be possible to develop a tissue resource. Accordingly, we are requesting information via a survey about the volume of samples that are accessioned at different pathology laboratories, and the methods used to process these samples. These data would provide information necessary to assess the feasibility of establishing a tissue bank for research and provide insights into the best design of a pilot study.

    OMB approval is requested for 1 year. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 42 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Category of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response per respondent Time per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Burden hours
    Lab Managers Survey 250 1 10/60 42 Totals 250 42
    Dated: May 7, 2016. Karla Bailey, Project Clearance Liaison, National Cancer Institute, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11658 Filed 5-17-16; 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: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group; Community Influences on Health Behavior Study Section.

    Date: June 9-10, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Westin Grand, 2350 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Wenchi Liang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3150, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0681, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group; Vaccines Against Microbial Diseases Study Section.

    Date: June 9-10, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Jian Wang, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4218, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2778, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies, Integrated Review Group; Biomedical Computing and Health Informatics Study Section.

    Date: June 9-10, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Peter J Kozel, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3139, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1116, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences Integrated Review Group; Arthritis, Connective Tissue and Skin Study Section.

    Date: June 14-15, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Alexey Belkin, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge DR Rm 4102, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-435-3578, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cancer Drug Development and Therapeutics.

    Date: June 14-15, 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: Lilia Topol, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6192, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-0131, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience, Integrated Review Group; Clinical Neuroscience and Neurodegeneration Study Section.

    Date: June 14-15, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Washington, 1515 Rhode Island Ave NW., Washington, DC 20005.

    Contact Person: Alessandra C Rovescalli, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm 5205 MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1021, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Vascular and Hematology Integrated Review Group; Hemostasis and Thrombosis Study Section.

    Date: June 14, 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: Bukhtiar H Shah, Ph.D., DVM, Scientific Review Officer, Vascular and Hematology IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4120, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806-7314, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Collaborative Applications: Child Psychopathology.

    Date: June 14, 2016.

    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Best Western Tuscan Inn, 425 North Point Street, San Francisco, CA 94133.

    Contact Person: Jane A Doussard-Roosevelt, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3184, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-4445, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Oncology 1-Basic Translational Integrated Review Group; Tumor Progression and Metastasis Study Section.

    Date: June 15-16, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Solamar, 435 6th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: Rolf Jakobi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6187, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-495-1718, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cancer Diagnostics and Treatments (CDT).

    Date: June 15-16, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Zhang-Zhi Hu, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6186, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2414, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Integrated Review Group; Clinical Research and Field Studies of Infectious Diseases Study Section.

    Date: June 15-16, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Mclean Tysons Corner, 7920 Jones Branch Dr., Mclean, VA 22102.

    Contact Person: Soheyla Saadi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3211, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0903, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific, Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business Orthopedic, Skeletal Muscle, and Oral Sciences.

    Date: June 15-16, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Aftab A. Ansari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4108, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-237-9931, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Cell Biology Integrated Review Group; Cellular Mechanisms in Aging and Development Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: John Burch, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3213, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9519, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific, Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Computational, Modeling, and Biodata Management.

    Date: June 16, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Allen Richon, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6184, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-379-9351, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences Integrated Review Group; Skeletal Biology Structure and Regeneration Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Pier 5 Hotel, 711 Eastern Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21202.

    Contact Person: Daniel F McDonald, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4110, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1215, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Electrical Signaling, Ion Transport, and Arrhythmias Study Section.

    Date: June 16, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Chee Lim, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive Room 4128, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1850, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences Integrated Review Group; Oral, Dental and Craniofacial Sciences Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Virginia Suites, 1500 Arlington Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209.

    Contact Person: Yi-Hsin Liu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1781, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Biophysical, Physiological, Pharmacological and Bioengineering Neuroscience.

    Date: June 16, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Washington, 1515 Rhode Island Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20005.

    Contact Person: Paula Elyse Schauwecker, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Synapses, Cytoskeleton and Trafficking Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Sheraton Clayton Plaza Hotel, 7730 Bonhomme Ave, St. Louis, MO 63105.

    Contact Person: Christine A. Piggee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4186, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0657, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience, Integrated Review Group; Molecular Neuropharmacology and Signaling Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Sheraton Seattle Hotel, 1400 6th Ave, Seattle, WA 98101.

    Contact Person: Deborah L. Lewis, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4183, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9129, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience, Integrated Review Group; Neural Oxidative Metabolism and Death Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Carol Hamelink, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4192, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 213-9887, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Cell Biology, Integrated Review Group; Biology of the Visual System Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Michael H. Chaitin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5202, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-0910, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group; Molecular Genetics A Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Michael M. Sveda, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1114, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3565, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group; Genetics of Health and Disease Study Section.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Lorien Hotel & Spa, 1600 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Cheryl M Corsaro, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2204, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1045, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Electrical Signaling, Ion Transport and Arrhythmias Special Panel.

    Date: June 16, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Abdelouahab Aitouche, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4222, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2365, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review, Special Emphasis Panel; SBIB Clinical Pediatric and Fetal Applications.

    Date: June 16, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 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.

    Contact Person: John Firrell, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5118, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2598, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review, Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Neural Trauma and Neurovascular Pathology.

    Date: June 17, 2016.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Alexei Kondratyev, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5200, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1785, kond[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: May 12, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11662 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Start-up Exclusive License: Development of Virus Like Particles for the Treatment of Breast Cancer, Lung Cancer, Melanoma, Pancreatic Cancer, and Hepatocellular Cancer AGENCY:

    National Institutes Of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR part 404.7, that the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of a Start-Up Exclusive Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the following patent applications to Chimeron Bio Corporation, a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware and having an office in Philadelphia, PA.

    Intellectual Property: U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.: 61/615,687 Entitled “Delivery of Packaged RNA in Mammalian Cells” HHS Ref. No.: E-264-2011/0-US-01 Filed March 26, 2012; International Patent Application No.: PCT/US2013/031876 Entitled “Delivery of Packaged RNA in Mammalian Cells” HHS Ref. No.: E-264-2011/0-PCT-02 Filed March 15, 2013; Australian Patent Application No.: 2013-240248 Entitled “Delivery of Packaged RNA in Mammalian Cells” HHS Ref. No.: E-264-2011/0-AU-03 Filed October 17, 2014; European Patent Application No.: 13712661.1 Entitled “Delivery of Packaged RNA in Mammalian Cells” HHS Ref. No.: E-264-2011/0-EP-04 Filed October 24, 2014; Japanese Patent Application No.: 2015-503322 entitled “Delivery of Packaged RNA in Mammalian Cells” HHS Ref. No.: E-264-2011/0-JP-05 Filed September 25, 2014; U.S. Patent Application No.: 14/388,441 Entitled Delivery of Packaged RNA in Mammalian Cells” HHS Ref. No.: E-264-2011/0-US-06 Filed September 26, 2014; U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.: 61/916,394 Entitled “Cancer Immunotherapy: Delivery HLA-11 using VLP-Replicon” HHS Ref. No.: E-050-2014/0-US-01 Filed December 16, 2013; International Patent Application No.: PCT/US2014/070552 Entitled “Cancer Immunotherapy: Delivery HLA-11 using VLP-Replicon” HHS Ref. No.: E-050-2014/0-PCT-02 Filed December 16, 2014;

    The patent rights to these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.

    The prospective exclusive start-up licensed territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to: “Use of virus like particles comprising MHCII and CD80 for the treatment of breast cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, pancreatic cancer, and hepatocellular cancer.”

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NCI Technology Transfer Center on or before June 2, 2016 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Lauren Nguyen-Antczak, Ph.D., J.D., Sr. Licensing and Patenting Manager, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 8490 Progress Drive, Riverside 5, Suite 400, Frederick, MD 21701; Telephone: (301) 624-8752; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The invention is directed to virus-like particles (“VLPs”) that serve to induce transgene expression of at least one recombinant protein of interest in specific, targeted cells. This technology can be used to treat a variety of diseases, depending on the cell type to be targeted. Preferably, invention VLPs may be used to treat tumor bearing cancers, including breast cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, pancreatic cancer, and hepatocellular cancer.

    The prospective Start-Up Exclusive Patent License, which will be royalty bearing, is being considered under the small business initiative launched on 1 October 2011 and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.7. The prospective Start-Up Exclusive Patent License may be granted unless the NIH receives written evidence and argument, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, 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.

    Complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive start-up license. Comments and objections submitted 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: May 12, 2016. Richard U. Rodriguez, Associate Director, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11661 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; NIDCR Data Analysis and Statistical Methodology PARs.

    Date: June 10, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Victor Henriquez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer DEA/SRB/NIDCR, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 668, Bethesda, MD 20892-4878, 301-451-2405, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee.

    Date: June 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Wyndham San Antonio Riverwalk 111 East Pecan Street, San Antonio, TX 78205

    Contact Person: Marilyn Moore-Hoon, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Rm. 676, Bethesda, MD 20892-4878, 301-594-4861, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 12, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11663 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of an Exclusive License: The Development of an Anti-GPC3 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) Based on YP7 for the Treatment of Human Cancers AGENCY:

    Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR Part 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license to practice the inventions embodied in:

    Intellectual Property

    U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/654,232 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-US-01]; PCT Patent Application PCT/US2013/043633 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-PCT-02]; Chinese Patent Application 201380039993.7 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-CN-03]; Japanese Patent Application 2015-515243 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-JP-04]; South Korea Patent Application 10-2014-7037046 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-KR-05]; Singapore Patent Application 11201407972R entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-SG-06]; United States Patent Application 14/403,896 entitled “High-affinity Monoclonal Antibodies To Glypican-3 And Use Thereof” [HHS Ref. E-136-2012/0-US-07];

    and all continuing U.S. and foreign patents/patent applications for the technology family, to Lentigen Technology, Inc.

    The patent rights to these inventions have been assigned to and/or exclusively licensed to the Government of the United States of America.

    The prospective exclusive licensed territory may be the United States, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Russia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore, and the field of use may be limited to: “The development of a glypican-3 (GPC3) chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-based immunotherapy using autologous (meaning one individual is both the donor and the recipient) primary human lymphocytes (T cells or NK cells) transfected with a lentiviral or retroviral vector, wherein the vector expresses a CAR having (1) a single antigen specificity and (2) comprising at least: (a) The complementary determining region (CDR) sequences of the anti-GPC3 antibody known as YP7; and (b) a T cell signaling domain; for the prophylaxis and treatment of GPC3-expressing cancers.”

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NCI Technology Transfer Center on or before June 2, 2016 will be considered.

    ADDRESSEES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: David A. Lambertson, Ph.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rm 1-E530 MSC9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This invention concerns an anti-GPC3 (Glypican-3) chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) and methods of using the CAR for the treatment of GPC3-expressing cancers. GPC3 is a cell surface antigen that is preferentially expressed on certain types of cancer cells, particularly liver cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The anti-GPC3 CARs of this technology contain (1) antigen recognition sequences that bind specifically to GPC3 and (2) signaling domains that can activate the cytotoxic functions of a T cell. The anti-GPC3 CAR can be transduced into T cells that are harvested from a donor, followed by (a) selection and expansion of the T cells expressing the anti-GPC3 CAR, and (b) reintroduction of the T cells into the patient. Once the anti-GPC3 CAR-expressing T cells are reintroduced into the patient, the T cells can selectively bind to GPC3-expressing cancer cells through its antigen recognition sequences, thereby activating the T cell through its signaling domains to selectively kill the cancer cells. Through this mechanism of action, the selectivity of the a CAR allows the T cells to kill cancer cells while leaving healthy, essential cells unharmed. This can result in an effective therapeutic strategy with fewer side effects due to less non-specific killing of cells.

    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 the NIH 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 within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice.

    Complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive start-up option license. Comments and objections submitted 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: May 12, 2016. Richard U. Rodriguez, Associate Director, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11660 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5913-N-10] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: FHA Technology Open to Approved Lenders (TOTAL) Mortgage Scorecard AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Stevens, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Kevin L. [email protected]; or telephone 202-402-2673. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: FHA TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0556.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The regulation mandating this collection can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 24 CFR 203.255(b)(5). This information is necessary to assure that lenders (and automated underwriting system (AUS) vendors) are aware of their obligations regarding use of the TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard and are certifying that they will comply with all pertinent regulations. It also allows FHA to request reports from lenders regarding their use of the scorecard, that they have implemented appropriate quality control procedures for using the scorecard, and provides an appeal mechanism should FHA take an action to terminate a lender's use of the scorecard.

    Respondents : Business or other for profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2709.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 100.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Average Hours per Response: .02.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 100.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Janet M. Golrick, Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing Associate Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11742 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [16X LLUT920000 L13100000.DN0000 LXSSJ0540000 24 1A] Notice of Intent To Prepare a Master Leasing Plan, Amend the Resource Management Plans for the Price and Richfield Field Offices, and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment, Utah 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, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Price and Richfield Field Offices intend to prepare a Master Leasing Plan (MLP) and Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendments with a single Environmental Assessment (EA). The BLM will consider resource management plan decisions related to oil and gas leasing and post-leasing oil and gas development on approximately 525,000 acres of public land in the San Rafael Desert, located in Emery and Wayne Counties, Utah. By this notice, the BLM 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 San Rafael Desert MLP, RMP amendments, and associated EA. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until the end of the scoping period, which is June 17, 2016. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en.html. In order to be included in the analysis, 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 as appropriate.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted on issues and planning criteria related to the San Rafael Desert MLP and RMP amendments/EA by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (435) 636-3657

    Mail: BLM Price Field Office, 125 South 600 West, Price, UT 84501; Attention: Jake Palma

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tyler Ashcroft, National Project Manager; telephone (801) 539-4068; email [email protected] Contact Mr. Ashcroft 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, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. Replies are provided during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document provides notice that the BLM Price and Richfield Field Offices in Utah intend to prepare an MLP and RMP amendments with a single EA for the San Rafael Desert, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria.

    The planning area is located in Emery and Wayne counties in Utah and encompasses approximately 525,000 acres of public land that are primarily located south of Interstate 70 and east of Highway 24. The eastern boundary of the MLP planning area is generally the Green River. A small portion of the MLP area is located north of Interstate 70, west of the City of Green River, UT, and East of the San Rafael Swell. U.S. Highway 6 bisects this part of the planning area.

    The BLM will prepare the MLP in accordance with Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-117, Oil and Gas Leasing Reform—Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews, May 17, 2010, which has been incorporated and supplemented in various BLM handbooks, including H-1624-1, Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources. The MLP process will provide additional planning and analysis for areas prior to new leasing of oil and gas resources. The MLP process will enable the Price and Richfield Field Offices to: (1) Resolve long-standing lease protests relating to parcels of land for which BLM received lease offers subject to protest, but for which BLM has not issued leases in the planning area; (2) Determine whether the BLM should cancel, modify, or lift the suspensions on suspended leases in the planning area; (3) Evaluate potential development scenarios; (4) Identify and address potential resource conflicts and environmental impacts from development; (5) Create oil and gas development mitigation strategies; and (6) Consider a range of new conditions, including prohibiting surface occupancy or closing certain areas to leasing.

    The MLP process could result in new oil and gas leasing stipulations and development scenarios which would require amendments to the Price and Richfield RMPs completed in 2008. The EA will analyze likely oil and gas development scenarios and land use plan alternatives with varying mitigation levels for leasing.

    The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues, identify alternatives, and guide the planning process. Preliminary issues for the plan amendment area have been identified by BLM personnel; Federal, State, and local agencies; and other stakeholders. The potential issues include: Air quality, climate change, cultural resources, paleontological resources, recreation, visual resources, night skies, riparian resources, soil and water resources, vegetation, wildlife resources, special status species, special designations, and wilderness characteristics.

    The BLM established preliminary planning criteria for this effort. As part of those criteria, the BLM will: (1) Limit the scope to resource management plan decisions pertaining to oil and gas leasing and post-leasing development of the area; (2) resolve long-standing lease protests and decide whether to cancel, modify, or lift the suspension on suspended leases in the planning area; (3) recognize valid existing rights; (4) only address management of public lands (including federal mineral estate under non-federal surface in a “split estate” situation); (5) use a collaborative, multi-jurisdictional approach to determine how mineral leasing will be managed; (6) ensure that its management decisions are as consistent as possible with local, State, and other Federal agency plans; (7) prepare development scenarios for oil and gas resources based on historical, existing, and projected levels of development; (8) consider a range of alternatives that focus on mitigating the impacts of development on resources that are of concern; (9) address the socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives; and, (10) use the best available scientific information and inventory and monitoring information to determine appropriate decisions for oil and gas leasing.

    You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. To be most helpful, you should submit comments by the close of the 30-day scoping period or within 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later.

    The BLM will utilize the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement requirements 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 action 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 action that the BLM is evaluating, 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 EA as a cooperating agency.

    The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, visual resources management, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and National Conservation Lands management, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife and fisheries, special status species, hydrology, soils, rangeland management, air quality, and sociology and economics.

    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 may 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 and 43 CFR 1610.2

    Jenna Whitlock, Acting State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11726 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1315 (Preliminary)] Ferrovanadium From Korea Determination

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of ferrovanadium from Korea, provided for in subheading 7202.92.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

    Commencement of Final Phase Investigation

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigation. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of an affirmative preliminary determination in the investigation under section 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determination is negative, upon notice of an affirmative final determination in that investigation under section 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigation need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigation. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigation.

    Background

    On March 28, 2016, the Vanadium Producers and Reclaimers Association and its members AMG Vanadium, LLC, Cambridge, Ohio; Bear Metallurgical Company, Butler, Pennsylvania; Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corporation, Freeport, Texas; and Evraz Stratcor, Inc., Hot Springs, Arkansas, filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of ferrovanadium from Korea. Accordingly, effective March 28, 2016, the Commission, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)), instituted antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1315 (Preliminary).

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of April 1, 2016 (81 FR 18888). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on April 18, 2016, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determination in this investigation on May 12, 2016. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4611 (May 2016), entitled Ferrovanadium from Korea: Investigation No. 731-TA-1315 (Preliminary).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 12, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11668 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-890] Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof; Commission's Determination To Suspend Remedial Orders Issued in This Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to suspend the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders issued in this investigation pending remand proceedings.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on August 23, 2013, based on a complaint filed by ResMed Corporation of San Diego, California; ResMed Incorporated of San Diego, California; and ResMed Limited of New South Wales, Australia (collectively, “ResMed”). 78 FR 52564 (Aug. 23, 2013). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 32-37, 53, 79, 80, and 88 of U.S. Patent No. 7,997,267 (“the '267 patent”); claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,398 (“the '398 patent”); claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,938,116 (“the '116 patent”); claims 30, 37, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 7,341,060 (the '060 patent); claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 28, 30, 31, and 56 of U.S. Patent No. 8,312,883 (“the '883 patent”); claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 29, 32, 35, 40, 42, 45, 50, 51, 56, 59, 89, 92, 94, and 96 of U.S. Patent No. 7,178,527 (the '527 patent); claims 19-24, 26, 29-36, and 39-41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,950,392 (the '392 patent); and claims 13, 15, 16, 26-28, 51, 52, and 55 of U.S. Patent No 7,926,487 (“the '487 patent”). The notice of investigation named the following respondents: BMC Medical Co., Ltd. of Beijing, China; 3B Medical, Inc. of Lake Wales, Florida; and 3B Products, L.L.C., of Lake Wales, Florida (collectively “BMC”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) participated in the investigation.

    On January 9, 2014, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination (“ID”) granting a motion by ResMed to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to substitute U.S. Patent No. RE 44,453 (“the '453 patent”) for the '398 patent and to terminate the investigation as to the '398 patent. See Order No. 7 (Jan. 9, 2014). The Commission determined not to review the ID. See Commission Notice of Non-Review (Feb. 10, 2014); 79 FR 9000-01 (Feb. 14, 2014).

    On February 24, 2014, the ALJ issued an ID granting a motion by ResMed to withdraw its allegations with respect to the '116 patent. See Order No. 11 (Feb. 24, 2014). The Commission determined not to review the ID. See Commission Notice of Non-Review (March 11, 2014). On March 18, 2014, the ALJ granted a motion by ResMed to terminate the investigation as to claims 26-28 of the '487 Patent. See Order No. 20 (Mar 18, 2012). The Commission determined not to review the ID. See Commission Notice of Non-Review (Apr. 29, 2014).

    On August 21, 2014, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation of section 337 by BMC with respect to certain asserted claims of the '392, '267, '060, '883, '527, and '453 patents. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 with respect to the asserted claims of the '487 patent.

    On September 3, 2014, the parties filed petitions for review of the ID. On September 11, 2014, the parties filed responses to the petitions for review.

    On October 16, 2014, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part. 79 FR 63163-65 (Oct. 22, 2014). On review, the Commission determined to affirm the ALJ's finding of violation of section 337. The Commission, however, found the '453 patent invalid for anticipation. Having found a violation of section 337, the Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief was (1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 9, 32, 89, and 92 of the '527 patent; claims 19, 21, 29, 32, and 36 of the '392 patent; claims 32, 33, 34, and 53 of the '267 patent; claims 30, 37, and 38 of the '060 patent; and claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 28, 30, 31, and 56 of the '883 patent that are manufactured by, or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of BMC Medical Co., Ltd., 3B Medical, Inc., or 3B Products L.L.C. or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns, except for service and replacement parts for customers that purchased their covered products prior to the date the exclusion order becomes final; and (2) cease and desist orders prohibiting domestic respondents BMC Medical Co., Ltd., 3B Medical, Inc. from conducting any of the following activities in the United States: Importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof covered by claims 1, 9, 32, 89, and 92 of the '527 patent; claims 19, 21, 29, 32, and 36 of the '392 patent; claims 32, 33, 34, and 53 of the '267 patent; claims 30, 37, and 38 of the '060 patent; and claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 28, 30, 31, and 56 of the '883 patent.

    On February 18, 2015, ResMed filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeking review of the Commission's determination as to the '453 patent (Appeal No. 2015-1360). On April 14, 2015, BMC filed a notice of appeal in the Federal Circuit, seeking review of the Commission's domestic industry determination as well as the Commission's finding that prior art does not render the asserted claims of the '267 patent invalid for obviousness (Appeal No. 2015-1576). The Court consolidated the two appeals on April 23, 2015.

    On March 16, 2016, the parties jointly moved to dismiss ResMed's appeal as to the '453 patent. On March 17, 2016, the Commission moved to remand BMC's appeal in light of intervening domestic industry precedent in Lelo Inc. v. International Trade Commisson, 789 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2015). On March 29, 2016, the Court granted the motion dismiss ResMed's appeal. On April 22, 2016, the Court granted the Commission's remand motion, noting the Commission's indication that it would suspend its remedial orders as it conducts its remand proceedings.

    The Commission has determined to suspend the remedial orders issued in this investigation pending the outcome of the remand.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 12, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11638 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-997] Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 14, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of ResMed Corp. of San Diego, California; ResMed Inc. of San Diego, California; and ResMed Ltd. of Australia. A corrected complaint was filed on April 18, 2016, and a supplement was filed on April 19, 2016. The corrected complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain sleeping-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. RE44,453 (“the '453 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,020,551 (“the '551 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,006,691 (“the '691 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,072,860 (“the '860 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on May 11, 2016, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain sleeping-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 23 and 24 of the '453 patent; claims 1-24 and 26-33 of the '551 patent; claims 1-31, 40-43, 52-59, 61-67, 69-84, 86-120, 122-158, 160, 161, 164, 165, 167, 168, and 173 of the '691 patent; and claims 16-30 of the '860 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are:

    ResMed Corp., 9001 Spectrum Center Drive, San Diego, CA 92123 ResMed Inc., 9001 Spectrum Center Drive, San Diego, CA 92123 ResMed Ltd., 1 Elizabeth Macarthur Drive, Bella Vista NSW 2153, Australia

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    BMC Medical Co., Ltd., 5/F Main Building, No. 19 Gucheng Street West, Shijingshan, Beijing 100043, China 3B Medical, Inc., 21301 US Highway 27, Lake Wales, FL 33589 3B Products, L.L.C., 21301 US Highway 27, Lake Wales, FL 33589

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 12, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11667 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Fourth Review)] Petroleum Wax Candles from China Determination

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on December 1, 2015 (80 FR 75130) and determined on March 7, 2016 that it would conduct an expedited review (81 FR 15122, March 21, 2016).

    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on May 12, 2016. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4610 (May 2016), entitled Petroleum Wax Candles from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Fourth Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 12, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11637 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-943] Certain Wireless Headsets; Commission Determination To Affirm With Modification an Initial Determination, Granting Respondents' Motion for Summary Determination of Patent Invalidity Due to Indefiniteness; Termination of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to affirm with certain modifications an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 17), granting respondents' motion for summary determination of patent invalidity due to indefiniteness. The Commission finds no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”). The investigation is terminated.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on January 13, 2015, based on a complaint filed by One-E-Way, Inc. of Pasadena, California (“One-E-Way”). 80 FR 1663 (Jan. 13, 2015). The complaint alleges violations of section 337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless headsets by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,865,258 (“the '258 patent”) and 8,131,391 (“the '391 patent”). Id. The notice of investigation named several respondents, including Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York; and Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, “Sony”); Beats Electronics, LLC of Culver City, California and Beats Electronics International Ltd. of Dublin, Ireland (collectively, “Beats”); Sennheiser Electronic GmbH & Co. KG of Wedemark, Germany and Sennheiser Electronic Corporation of Old Lyme, Connecticut (collectively, “Sennheiser”); BlueAnt Wireless Pty, Ltd. of Richmond, Australia and BlueAnt Wireless, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois (collectively, “BlueAnt”); Creative Technology Ltd. of Singapore and Creative Labs, Inc. of Milpitas, California (collectively, “Creative Labs”); GN Netcom A/S d/b/a Jabra of Ballerup, Denmark (“GN Netcom”); and Jawbone, Inc. of San Francisco, California. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named as a party to the investigation. Id. The Commission previously terminated the investigation with respect to Beats and Sennheiser. See Notice (Apr. 29, 2015); Notice (June 11, 2015). The Commission also previously terminated the investigation with respect to certain claims of the '258 and '391 patents. See Notice (May 26, 2015); Notice (Aug. 26, 2015). On February 16, 2016, the Commission amended the Notice of investigation to correct the name of respondent Jawbone, Inc. to AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone, and also terminated the investigation as to AliphCom. Notice (Feb. 16, 2016).

    On August 10, 2015, respondents Sony, BlueAnt, Creative Labs, and GN Netcom (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a motion for summary determination that asserted claim 8 of the '258 patent and asserted claims 1, 3-6, and 10 of the'391 patent are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2. On August 20, 2015, the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) filed a response in support of the motion. Also on August 20, 2015, One-E-Way filed an opposition to the motion. On August 27, 2015, Respondents moved for leave to file a reply to One-E-Way's opposition, which the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted that same day. See Order No. 16 (Aug. 27, 2015).

    On September 21, 2015, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 17), granting Respondents' motion for summary determination that all of the asserted claims of the '258 and '391 patents are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2 and finding no violation of section 337. On October 2, 2015, One-E-Way filed a petition for review of the subject ID. On October 9, 2015, Respondents and the IA each filed responses to the petition.

    On December 1, 2015, the Commission determined to review Order No. 17 and posed several questions to the parties. 80 FR 76038-40 (Dec. 7, 2015). The parties filed initial submissions on December 11, 2015, and filed response submissions on December 18, 2015.

    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the subject ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, and the parties' submissions in response to the Commission's request for additional briefing, the Commission has determined to affirm Order No. 17 with modification. In particular, the Commission corrects the statement on pages 7, 61, and 65-66 of the subject ID that the limitations “free from interference” and “virtually free from interference” coexist in the asserted claims. The asserted claims recite the limitation “virtually free from interference” only. The Commission also clarifies that the ALJ's statement on page 85 of subject ID that the intrinsic evidence fails to explain how the invention both “transmits” and “reproduces” audio “virtually free from interference” should be made with reference to claims 1 and 5 of the '391 patent, not to claims 1 and 3 of the '391 patent.

    The Commission finds no violation of section 337. The investigation is terminated.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 12, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11670 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-967] Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith; Commission's Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating Recordex USA, Inc.; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 19) terminating Recordex USA, Inc. The Commission requests written submissions, under the schedule set forth below, on remedy, public interest, and bonding.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on September 24, 2015, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Pathway Innovations & Technologies, Inc. of San Diego, California (“Complainant”). 80 FR 57642 (September 24, 2015). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale for importation, importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain document cameras and software for use therewith by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Design Patent No. D647,906; U.S. Design Patent No. D674,389; U.S. Design Patent No. D715,300; and U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751. The Commission's notice of investigation named the following respondents: Recordex USA, Inc., of Long Island City, New York (“Recordex”); QOMO HiteVision, LLC, of Wixom, Michigan (“QOMO”); and Adesso, Inc. of Walnut, California (“Adesso”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was named as a party but has subsequently withdrawn from the investigation. Adesso was terminated based on a consent order stipulation and consent order. Order No. 5 (unreviewed) (Nov. 23, 2015). QOMO was found to be in default. Order No. 10 (unreviewed) (Dec. 7, 2015). Recordex is the last remaining respondent in this investigation.

    On April 11, 2016, Complainant and Recordex filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Recordex based on a settlement agreement. Complainant and Recordex stated that other than the settlement agreement, “[t]here are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the moving parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation.”

    On April 20, 2016, the ALJ granted the joint motion. The ID agreed with Complainant and Recordex that termination of the investigation as to Recordex will not negatively impact the public interest. ID at 2. The parties provided public and confidential versions of the settlement agreement.

    The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.

    As noted above, QOMO was previously found to be in default. Section 337(g)(1) and Commission Rule 210.16(c) authorize the Commission to order relief against a respondent found in default, unless, after considering the public interest, it finds that such relief should not issue. Complainant seeks a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may: (1) Issue an order that could result in the exclusion of articles manufactured or imported by the defaulting respondent; and/or (2) issue a cease and desist order that could result in the defaulting respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (December 1994).

    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors that the Commission will consider include the effect that the exclusion order and/or cease and desists orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.

    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.

    Written Submissions: Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Complainant is also requested to state the date that the asserted patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. Complainant is further requested to supply the names of known importers of the products at issue in this investigation.

    The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on May 23, 2016. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on May 31, 2016. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-967”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 13, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11706 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Heterogeneous System Architecture Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 12, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Heterogeneous System Architecture Foundation (“HSA Foundation”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Mälardalen högskola, Västerås, SWEDEN, has been added as a party to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HSA Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On August 31, 2012, HSA Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 11, 2012 (77 FR 61786).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 20, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9884).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11738 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Yoga Bridge Accreditation

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 24, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Yoga Bridge Accreditation (“YBA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.

    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: YBA (Yoga Bridge Accreditation), Portland, OR. The nature and scope of YBA's standards and development activities are: To set industry standards for a diverse research based yoga training & education. YBA works on two fronts: To certify individuals interested in yoga according to our Standards, and, to offer certified continuing education classes for professionals in non-yoga related fields to incorporate YBA teachings into their existing professions.

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11740 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 12, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc. (“MSGIP 2.0”) have filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Machfu, Germantown, MD; OPC Foundation, Mantua, OH; Smarter Grid Solutions, Brooklyn, NY; Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute, Gyeongsangnam-do, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Hitachi Consulting, Dallas, TX; and National Grid USA, Waltham, MA, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, CANADA; Valley View Corporation, Rockville, MD; Michigan Public Service Commission, Lansing, MI; WiMAX Forum, Portland, OR; Lakeview Consulting Group, Morgan Hill, CA; Buford Goff & Associates, Inc., Columbia, SC; Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, CA; Z-Wave Alliance, Milpitas, CA; Wells Fargo, San Francisco, CA; Cetecom, Milpitas, CA; JKN Consulting, Scotts Valley, CA; Energy Central, Aurora, CO; and Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd., Kingston 5, JAMAICA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MSGIP 2.0 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On February 5, 2013, MSGIP 2.0 filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 7, 2013 (78 FR 14836).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 14, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9883).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11737 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act

    On May 9, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in the lawsuit entitled United States and the State of Minnesota v. Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, Civil Action No. 16-1205.

    The United States and the State of Minnesota filed this lawsuit under the Clean Water Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of Defendant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued by the State to Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative's sugar beet processing facility in Renville County, Minnesota. The consent decree requires the defendant to perform injunctive relief, pay a $1,000,000.00 civil penalty (split evenly between the United States and the State), and pay restitution to the State of $49,155.83.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States and the State of Minnesota v. Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-10696. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By e-mail [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $17.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $7.50.

    Randall M. Stone, Acting Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11653 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Labor Organization and Auxiliary Reports ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Labor Organization and Auxiliary Reports,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before June 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201604-1245-001 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OLMS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Labor Organization and Auxiliary Reports information collection. The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act requires a union to file an annual financial report and a copy of the union's constitution and bylaws with the DOL. Under certain circumstances, reports are required of a union officer and employee, employer, labor relations consultant, and surety company. Any such report is available for public disclosure. A filer is required to retain supporting records for five years; a union is also required to retain election records for one year. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the OLMS is changing the instructions to the Form LM-3 and LM-4 Labor Organization Annual Reports, in order to mandate electronic filing, as well as amend the hardship exemption process for Form LM-2 filers. If approved, the changes for the Forms LM-2, LM-3, and LM-4 will apply to fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1245-0003. The current approval is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2019; however, the DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. New requirements would only take effect upon OMB approval. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2016 (80 FR 42842).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1245-0003. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-OLMS.

    Title of Collection: Labor Organization and Auxiliary Reports.

    OMB Control Number: 1245-0003.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—not-for-profit institutions.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 37,414.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 37,414.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 4,593,235 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    Dated: May 9, 2016. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11695 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CP-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (16-036)] NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Planetary Protection Subcommittee; Meeting AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Planetary Protection Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, June 1, 2016, 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Thursday, June 2, 2016, 8:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Local Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    NASA Headquarters, Room 1Q39, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0750, fax (202) 358-2779.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The meeting will also be available telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the conference call number 1-888-324-3811 (USA toll free) or 1-210-234-8402, passcode 94125, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is https://nasa.webex.com/. The meeting number on June 1, 2016, is 995 907 813, passcode Protection_601. The meeting number on June 2, 2016, is 998 659 198, passcode Protection_602. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

    —Updates on Planetary Protection in the Mars Exploration Program —Planetary Protection Technology Investments

    Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with drivers licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID. [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: American Samoa, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico and Washington. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Ann Delo via email at [email protected] or by fax at (202) 358-2779. U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to submit their name and affiliation 3 working days prior to the meeting to Ann Delo. It is imperative that this meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

    Patricia D. Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11698 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026; NRC-2008-0252] Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Main Control Room Emergency Habitability System (VES) Design Changes AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 48 to Combined Licenses (COLs), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC); Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; MEAG Power SPVM, LLC; MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC; MEAG Power SPVP, LLC; Authority of Georgia; and the City of Dalton, Georgia (together “the licensee”) for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.

    The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0252. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by letter dated May 7, 2015, and it is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A469.

    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:

    Paul Kallan, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2809, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is granting an exemption from paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), and is issuing License Amendment No. 48 to COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92, to the licensee. The exemption is required by paragraph A.4 of section VIII, “Processes for Changes and Departures,” appendix D, to 10 CFR part 52 to allow the licensee to depart from Tier 1 information. With the requested amendment, the licensee sought proposed changes that would revise ASME safety classification and transition location, equipment orientation and removal, and identification of the number of emergency air storage tanks. The proposed changes to the Main Control Room Emergency Habitability System (VES) revises Tier 1 and corresponding information in COL Appendix C, Figure 2.2.5-1. It also revises Tier 2 information in the UFSAR.

    Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16053A177.

    Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16053A133 and ML16053A136, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16053A146 and ML16053A148, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.

    II. Exemption

    Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to Vogtle Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:

    1. In a letter dated May 7, 2015, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, as part of license amendment request 15-006, “Main Control Room Emergency Habitability System (VES) Design Changes (LAR-15-006).”

    For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16053A177, the Commission finds that:

    A. The exemption is authorized by law;

    B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;

    C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;

    D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;

    E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and

    F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.

    2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1, as described in the licensee's request dated May 7, 2015. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 48, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.

    3. As explained in Section 5.0, “Environmental Consideration,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML16053A177), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.

    4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.

    III. License Amendment Request

    By letter dated May 07, 2015, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this Federal Register notice.

    The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43123). No comments were received during the 30-day comment period.

    The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.

    IV. Conclusion

    Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on May 7, 2015. The exemption and amendment were issued on March 30, 2016 as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML16053A091).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of May 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    John McKirgan, Acting Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11733 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-017; NRC-2008-0066] Dominion Virginia Power; North Anna, Unit 3 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Combined license application; receipt.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is giving notice once each week for four consecutive weeks of the North Anna Unit 3 combined license (COL) application from Dominion Virginia Power (Dominion).

    DATES:

    May 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0066 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0066. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

    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:

    James Shea, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1388, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Virginia Electric and Power Company, doing business as Dominion Virginia Power (Applicant) has filed an application for a COL with the NRC under Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” Through the Application, which is currently under review by the NRC staff, the Applicant seeks to construct and operate an Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor at the North Anna Power Station, which is located in Louisa County, Virginia. An applicant may seek a COL in accordance with subpart C of 10 CFR part 52. The information submitted by the applicant includes certain administrative information, such as financial qualifications submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.77, as well as technical information submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.79. These notices are being provided in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.43(a)(3).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of May, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Ronaldo Jenkins, Chief, Licensing Branch 3, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11750 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Excepted Service; January 2016 AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from January 1, 2016, to January 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Services and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the Federal Register at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/. OPM also publishes an annual notice of the consolidated listing of all Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities, current as of June 30, in the Federal Register.

    Schedule A

    No Schedule A Authorities to report during January 2016.

    Schedule B

    No Schedule B Authorities to report during January 2016.

    Schedule C

    The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during January 2016.

    Agency name Organization name Position title Authorization number Effective date Department of Agriculture Office of Civil Rights Special Advisor DA160029 1/5/2016 Office of the Secretary Special Assistant DA160031 1/6/2016 Senior Advisor DA160032 1/6/2016 Farm Service Agency State Executive Director—New Hampshire DA160033 1/6/2016 Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Confidential Assistant DA160035 1/19/2016 Department of Commerce Office of Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis Deputy Director, Office of Advisory Committees and Industry Outreach DC160053 1/4/2016 Office of Public Affairs Chief Speechwriter and Advisor DC160054 1/4/2016 Office of the Secretary Director, Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships DC160034 1/13/2016 Office of Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance Special Assistant DC160075 1/15/2016 Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities) Special Assistant for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict DD160054 1/14/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs) Special Assistant for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia DD160060 1/15/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs) Special Assistant DD160057 1/20/2016 Office of the Secretary of Defense Advance Officer DD160047 1/28/2016 Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Strategic Communications Manager DB160020 1/8/2016 Office of the Secretary Director of Scheduling and Advance DB160021 1/8/2016 Office of the Under Secretary Director of College Scorecard DB160023 1/21/2016 Office of Communications and Outreach Deputy Chief of Staff DB160024 1/21/2016 Confidential Assistant DB160027 1/21/2016 Deputy Assistant Secretary for State and Local Engagement DB160028 1/21/2016 Senior Advisor DB160029 1/21/2016 Office of Postsecondary Education Senior Policy Advisor DB160025 1/21/2016 Department of Energy Office of the Under Secretary Special Assistant DE160048 1/8/2016 Office of the Secretary Deputy White House Liaison and Special Project Manager DE160050 1/8/2016 Special Assistant DE160051 1/19/2016 Office of Scheduling and Advance Special Assistant DE160046 1/19/2016 Office of Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Advisor for Intergovernmental and External Affairs DE160047 1/21/2016 Environmental Protection Agency Office of Public Affairs Deputy Director of Speechwriting EP160019 1/20/2016 Export-Import Bank Office of Communications Director of Speechwriter EB160002 1/15/2016 Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Director of Communications, Public Health DH160048 1/4/2016 Office of the Secretary Policy Advisor DH160039 1/6/2016 Deputy White House Liaison DH160046 1/6/2016 White House Liaison for Political Personnel, Boards and Commissions DH160045 1/7/2016 Senior Advisor DH160041 1/11/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation Policy Advisor DH160040 1/6/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Special Assistant DH160042 1/6/2016 Office of the Deputy Secretary Chief of Staff DH160043 1/6/2016 Department of Homeland Security Office of the Executive Secretariat Deputy Secretary Briefing Book Coordinator DM160101 1/19/2016 Secretary's Briefing Book Coordinator DM160104 1/19/2016 Congressional Correspondence Analyst DM160109 1/21/2016 Special Assistant DM160108 1/28/2016 Federal Emergency Management Agency Counselor DM160105 1/20/2016 Office of Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Director of Legislative Affairs DM160110 1/20/2016 Ombudsman, Citizenship and Immigration Services Special Advisor for Public Engagement DM160106 1/28/2016 Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of the Administration Advance Coordinator DU160005 1/11/2016 Office of Housing Special Assistant DU160007 1/21/2016 Department of the Interior Office of Assistant Secretary—Fish and Wildlife and Parks Advisor DI160028 1/16/2016 Secretary's Immediate Office Advisor DI160026 1/21/2016 Department of Justice Office of the Associate Attorney General Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Counsel DJ160032 1/6/2016 Office of the Attorney General Director of Scheduling DJ160041 1/14/2016 Special Assistant DJ160049 1/29/2016 Office on Violence Against Women Advisor DJ160043 1/19/2016 Office of Justice Programs Senior Policy Advisor DJ160044 1/21/2016 Department of Labor Office of the Secretary White House Liaison and Counselor DL160018 1/5/2016 Office of the Deputy Secretary Special Assistant DL160027 1/13/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Senior Policy Advisor DL160029 1/20/2016 Office of Public Affairs Director of Digital Strategy DL160030 1/20/2016 Mine Safety and Health Administration Chief of Staff DL160033 1/29/2016 Office of Management and Budget General Government Programs Confidential Assistant BO160013 1/7/2016 Office of the Director Confidential Assistant BO160015 1/12/2016 Office of Personnel Management Office of the Director Senior Advisor PM160014 1/7/2016 Small Business Administration Office of Field Operations Regional Administrator, Region VIII, Denver, Colorado SB160008 1/13/2016 Social Security Administration Office of the Commissioner Senior Advisor SZ160006 1/5/2016 Department Of State Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance Public Affairs Specialist DS160023 1/6/2016 Bureau for Education and Cultural Affairs Deputy Assistant Secretary DS160015 1/7/2016 Foreign Policy Planning Staff Foreign Affairs Officer DS160024 1/13/2016 Office of the Chief of Protocol Protocol Officer (Ceremonials) DS160021 1/19/2016 Department of Transportation Civil Rights Special Assistant DT160025 1/28/2016 Department of the Treasury Office of Assistant Secretary (Legislative Affairs) Special Assistant DY160022 1/11/2016 Office of the Secretary of the Treasury Special Assistant DY160024 1/19/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management Special Assistant DY160030 1/21/2016 United States International Trade Commission Office of Commissioner Pinkert Confidential Assistant TC160003 1/14/2016

    The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during January 2016.

    Agency name Organization name Position title Request number Date vacated Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service State Director DA120064 01/06/2016 Office of the Secretary Deputy White House Liaison DA150147 01/13/2016 Office of Communications Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications DA150151 01/15/2016 Farm Service Agency State Executive Director (Wisconsin) DA130186 01/23/2016 Department of Commerce Office of Public Affairs Deputy Speechwriter DC150153 01/09/2016 Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Associate Director of Legislative Affairs and Senior Advisor for Native American Affairs DC150064 01/15/2016 Economic Development Administration Senior Advisor DC140150 01/23/2016 Office of the Chief of Staff Senior Protocol Officer DC140122 01/23/2016 Office of the Secretary of Defense Office of the Secretary Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense DD150150 01/03/2016 Office of Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Policy Special Assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Forces DD150134 01/08/2016 Office of the Secretary Confidential Assistant to the Secretary of Defense DD070181 01/09/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs) Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia DD150036 01/16/2016 Department of the Air Force Office of the Under Secretary Special Assistant DF150024 01/29/2016 Department of Education Office of Communications and Outreach Confidential Assistant (2) DB150026 01/09/2016 DB140040 01/23/2016 Deputy Chief of Staff DB150117 01/23/2016 Office of the Secretary Special Assistant DB150043 01/09/2016 Deputy Director, Office of Educational Technology DB140012 01/23/2016 Office of the Under Secretary Deputy Director of the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education DB120072 01/09/2016 Deputy Director
  • (White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans)
  • DB150027 01/30/2016
    Office of Postsecondary Education Deputy Chief of Staff DB150096 01/23/2016 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Chief of Staff DB140049 01/29/2016 Department of Energy Office of Management Special Assistant DE140054 01/09/2016 Office of the Secretary Deputy White House Liaison DE140061 01/09/2016 Office of the Under Secretary for Science Senior Advisor DE140057 01/09/2016 Environmental Protection Agency Office of Advance Staff Deputy for Advance EP150007 01/16/2016 Office of the Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations Deputy Associate Administrator for Congressional Affairs EP130031 01/16/2016 Office of Public Affairs Speech Writer EP140031 01/23/2016 General Services Administration Office of Communications and Marketing Press Secretary GS150034 01/03/2016 Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Communications Director for Public Health DH150019 01/03/2016 Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs Director of Business Outreach DH140073 01/08/2016 Office of the Secretary White House Liaison for Political Personnel, Boards and Commissions DH130091 01/08/2016 Deputy White House Liaison DH140002 01/09/2016 Director of Scheduling and Advance DH140119 01/09/2016 Special Assistant DH140139 01/09/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Confidential Assistant DH150003 01/09/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation Special Assistant for Human Services DH140126 01/09/2016 Office of the Deputy Secretary Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary DH120045 01/09/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Confidential Assistant DH150178 01/29/2016 Department of Homeland Security Office of Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Legislative Affairs Specialist DM160035 01/08/2016 Office of the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate Advisor for Counterterrorism and Intelligence DM140246 01/10/2016 Confidential Assistant DM140218 01/10/2016 Federal Emergency Management Agency Special Assistant to the Administrator DM140112 01/23/2016 Office of the Executive Secretariat Writer-Editor DM140232 01/23/2016 Department of the Interior Office of Assistant Secretary (Water and Science) Counselor to the Assistant Secretary (Water and Science) DI140040 01/09/2016 Office of Assistant Secretary (Fish, Wildlife, and Parks) Advisor DI140073 01/15/2016 Secretary's Immediate Office Special Assistant DI140072 01/23/2016 Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Director, Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships DJ110002 01/09/2016 Policy Advisor DJ140117 01/23/2016 Senior Counsel DJ150084 01/30/2016 Office of Legislative Affairs Attorney Advisor DJ150080 01/09/2016 Office of the Associate Attorney General Deputy Chief of Staff and Counsel DJ150002 01/09/2016 Office of the Attorney General Special Assistant DJ150020 01/23/2016 Special Assistant and Scheduler DJ150082 01/23/2016 Department of Labor Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary DL150004 01/02/2016 Senior Policy Advisor DL140081 01/09/2016 Office of the Secretary Special Assistant DL150015 01/09/2016 White House Liaison DL140037 01/10/2016 Mine Safety and Health Administration Chief of Staff DL140100 01/23/2016 Office of the Deputy Secretary Special Assistant DL150024 01/23/2016 Office of the Secretary Special Assistant DL140048 01/23/2016 National Endowment for the Humanities Office of the Chairman Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff NH140005 01/23/2016 Office of Management and Budget Office of the Director Assistant to the Deputy Director for Management BO150030 01/02/2016 Office of Federal Procurement Policy Confidential Assistant BO150041 01/23/2016 Small Business Administration Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Assistant Administrator for Public Engagement SB150036 01/19/2016 Office of the Administrator Director of Scheduling and Advance SB140035 01/22/2016 Special Assistant for Scheduling and Advance SB150027 01/24/2016 Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Associate Administrator for Intergovernmental Affairs SB150037 01/23/2016 Department of State Office of the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources Senior Advisor DS140077 01/09/2016 Office of the Global Women's Issues Senior Advisor DS130098 01/18/2016 Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance Public Affairs Specialist DS150015 01/23/2016 Department of Transportation Office of General Counsel Associate General Counsel DT140057 01/09/2016 Department of the Treasury Office of the Secretary of the Treasury Special Assistant DY140114 01/09/2016 United States International Trade Commission Office of Commissioner Pinkert Executive Assistant TC120009 01/04/2016 Office of Commissioner Schmidtlein Confidential Assistant TC140010 01/22/2016 Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs Special Assistant DV130025 01/22/2016
    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11723 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Submission for Review: 3206-0237, Information and Instructions on Your Reconsideration Rights, RI 38-47 AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR) 3206-0237, Information and Instruction on Your Reconsideration Rights, RI 38-47. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. Law 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 18, 2016. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Retirement Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Alberta Butler, Room 2347-E or sent by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent by email to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 606-0910.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of OPM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    RI 38-47 outlines the procedures required to request reconsideration of an initial OPM decision about Civil Service or Federal Employees retirement, Federal or Retired Federal Employees Health Benefits requests to enroll or change enrollment or Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance coverage. This form lists the procedures and time periods required for requesting reconsideration.

    Analysis

    Agency: Retirement Operations, Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management.

    Title: Information and Instruction on Your Reconsideration Rights.

    OMB: 3206-0237.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Number of Respondents: 3,100.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 45 minutes.

    Total Burden Hours: 2325 hours.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11720 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Excepted Service; February 2016 AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from February 1, 2016, to February 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Services and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the Federal Register at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/. OPM also publishes an annual notice of the consolidated listing of all Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities, current as of June 30, in the Federal Register.

    Schedule A

    No Schedule A Authorities to report during February 2016.

    Schedule B Section 213.3250 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Sch. B)

    One position of Deputy Director; and one position of Associate Director of the Division of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending.

    Schedule C

    The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during February 2016.

    Agency name Organization name Position title Authorization No. Effective date Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service State Director DA160067 2/5/2016 Department of Commerce Office of the Chief of Staff Scheduling Assistant DC160083 2/2/2016 Commodity Futures Trading Commission Office of the Chairperson Special Advisor CT160001 2/3/2016 Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) Special Assistant for Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Plans DD160064 2/4/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Global Strategic Affairs) Special Assistant, Plans and Capabilities DD160033 2/10/2016 Department of Education Office of the Secretary Director of Advance DB160031 2/3/2016 Deputy Director, Education Technology DB160033 2/3/2016 Office of the Under Secretary Policy Advisor DB160022 2/10/2016 Department of Energy Office of the Deputy Secretary Special Assistant DE160038 2/10/2016 Office of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Deputy Press Secretary DE160059 2/10/2016 Office of Public Affairs Chief Speechwriter DE160060 2/10/2016 Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations Deputy Associate Administrator for Congressional Affairs EP160020 2/12/2016 Office of Information Analysis and Access Data Analyst EP160023 2/12/2016 Department of Homeland Security Office of Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator DM160124 2/5/2016 Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations Advisor DU160009 2/2/2016 Department of the Interior Secretary's Immediate Office Special Assistant DI160027 2/2/2016 Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs Attorney Advisor DJ160052 2/10/2016 Office on Violence Against Women Senior Advisor DJ160053 2/17/2016 Office of Public Affairs Chief Speechwriter DJ160054 2/18/2016 Office of Justice Programs Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships DJ160056 2/25/2016 Department of Labor Office of Disability Employment Policy Senior Advisor DL160032 2/5/2016 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Senior Advisor DL160034 2/11/2016 Office of Personnel Management Healthcare and Insurance Program Analyst PM160015 2/17/2016 Office of the United States Trade Representative Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison Director for Private Sector Engagement TN160004 2/5/2016 Small Business Administration Office of Communications and Public Liaison Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications SB160011 2/5/2016 Deputy Associate Administrator for Communications and Public Liaison SB160013 2/5/2016 Department of State Office of the Secretary Program Analyst DS160045 2/5/2016 Senior Advisor DS150108 2/29/2016 Department of the Treasury Office of Assistant Secretary for Management Confidential Assistant DY160034 2/2/2016 Special Advisor DY160035 2/2/2016 United States Mint Senior Advisor DY160036 2/2/2016 Office of Secretary of the Treasury Deputy White House Liaison DY160041 2/5/2016 Office of Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Outreach Manager DY160040 2/10/2016

    The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during February 2016.

    Agency name Organization name Position title Request number Vacate date Department of Commerce Office of Business Liaison Senior Advisor DC140011 02/05/2016 Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Special Assistant DC150138 02/05/2016 Office of the Secretary Of Defense Office of Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Policy Special Assistant to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Plans DD140125 02/06/2016 Office of the Secretary Advance Officer DD130123 02/06/2016 Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense DD130116 02/07/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Global Strategic Affairs) Special Assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Forces DD150013 02/09/2016 Department of Education Office of Communications and Outreach Assistant Press Secretary DB140053 02/12/2016 Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff EP150006 02/06/2016 Office of Public Affairs Advisor for Digital Strategy and Engagement EP140047 02/20/2016 Federal Maritime Commission Federal Maritime Commission Senior Legislative and Public Affairs Specialist MC160001 02/05/2016 Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Senior Advisor DH150163 02/05/2016 Special Assistant for Specialty Media DH140060 02/19/2016 Office of Communications Senior Advisor DH150039 02/12/2016 Department of Homeland Security Ombudsman, Citizenship and Immigration Services Public Affairs Specialist DM150013 02/01/2016 Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology DM150064 02/02/2016 Office of Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Director of Legislative Affairs for Intelligence and Analysis DM100222 02/06/2016 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Assistant Press Secretary DM150221 02/20/2016 Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Housing Public Affairs Specialist DU130013 02/23/2016 Office of Public Affairs Deputy Press Secretary DU110030 02/26/2016 Department of Labor Office of the Deputy Secretary Senior Policy Advisor DL150059 02/20/2016 Office of Personnel Management Office of the Director Assistant Director, Office of Public Engagement PM140028 02/20/2016 Small Business Administration Office of Communications and Public Liaison Deputy Assistant Administrator for Communications and Public Liaison SB150008 02/06/2016 Speechwriter SB150038 02/06/2016 Office of the Administrator Senior Advisor to the Administrator SB150055 02/20/2016 Department of State Office of the Secretary Special Assistant DS130052 02/28/2016 Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary Special Assistant to the Secretary DT150007 02/08/2016 Office of Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs Special Assistant DT140049 02/20/2016 Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11724 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77821; File No. SR-ISE-2016-13] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees May 12, 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 May 2, 2016, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the “Exchange” or the “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE proposes to eliminate Priority Customer complex order rebates for certain “net zero” complex orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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

    Currently, the Exchange provides rebates to Priority Customer 3 complex orders that trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order book or trade with quotes and orders on the regular order book. Rebates are tiered based on a member's average daily volume (“ADV”) executed during a given month as follows: 0 to 29,999 contracts (“Tier 1”), 30,000 to 59,999 contracts (“Tier 2”), 60,000 to 99,999 contracts (“Tier 3”), 100,000 to 149,999 (“Tier 4”), 150,000 to 199,999 contracts (“Tier 5”), and 200,000 or more contracts (“Tier 6”). In Select Symbols the rebate is $0.30 per contract for Tier 1, $0.35 per contract for Tier 2, $0.41 per contract for Tier 3, $0.44 per contract for Tier 4, $0.46 per contract for Tier 5, and $0.47 per contract for Tier 6. In Non-Select Symbols the rebate is $0.63 per contract for Tier 1, $0.71 per contract for Tier 2, $0.79 per contract for Tier 3, $0.81 per contract for Tier 4, $0.83 per contract for Tier 5, and $0.84 per contract for Tier 6.

    3 A “Priority Customer” is a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s), as defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A).

    Recently, a market participant has been entering a large volume of valueless complex orders that trade at a net price at or near $0.00 (i.e., “net zero” complex orders) with the sole intention of earning a rebate.4 While these complex orders would generally not find a counterparty in the complex order book, they may leg in to the regular order book where they are typically executed by Market Makers 5 on the individual legs. The fee that Market Makers quoting in Select Symbols pay when a complex order legs into their quote is substantially higher than their fee or rebate for regular orders that trade against their quotes. In particular, a Market Maker providing liquidity on the individual leg would typically pay a maker fee of only $0.10 per contract,6 or in the case of Market Makers that achieve Market Maker Plus status,7 would earn a maker rebate ranging from $0.10 per contract to $0.22 per contract. When trading against a Priority Customer complex order that legs in from the complex order book, however, that same Market Maker is charged a maker fee of $0.30 per contract.8 In Non-Select Symbols, Market Makers pay a fee of $0.25 per contract subject to certain tier discounts,9 or $0.20 per contract for orders sent by an Electronic Access Member.10

    4 For example, a market participant could enter a “net zero” complex order that buys 500 contracts of the $193 March 6, 2016 SPY Put at a price of $0.03 and sells 500 contracts of the $193.50 March 6, 2016 SPY Put at a price of $0.03 for a net price of $0.00.

    5 The term “Market Makers” refers to “Competitive Market Makers” and “Primary Market Makers” collectively. See ISE Rule 100(a)(25).

    6 This maker fee also applies to Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealer and Professional Customer orders in Select Symbols. Priority Customer orders are not charged a maker fee in Select Symbols for orders entered on the regular order book.

    A “Non-ISE Market Maker” is a market maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, registered in the same options class on another options exchange.

    A “Firm Proprietary” order is an order submitted by a member for its own proprietary account.

    A “Broker-Dealer” order is an order submitted by a member for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.

    A “Professional Customer” is a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.

    7 A Market Maker Plus is a Market Maker who is on the National Best Bid or National Best Offer a specified percentage of the time for series trading between $0.03 and $3.00 (for options whose underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was less than or equal to $100) and between $0.10 and $3.00 (for options whose underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was greater than $100) in premium in each of the front two expiration months. The specified percentage is at least 80% but lower than 85% of the time for Tier 1, at least 85% but lower than 95% of the time for Tier 2, and at least 95% of the time for Tier 3. A Market Maker's single best and single worst quoting days each month based on the front two expiration months, on a per symbol basis, will be excluded in calculating whether a Market Maker qualifies for this rebate, if doing so will qualify a Market Maker for the rebate.

    8 This higher maker fee for trading against a Priority Customer complex order that legs in to the regular order book also applies to Non-ISE Market Maker orders.

    9See Schedule of Fees, Section IV.C.

    10 There is no fee difference in Non-Select Symbols for trading against Priority Customer complex orders that leg in to the regular order book. Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer orders in Non-Select Symbols are charged a fee of $0.72 per contract. Priority Customer orders are not charged a fee in Non-Select symbols for orders entered on the regular order book.

    By entering essentially valueless complex orders, this market participant or others employing the same strategy are able to recover rebates for essentially non-economic trades at the expense of the Exchange and the market participants on the other side of the trade. This behavior is a form of rebate arbitrage, and the Exchange believes that it is in the best interest of the Exchange and its members to remove the incentives that promote this activity. The Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate Priority Customer rebates for “net zero” complex orders that are entered on behalf of originating market participants that execute an ADV of at least 10,000 “net zero” complex orders in a given month. For purposes of determining which complex orders qualify as “net zero” the Exchange will count all complex orders that leg in to the regular order book and are executed at a net price that is within a range of $0.01 credit and $0.01 debit.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,11 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,12 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is reasonable and equitable as it is designed to remove financial incentives for market participants to engage in rebate arbitrage by entering “net zero” complex orders on the Exchange that do not have any economic substance. As explained above, Priority Customer complex orders, including “net zero” complex orders that leg in to the regular order book, are currently paid significant rebates by the Exchange, which are funded in part by charging higher fees to the market participants that trade against these orders. The Exchange believes that eliminating the rebate provided to “net zero” complex orders will discourage market participants from entering these valueless orders, which are entered for the sole purpose of earning a rebate. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory as it is designed to stop market participants from taking advantage of Exchange rebates by entering orders that lack economic substance. The Exchange is proposing to eliminate Priority Customer complex order rebates for all market participants that enter a large number of “net zero” complex orders. To the extent that those market participants enter legitimate complex orders, however, they will continue to receive the same rebates that they do today. In addition, market participants that enter an insubstantial volume of “net zero” complex orders will also continue to receive rebates. The Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to continue to offer rebates to firms that do not hit the proposed “net zero” ADV threshold as this more limited trading activity is not indicative of rebate arbitrage.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,13 the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to eliminate the ability for certain market participants to engage in rebate arbitrage to the detriment of the Exchange and its members. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive environment.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    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 unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 14 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,15 because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

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

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File No. SR-ISE-2016-13 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2016-13. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. 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-ISE-2016-13 and should be submitted by June 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.16

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.

    16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    [FR Doc. 2016-11644 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77820; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-44] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31P(h) To Add a New Discretionary Pegged Order May 12, 2016.

    On March 11, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 7.31P(h) to add a new Discretionary Pegged Order. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 30, 2016.3 The Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule change,4 as well as a response from the Exchange.5

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77441 (March 24, 2016), 81 FR 17749.

    4See Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel, IEX Group, Inc., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated April 15, 2016; Letter from John C. Nagel, Managing Director and Senior Deputy General Counsel, Citadel LLC, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated April 20, 2016.

    5See Letter from Elizabeth K. King, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated April 27, 2016.

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 6 provides that, within 45 days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change is May 14, 2016. The Commission is extending this45-day time period.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,7 designates June 28, 2016, as the date by which the Commission should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-44).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.8

    8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11643 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77819; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-17] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Description of Price Improving Orders Under Subparagraph (6) to Rule 21.1(d) and Add Subparagraph (4) to Rule 21.1(h) Modifying the Operation of Orders Subject to the Display Price Sliding Process When a Contra-Side Post Only Order Is Received by the Bats EDGX Exchange Options Platform May 12, 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 May 3, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) 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: (i) Amend the description of Price Improving Orders under subparagraph (6) to Rule 21.1(d); and (ii) add subparagraph (4) to Rule 21.1(h) modifying the operation of orders subject to the display price sliding process when a contra-side Post Only Order 5 is received by the Exchange's options platform (“EDGX Options”).

    5See Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(8).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    (A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange is proposing to: (i) Amend the description of Price Improving Orders under subparagraph (6) to Rule 21.1(d); and (ii) add subparagraph (4) to Rule 21.1(h) modifying the operation of orders subject to the display price sliding process when a contra-side Post Only Order is received by EDGX Options.

    Price Improving Orders

    Price Improving Orders are orders to buy or sell an option at a specified price at an increment smaller than the minimum price variation in the security.6 Price Improving Orders may be entered in increments as small as (1) one cent. Price Improving Orders are displayed at the minimum price variation in the security and shall be rounded up for sell orders and rounded down for buy orders. Unless a User 7 has entered instructions not to do so, Price Improving Orders are subject to the “display-price sliding process” described in current Rule 21.1(h).

    6See Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(6).

    7 The term “User” means any Options Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3 (Access). See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(63).

    As described above, Price Improving Orders may be priced at an increment smaller than the minimum price variation in the security (i.e., for options priced in five (5) cent or ten (10) cent increments, an order priced at 1.03 is not a permissible increment for display). This may result in the order being ranked on the EDGX Options Book 8 non-displayed at a price increment smaller than the security's minimum price variation. The Exchange proposes to amend the description of Price Improving Orders under subparagraph (6) to Rule 21.1(d) to prevent Price Improving Orders subject to the Price Adjust process 9 from being ranked at a non-displayed price on the EDGX Options Book. The Exchange also proposes to amend subparagraph (6) to Rule 21.1(d) to clarify how Price Improving Orders subject to the display price sliding process are currently handled on the EDGX Options Book.

    8 “EDGX Options Book” is defined as “the electronic book of options orders maintained by the Trading System.” See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(9).

    9See Exchange Rule 21.1(i).

    First, the Exchange proposes to amend the description of Price Improving Orders under subparagraph (6) to Rule 21.1(d) to prevent Price Improving Orders subject to the Price Adjust process from being ranked at a non-displayed price on the EDGX Options Book. Under the Price Adjust process, an order that, at the time of entry, would lock or cross a Protected Quotation of another options exchange or the Exchange will be ranked and displayed by the System at one minimum price variation below the current NBO (for bids) or to one minimum price variation above the current NBB (for offers). This could result in Price Improving Orders in securities with minimum quoting increments of five (5) or ten (10) cents 10 that the User elected to be subject to the Price Adjust process to be ranked on the EDGX Options Book at a non-displayed price. To prevent such orders from being ranked at a non-displayed price, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (6) to Rule 21.1(d) to state that Price Improving Orders subject to the Price Adjust process will be ranked at the displayed price. Thus, other than a potential execution against contra-side liquidity when entered, a Price Improving Order subject to the Price Adjust process will no longer be priced at an increment smaller than the minimum price variation in the security.

    10See Exchange Rule 21.5 for a description of the Exchange's Minimum Increments.

    The following examples describe the proposed operation of Price Improving Orders subject to the Price Adjust process.

    Assume the NBBO is $1.00 x $1.05 and that the security's minimum quoting increment is five (5) cents. Further assume that there is no liquidity to sell resting on the EDGX Options Book at a price below $1.05. A Price Improving Order to buy priced at $1.03 is entered and the User has elected the Price Adjust process. Under current functionality, the order will be ranked, non-displayed on the EDGX Options Book at $1.03, the price of the order, and displayed at $1.00. As proposed, the order would be ranked and displayed at $1.00, the displayed price.

    Assume the same example as above except that when the Price Improving Order is entered (i.e., an order to buy priced at $1.03 subject to the Price Adjust process) there is a resting Price Improving Order to sell ranked at a price of $1.03 (i.e., an order subject to the display price sliding process). In this case, the Price Improving Order subject to the Price Adjust process would execute upon entry against the resting order at $1.03.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend subparagraph (6) to Rule 21.1(d) to clarify how Price Improving Orders subject to the display price sliding process are currently handled on the EDGX Options Book. While the Exchange believes the current operation of Price Improving Orders is clear based on existing rules, the Exchange believes this clarification is necessary due to the proposed changes. Particularly, in light of the change proposed above regarding Price Improving Orders subject to the Price Adjust process, the Exchange proposes to add language to subparagraph (d)(6) clarifying the operation of Price Improving Orders subject to the display price sliding process. As proposed, Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(6) would state that Price Improving Orders subject to the display-price sliding process will be ranked at the price entered by the User down to the current NBB (for offers) or up to the current NBO (for bids). The proposed language would make clear the current operation of such orders vis-a vis the proposed operation of Price Improving Orders subject to the Price Adjust process.

    Display Price Sliding Process and Post Only Orders

    Under current Exchange Rule 21.1(h), an order subject to the display price sliding process that, at the time of entry, would lock or cross a Protected Quotation of another options exchange will be ranked at the locking price in the EDGX Options Book and displayed by the System at one minimum price variation below the current National Best Offer (“NBO”) 11 (for bids) or to one minimum price variation above the current National Best Bid (“NBB”) 12 (for offers). Post Only Orders are orders that are to be ranked and executed on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 21.8 (Order Display and Book Processing) or cancelled, as appropriate, without routing away to another trading center.13 Currently, a Post Only Order will not remove liquidity from the EDGX Options Book unless the value of price improvement associated with such execution equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the order posted to the EDGX Options Book and subsequently provided liquidity. In order to prevent circumstances on the EDGX Options Book where an order is ranked at the displayed price of a resting contra-side order, which could result in apparent violations of the Exchange's priority rule, an incoming Post Only Order is currently rejected if it would be posted at the locking price of a contra-side order subject to the display price sliding process. In particular, accepting such order would result in a situation where an order is displayed on the Exchange and a contra-side order is ranked at the same price as such order. In turn, if an execution at that price is reported by the Exchange, the Exchange believes a User representing the order displayed on the Exchange might believe that an incoming order was received by the Exchange and then bypassed such order (i.e., removing some other liquidity on the same side of the market as the displayed order). As described in further detail below, the proposal will avoid the possibility of an execution of an order subject to display-price sliding at the same price as an order displayed on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the circumstance described above, where an incoming Post Only Order is rejected by the Exchange, is limited to times when the Exchange is not already quoting at the NBBO and a Post Only Order is seeking to join either the NBB or NBO but there is a resting display-price slid order on the contra-side of the Exchange's order book.

    11See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(29) (defining the terms “NBB”, “NBO”, and “NBBO”).

    12Id.

    13See Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(8).

    In order to facilitate the entry of orders priced at the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”), the Exchange proposes to add subparagraph (4) to Rule 21.1(h) modifying the operation of orders subject to the display price sliding process when a contra-side Post Only Order is received by EDGX Options. Under proposed subparagraph (4), to the extent an incoming Post Only Order would be ranked and displayed at a price equal to the ranked price of a contra-side order subject to display-price sliding (i.e., the locking price) the order subject to display-price sliding would be re-ranked at one (1) cent above the current NBB (for offers) or one (1) cent below the current NBO (for bids). An order subject to display price sliding that is re-ranked pursuant to proposed subparagraph (4) of Rule 21.1(h) would be re-ranked at the locking price in the event there is no longer displayed contra-side interest at the locking price. In both cases, the order would remain displayed by the System at one minimum price variation below the current NBO (for bids) or to one minimum price variation above the current NBB (for offers).

    The below examples describe the operation of orders subject to display price sliding under proposed subparagraph (4) to Rule 21.1(h).

    Example 1:

    Securities Quoted in Penny Increments—Proposed Operation. Assume the NBBO is $1.00 x $1.01 and that the Exchange's displayed best bid and offer (“BBO”) is $1.00 x $1.02. Also assume that a non-routable order to buy at $1.01 subject to display price sliding is resting on the EDGX Options Book, ranked at $1.01 and displayed at $1.00. Assume a Post Only Order to sell at $1.01 is entered and, under current functionality, would be rejected because it is executable at the locking price of the order to buy subject to display price sliding resting on the EDGX Options Book. As proposed, the order to buy subject to display price sliding would be re-ranked and would remain displayed at $1.00, one (1) cent below the current NBO. The Post Only Order to sell would be posted to the EDGX Options Book, ranked and displayed at $1.01 (i.e., allowing the Exchange to join the NBBO of $1.00 x $1.01). If the Post Only Order to sell is executed or cancelled, the order to buy subject to display price sliding would be re-ranked at $1.01, its original ranked price, and would remain displayed at $1.00.

    Example 2:

    Securities Quoted in Non-Penny Increments—Proposed Operation. Assume the NBBO is $1.00 x $1.05 and that the Exchange's BBO is $1.00 x $1.10. Also assume that a non-routable order to buy at $1.05 subject to display price sliding is resting on the EDGX Options Book, ranked at $1.05 and displayed at $1.00. Assume a Post Only Order to sell at $1.05 is entered and, under current functionality, would be rejected because it is executable at the locking price of the order to buy subject to display price sliding resting on the EDGX Options Book. As proposed, the order to buy subject to display price sliding would be re-ranked at $1.04, one (1) cent below the NBO, and would remain displayed at $1.00. The Post Only Order to sell would be posted to the EDGX Options Book, ranked and displayed at $1.05 (i.e., allowing the Exchange to join the NBBO of $1.00 x $1.01). If the Post Only Order to sell is executed or cancelled, the order to buy subject to display price sliding would be re-ranked at $1.05, its original ranked price, and would remain displayed at $1.00.

    The Exchange notes that similar behavior currently exists on the Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) equities platform that permits an order to buy(sell) subject to display price sliding to be executed at one-half minimum price variation more(less) than the price of a contra-side displayed BZX Post Only Order.14 Specifically, under BZX Rule 11.9(g)(1)(E), BZX Post Only Orders are permitted to post and be displayed opposite the ranked price of orders subject to display-price sliding. In the event an order subject to display-price sliding is ranked on the BZX Book 15 at a price equal to an opposite side order displayed by the Exchange, it cannot be executed at that price and instead will be subject to processing as set forth in BZX Rule 11.13(a)(4)(D). Under BZX Rule 11.13(a)(4)(D), in the event that an incoming order is a market order or is a limit order priced more aggressively than the displayed order, BZX will execute the incoming order at, in the case of an incoming sell order, one-half minimum price variation less than the price of the displayed order, and, in the case of an incoming buy order, at one-half minimum price variation more than the price of the displayed order. This behavior is designed to avoid an apparent priority issue. In particular, in such a situation the Exchange believes a User representing an order that is displayed on the Exchange might believe that an incoming order was received by the Exchange and then bypassed such displayed order, removing some other non-displayed liquidity on the same side of the market as such displayed order. Similar to what the Exchange proposes for EDGX Options, the above described functionality on its equites platform also effectively changes the ranked price of the order subject to display price sliding. Although the underlying solution is intended to solve the same circumstance, because half-penny executions are not permitted with respect to options transactions, on EDGX Options the Exchange proposes to adjust the ranked price of the display-price slid order when a contra-side Post Only order is received by EDGX and posted at the locking price.

    14See BZX Rule 11.9(c)(6).

    15See BZX Rule 1.5(e).

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.16 In particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 17 because it is designed to encourage displayed liquidity and offer market participants greater flexibility to post liquidity on the EDGX Options Book, thereby promoting just and equitable principles of trade, fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, removing impediments to, and perfecting the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.

    16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    Price Improving Orders

    The proposed changes to the description of Price Improving Orders under Rule 21.1(d)(6) promote just and equitable principles of trade and foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities. Specifically, the proposed change regarding Price Improving Orders subject to the Price Adjust process is designed to prevent the possibility of an internally crossed book where a Price Improving Order has already been submitted and is ranked non-displayed by the Exchange and a Post Only Order subject to the Price Adjust process is entered at a price increment smaller than the security's minimum price increment and that crosses the resting order.

    In addition, the proposed amendment to Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(6) to clarify that Price Improving Orders subject to the display-price sliding process will be ranked at the price entered by the User down to the current NBB (for offers) or up to the current NBO (for bids) also promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it is consistent with and further clarifies the current operation of such orders. In addition, the addition of such language should avoid potential investor confusion regarding the operation of such orders with regard to the proposed language amending the operation of Price Improving Orders subject to the Price Adjust process.

    Display Price Sliding Process and Post Only Orders

    Under current functionality, an incoming Post Only Order would be rejected if it is executable at the locking price of a contra-side order subject to display price sliding resting on the EDGX Options Book. This, at times, inhibits market participants, including Market Makers 18 from utilizing Post Only Orders to quote at the NBBO. Post Only Orders allow Users to post aggressively priced liquidity, as such Users have certainty as to the fee or rebate they will receive from the Exchange if their order is executed. Without such ability and by rejecting such Post Only Orders in scenarios described herein, the Exchange believes that certain Users would simply post less aggressively priced liquidity, and prices available for market participants, including retail investors, would deteriorate. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade by enhancing the liquidity available to all market participants by allowing Market Makers and other liquidity providers to add liquidity to the Exchange at the NBBO without fear that their order would be rejected. In addition, the proposed rule change would assist Market Makers in satisfying their two-sided quoting obligations under Exchange Rules 22.5(a)(1) and 22.6(d)(1). The proposed rule change should increase displayed liquidity at the NBBO on the Exchange, resulting in improved market quality and price discovery for all participants. The Exchange also notes that similar behavior currently exists on BZX's equities platform that permits an order to buy(sell) subject to display price sliding to be executed at one-half minimum price variation more(less) than the price of a contra-side displayed BZX Post Only Order.19

    18See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(37).

    19See BZX Rules 11.9(g)(1)(E) and 11.13(a)(4)(D). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64754 (June 27, 2011), 76 FR 38712 (July 1, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-015) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Amend BATS Rule 11.9, Entitled “Orders and Modifiers” and BATS Rule 11.13, Entitled “Order Execution”).

    (B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change regarding display price sliding and Post Only Orders would enhance competition by enabling market participants to post liquidity at the NBBO, thereby increasing the liquidity on the Exchange at the NBBO. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed amendments to Price Improving Orders would does not impact competition, but rather seeks to avoid the potential of an internally crossed book on the Exchange as well as to further clarify the operation of such orders when subject to the display price sliding process. For all the reasons stated above, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and believes the proposed change will enhance competition.

    (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. 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 20 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.21 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 22 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.23

    20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    21 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    23 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 24 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 25 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 proposed rule change will benefit market participants by enhancing their ability to post liquidity at the NBBO, and that waiver of the operative delay may increase displayed liquidity at the NBBO on the Exchange, resulting in improved market quality and price discovery for all participants in a timely manner. Further, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will not require any systems changes by Exchange Users that would necessitate a delay, as the Exchange will now accept and no longer reject Post Only Orders in the situations described herein. 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.26 The Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the proposal operative upon filing.

    24 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    25 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    26 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-BatsEDGX-2016-17 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-BatsEDGX-2016-17. 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 will also 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-BatsEDGX-2016-17 and should be submitted on or before June 8, 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. 2016-11642 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736 Extension: Rule 13e-1 SEC File No. 270-255, OMB Control No. 3235-0305

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.

    Rule 13e-1 (17 CFR 240.13e-1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78 et seq.) makes it unlawful for an issuer who has received notice that it is the subject of a tender offer made under Section 14(d)(1) of the Exchange Act to purchase any of its equity securities during the tender offer, unless it first files a statement with the Commission containing information required by the rule. This rule is in keeping with the Commission's statutory responsibility to prescribe rules and regulations that are necessary for the protection of investors. Public companies are the respondents. We estimate that it takes approximately 10 burden hours per response to provide the information required under Rule 13e-1 and that the information is filed by approximately 10 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 10 hours per response (2.5 hours) is prepared by the company for a total annual reporting burden of 25 hours (2.5 hours per response × 10 responses).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11639 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77822; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-043] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees Schedule May 12, 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 May 2, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Frequent Trader Program. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. On April 1, 2016, the Exchange adopted a program that offers transaction fee rebates to Customers (origin code “C”) that meet certain volume thresholds in CBOE VIX Volatility Index options (“VIX options”) and S&P 500 Index options (“SPX”), weekly S&P 500 options (“SPXW”) and p.m.-settled SPX Index options (“SPXpm”) (collectively referred to as “SPX options”) provided the Customer registers for the program (the “Frequent Trader Program” or “Program”).3

    3See SR-CBOE-2016-023.

    To participate in the Frequent Trader Program, Customers register with the Exchange. Once registered, the Customer is provided a unique identification number (“FTID”) that can be affixed to each of its orders. The FTID allows the Exchange to identify and aggregate all electronic and manual trades during both the Regular Trading Hours and Extended Trading Hours sessions from that Customer for purposes of determining whether the Customer meets any of the various volume thresholds. The Customer has to provide its FTID to the Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) submitting that Customer's order to the Exchange (executing agent” [sic] or “executing TPH”) and that executing TPH would have to enter the Customer's FTID on each of that Customer's orders.4 As there are instances in which a Customer's FTID was not or could not be, affixed to an order, the Exchange also provided executing TPHs the ability to submit to the exchange [sic] a form (the “Frequent Trader Program—Volume Corrections Form” or “Corrections Form”) that would provide a mechanism for executing TPHs to identify transactions to the Exchange that should have been, but were not, associated with particular FTIDs. More specifically, the executing TPH can identify on the form the “correct” FTID that should be associated with a specific transaction, so that such volume is properly counted towards the appropriate Customer's aggregated volume for purposes of determining what tier, if any, the customer meets. Currently, the Fees Schedule provides that the Corrections Form must be submitted to the Exchange within 3 business days in order to ensure timely processing (“3 business day rule”).

    4 The Exchange notes that it is the responsibility of the Customer to request that the executing TPH affix its FTID to its order(s), and that it is voluntarily for the executing TPH to do so.

    The Exchange now proposes to provide that for the month of April 2016, it will not enforce the requirement that the Corrections Form be submitted within 3 business days and instead provide that the Corrections Form will be accepted through May 4, 2016 (by 5:00 p.m. CST), for all transactions, regardless of when in April the transaction(s) occurred. Specifically, the Exchange notes that a number of executing TPHs were unable to (i) affix FTIDs onto their Customers' orders and (ii) complete and submit the Corrections Form within 3 business days for their Customers registered in the Frequent Trader Program. Many TPHs are still familiarizing themselves with this new program and its requirements and as such the Exchange desires to give them additional time to implement their systems and procedures, including their systems and procedures related to completing and submitting the Corrections Form. Additionally, the Exchange does not wish to penalize the Customers who would miss out on rebates they would otherwise be entitled to if the deadline is not extended. Accordingly, the Exchange does not wish to enforce the 3 business day rule for April 2016. The Exchange believes providing additional time to submit Corrections Forms will ensure Customers are not unfairly deprived of any rebates that they are entitled to under the Frequent Trader Program for the month of April.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.5 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 6 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 7 requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    7Id.

    In particular, the Exchange believes not enforcing the 3 business day rule for the month of April 2016 provides executing TPHs additional time to submit Corrections Forms, which removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protects investors and the public interest as it avoids penalizing Customers who would otherwise miss out on rebates they are entitled to under the Frequent Trader Program. Corrections Forms allow the Exchange to ensure that a customer's total volume at the end of the month accurately reflects their real trading volume, including volume from transactions that, upon submission of the order, did not reflect their FTID. As noted above, many TPHs are still in the process of familiarizing themselves with the new Frequent Trader Program and its requirements and do not yet have the systems or procedures in place to process the Corrections Forms within the timeframe the Exchange initially required. As such, the Exchange does not believe it would be fair to the Customers to enforce the 3 business day rule for the first month of the Frequent Trader Program (i.e., April 2016). Additionally, waiving the 3 business day rule for April 2016 eliminates confusion in that it gives the executing TPHs extra time to understand the requirements of the Program and implement policies, procedures, and system changes needed to properly take advantage of the program, which again removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protects investors and the public interest.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change applies uniformly to all executing TPHs of Customer FTID orders and because it provides for a clear process to rectify scenarios in which a FTID(s) were not or could not be applied to Customer's order and where Corrections Forms were not submitted in a timely manner in April 2016. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because it only applies to trading on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.9

    8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Commission has determined to waive the five business day requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 10 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 11 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. Consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, waiver of the 30-day operative delay will provide TPHs with additional time (to May 4) to submit Corrections Forms for participating Customer transactions that occurred in April under the new Frequent Trader Program, which should help TPHs acclimate to the new process for submitting their participating Customer trades to CBOE and thereby ensure that their April volume under the program accurately reflects their trading volume. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.12

    10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    12 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

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

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2016-043 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-CBOE-2016-043. 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-CBOE-2016-043, and should be submitted on or before June 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.13

    13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11645 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77823; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-034] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Split-Price Priority May 12, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on May 6, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to split-price priority. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

    (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed]) Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules Rule 1.1. Definitions

    When used in these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires:

    (a)-(eee) No change.

    Voluntary Professional

    (fff) The term “Voluntary Professional” means any person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities that elects, in writing, to be treated in the same manner as a broker or dealer in securities for purposes of Rules 6.2A, 6.2B, 6.8C, 6.9, 6.13A, 6.13B, 6.25, 6.45, 6.45A (except for Interpretation and Policy .02), 6.45B (except for Interpretation and Policy .02), 6.47, 6.53C(c)(ii), 6.53C(d)(v), subparagraphs (b) and (c) under Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C, 6.74 (except Voluntary Professional orders may be considered public customer orders subject to facilitation under paragraphs (b) and (d)), 6.74A, 6.74B, 8.13, 8.15(d), 8.87, 24.19, 43.1, 44.4, 44.14, and for cancellation fee treatment. The Voluntary Professional designation is not available in Hybrid 3.0 classes.

    Professional

    (ggg) The term “Professional” means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). A Professional will be treated in the same manner as a broker or dealer in securities for purposes of Rules 6.2A, 6.2B, 6.8C, 6.9, 6.13A, 6.13B, 6.25, 6.45, 6.45A (except for Interpretation and Policy .02), 6.45B (except for Interpretation and Policy .02), 6.47, 6.53C(c)(ii), 6.53C(d)(v), subparagraphs (b) and (c) under Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C, 6.74 (except Professional orders may be considered public customer orders subject to facilitation under paragraphs (b) and (d)), 6.74A, 6.74B, 8.13, 8.15(d), 8.87, 24.19, 43.1, 44.4, 44.14. The Professional designation is not available in Hybrid 3.0 classes. All Professional orders shall be marked with the appropriate origin code as determined by the Exchange.

    . . . Interpretations and Policies: .01 No change. (hhh)—(sss) No change. . . . Interpretations and Policies: .01—.05 No change. Rule 6.47. Priority on Split-Price Transactions Occurring in Open Outcry

    (a) [Purchase or sale]Split-Price [p]Priority. If an order or offer (bid) for any number of contracts of a series is represented to the crowd, a Trading Permit Holder that buys [purchases] (sells) one or more [option ]contracts of that order or offer (bid)[a particular series] at one[a particular] price[ or prices, he shall, at the next lower (higher) price at which a Trading Permit Holder other than the Order Book Official is bidding (offering),] will have priority [in] over all other orders and quotes, except public customer orders resting in the book, to buy [purchasing ](sell[ing]) up to the [equivalent]same number of [option] contracts of those remaining from the same order or offer (bid)[series that he purchased (sold)] at the next lower (higher[ (lower]) price[ or prices, but only if his bid (offer) is made promptly and the purchase (sale) so effected represents the opposite side of a transaction with the same order or offer (bid) as the earlier purchase or purchases (sale or sales). This paragraph only applies to transactions effected in open outcry].

    (b) [Purchase or sale]Split-Price [p]Priority for O[o]rders or Offers (Bids) of 100 or More [c]Contracts[ or more]. If an order or offer (bid) of 100 or more contracts of a series is represented to the crowd, a Trading Permit Holder that buys[purchases] (sells) 50[fifty] or more of the [option ]contracts of that order or offer (bid)[a particular series] at one[a particular] price [or prices, he shall, at the next lower (higher) price]will have priority [in]over all other orders and quotes to buy [purchasing ](sell[ing]) up to the [equivalent ]same number of [option ]contracts of those remaining from the same [series that he purchased (sold)]order or offer (bid) at the next lower (higher[ (lower]) price[ or prices, but only if his bid (offer) is made promptly and the purchase (sale) so effected represents the opposite side of a transaction with the same order or offer (bid) as the earlier purchase or purchases (sale or sales)]. The Exchange may increase the [“]minimum qualifying [order ]size[” above] of 100 contracts on a class-by-class basis[.], [Announcements regarding]which changes [to the minimum qualifying order size shall be made]the Exchange will announce via Regulatory Circular.[ This paragraph only applies to transactions effected in open outcry.]

    (c) Two or [m]More Trading Permit Holders [e]Entitled to [p]Priority. If the bids or offers of two or more Trading Permit Holders are both entitled to split-price priority[ in accordance with paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)], it [shall]will be afforded [them insofar as]to the extent practicable[,] on a pro-rata basis.

    (d) Conditions. Split-price priority is subject to the following:

    (i) The priority is available for open outcry transactions only and does not apply to complex orders.

    (ii) The Trading Permit Holder must make its bid (offer) at the next lower (higher) price for the second (or later) transaction at the same time as the first bid (offer) or promptly following execution of the first (or earlier) transaction.

    (iii) The second (or later) purchase (sale) must represent the opposite side of a transaction with the same order or offer (bid) as the first (or earlier) purchase (sale).

    (e) Minimum Increment Width with Public Customer Orders Resting in the Book. If the width of the quote for a series is the minimum increment for that series, and both the bid and offer represent public customer orders resting in the book, split-price priority pursuant to this rule is not available to Trading Permit Holders until the public customer order(s) resting in the book on either side of the market trades.

    . . . Interpretations and Policies: .01-.02 No change.

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Rule 6.47 establishes priority principles for split-price transactions occurring in open outcry. Generally, a Trading Permit Holder that purchases (sells) one or more contracts of a series at a particular price will have priority over other Trading Permit Holders, other than those representing orders in the limit order book, in purchasing (selling) up to an equivalent number of contracts of the same order at the next lower (higher) price. For orders of 100 or more contracts, Trading Permit Holders that trade 50 or more contracts of such orders at a particular price will have this priority over all other Trading Permit Holders at the next best price, including those representing orders in the limit order book. This priority is awarded for split-price transactions that occur in open outcry only.

    Minimum Increment Width Series

    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 6.47(e) to codify an exception to the availability of split-price priority when the width of a series' quote is at the minimum increment width. If the width of the quote for a series is the minimum increment for that series (e.g., $1.00-$1.05 for a series with a minimum increment of $0.05, $1.00-$1.01 for a series with a minimum increment of $0.01), and both the bid and offer represent public customer orders resting in the book, split-price priority pursuant to this rule is not available to Trading Permit Holders until the public customer order(s) resting in the book on either side of the market trades.3 This exception is consistent with the Exchange's allocation and priority rules, which provide for public customer orders to have first priority at the best price in open outcry (subject to applicable exceptions).4

    3 This exception is currently set forth in Regulatory Circular RG07-076.

    4See Rules 6.45A(b)(i)(A) and 6.45B(b)(i)(A).

    For example, assume the market for a series with a minimum increment of $0.05 is $1.00-$1.05 (with the $1.00 bid and $1.05 offer each representing a customer order for 25 contracts), and a Floor Broker receives an order from a customer that would like to buy 100 contracts at a price or prices no higher than $1.05. The Floor Broker attempts to execute the order in open outcry at a price better than the displayed offer of $1.05. Assume a Market-Maker is willing to sell 50 contracts at $1.00 and 50 contracts at $1.05. The “first transaction” of this split-price transaction would be 50 contracts at $1.00. However, there is customer interest resting at $1.00, which would have time priority to trade at $1.00.5 Therefore, in this situation, if the Market-Maker wants to receive split-price priority at $1.05, the Market-Maker would not be able to execute the first part of a split-price transaction with the order being represented by the Floor Broker until after the resting customer order at $1.00 trades.

    5See id.

    The proposed rule change provides that “either side of the market” must trade for split-price priority to become available. The rule provides that a Trading Permit Holder is eligible to receive split-price priority, which could include the Trading Permit Holder representing the order or offer (quote). Thus, the proposed rule change allows for the Trading Permit Holder on either side of a transaction to be eligible for split-price priority. Assume the market for a series with a minimum increment of $0.05 is $1.00-$1.05 (with the $1.00 bid and $1.05 offer each representing a customer order for 25 contracts), and a Floor Broker receives an order from a customer that would like to buy 100 contracts at a price or prices no higher than $1.05. After receiving no interest from the crowd to sell 100 contracts at $1.00, the Floor Broker represents to the crowd that it would like to buy 50 contracts at $1.00 and 50 contracts at $1.05. Assume a Market-Maker is willing to sell 50 contracts at $1.00 and 50 contracts at $1.05. In a separate transaction, the public customer order at $1.05 trades against an order of another market participant. The “first transaction” of this split-price transaction would be 50 contracts at $1.05 (at which price there is no more resting public customer offer) and the “second transaction” of this split-price transaction would be 50 contracts at $1.00, the next best price for the Floor Broker. In this situation, the Floor Broker is eligible to receive split-price priority at $1.00 over the resting customer interest at $1.00 and achieve a better net price execution of $1.025 for its customer order.

    Other than the limited exception to customer priority afforded in Rule 6.47(b) (and as elsewhere set forth in the rules),6 public customer orders continue to have first priority and other allocation and priority rules remain unchanged. The Exchange believes that specifying the unavailability of split-price priority in this specific situation will further clarify the applicability of the priority in the rules.

    6 For example, the rules provide for a complex order priority exception (see Rules 6.45(e), 6.45A(b)(ii) and 6.45B(b)(ii).

    Multiple Prices

    Rule 6.47(a) and (b) currently provides that split-price priority may apply to executions of an order at multiple prices. The proposed rule change removes the references to multiple prices from those paragraphs. The Exchange believes the priority should only apply at the next price level rather than multiple price levels.

    Nonsubstantive Changes

    The Exchange proposes to make the following nonsubstantive changes to Rule 6.47(a), (b) and (c):

    • The proposed rule change amends the headings of and adds introductory language to paragraphs (a) and (b).

    • The proposed rule change revises the language in paragraphs (a) and (b) to simplify the description of when the split-price priority applies to improve readability. The priority will still apply in the same manner—a Trading Permit Holder may buy (sell) one or more contracts for one series of an order or offer (bid) (the “first transaction”) 7 and receive priority over all other orders and quotes (except public customer orders resting in the book with respect to orders or offers (bids) of fewer than 100 contracts or orders or offers (bids) with which Trading Permit Holders do not purchase (sell) at least 50 contracts at the better price) to buy (sell) up to the same number of contracts of those remaining from the same order or offer (bid) at the next best price (the “second transaction”). This second transaction must still occur with the same order or offer (quote) as the first transaction. For example, assume the market is $1.00-$1.20 with size of 300 contracts, and a Floor Broker receives an order from a customer that would like to buy 500 contracts at a price or prices no higher than $1.20. The Floor Broker attempts to execute the order in open outcry at a price better than the displayed offer of $1.20. Now assume a Market-Maker in the crowd is willing to sell 250 contracts at $1.15 and 250 contracts at $1.20. The Market-Maker could offer $1.15 for 250 contracts and then, by virtue of the split-price priority rule, have priority for the 250 contract balance over other crowd members at $1.20. The resulting net execution price for the customer would be $1.175, which is better than the displayed market of $1.20 and thus a better fill for the customer.8

    7 The Exchange notes that the current rule contemplates that an order or quote can represent the series with which a Trading Permit Holder may transact to receive split-price priority. The current rule uses the phrase “contracts of a particular series,” which includes both orders and quotes, and indicates that the purchase (sale) effected represents the opposite side of a transaction with the “same order or offer (bid)” as the earlier purchase (sale), which again contemplates multiple transactions with a single originating order or quote. The proposed rule change makes clear throughout that an order or quote can comprise the originating contracts with which the crowd can trade to obtain split-price priority.

    8 While the net price result will be $1.175, two separate trades at $1.15 and $1.20 would be reported.

    • Paragraph (a) currently provides that the Trading Permit Holder must yield to the Order Book Official. The proposed rule change amends the term Order Book Official to public customer. Other priority rules refer to “public customer” priority,9 and Rule 6.47(a) provides priority in the circumstances described except over public customer orders.10 Order Book Officials only present to the crowd public customer orders that rest in the book, so the priority afforded pursuant to paragraph (a) must still yield to the same public customer orders in the same manner. This change is merely an update to terminology, as public customer orders may be presented to the floor other than by Order Book Officials.11 The Exchange believes it is appropriate to use the same terminology that is used in other priority rules to ensure consistency throughout the Exchange's rules and ensure that all public customer orders receive priority when applicable.

    9See, e.g., Rules 6.45A(b)(i)(A) and 6.45B(b)(i)(A).

    10 The proposed rule change amends Rule 1.1(fff) and (ggg) to add Rule 6.47 to the list of rules for which Voluntary Professionals and Professionals, respectively, will be treated in the same manner as a broker or dealer. Professionals and Voluntary Professionals do not receive priority as public customers do pursuant to CBOE's allocation rules, including Rules 6.45A(b) and 6.45B(b) regarding open outcry trading. Under those rules, Professionals and Voluntary Professionals would not receive priority, including if public customer orders must be cleared prior to a Trading Permit Holder availing itself of split-price priority. The proposed rule change explicitly states this in the Professional and Voluntary Professional definitions.

    11 Additionally, the Exchange no longer has Order Book Officials.

    • Paragraphs (a) and (b) currently state that a Trading Permit Holder's bid (offer) at the next best price must be made promptly following the purchase (sale) at the initial price. The proposed rule change deletes that language from those paragraphs and adds it to new paragraph (d) to include with other conditions to which split-price priority is subject. In addition, the proposed rule change adds that the second bid (offer) may also be made at the same time as the first bid (offer). If a Trading Permit Holder makes the first bid (offer) with the intent of taking advantage of the split-price priority, then it may be more efficient for the Trading Permit Holder to announce both bids (offers) at the same time than to wait for the first execution.12 The Trading Permit Holder is still not guaranteed execution at the second price; another Trading Permit Holder may still bid (offer) to trade with part of the order or offer (quote) at the better first price.

    12 For example, a Floor Broker may represent an order to sell at “$1.15 and $1.20 splits,” indicating a desire to buy half of the order at $1.15 and the other half at $1.20 with priority at $1.20.

    • Paragraphs (a) and (b) currently state that they apply only to open outcry transactions. The proposed rule change deletes that language from those paragraphs and adds it to new paragraph (d) to include with other conditions to which split-price priority is subject. Paragraphs (a) and (b) also state that split-price priority applies to transactions in a particular series (i.e. simple orders, but not complex orders). The proposed rule change explicitly states the priority does not apply to complex orders in new paragraph (d).

    • Paragraphs (a) and (b) currently state that the Trading Permit Holder eligible for split-price priority must make its bid (offer) promptly and the purchase (sale) represents the opposite side of a transaction with the same order or offer (bid). The proposed rule change uses this phrase throughout the rule for consistency. The proposed rule change also deletes the provision that requires the subsequent transaction must be with the same order or offer (bid) from paragraphs (a) and (b) and adds it to new paragraph (d).

    • The proposed rule change makes other administrative and clerical changes to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) (e.g., capitalizing words in headings, changing the word purchase to buy, deletion of word option before contract since only option contracts execute on the Exchange). The Exchange believes these changes have no impact on the split-price priority afforded by the rule.

    • The proposed rule change refers to the priority afforded by Rule 6.47(a) and (b) as “split-price priority” to further simplify the rule text.

    The Exchange believes these nonsubstantive changes more clearly describe the applicability of the split-price priority and better reflect the use of split-price priority on the trading floor.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.13 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 14 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 15 requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    15Id.

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the purpose of the existing split-price priority, which is to induce Trading Permit Holders to bid (offer) at better prices for an order or offer (bid) that may require execution at multiple prices (such as larger orders), which will result in a better average price for the originating Trading Permit Holder (or its customer).

    The proposed rule change to codify the split-price priority exception when the width of a series' quote is the minimum increment for that series and each side of the quote represents public customer interest will benefit investors by including all information regarding when split-price priority is available in a single rule. This proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange's priority and allocation rules. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to codify this exception, as well as the proposed rule change to eliminate split-price priority at multiple price levels, balances the availability of split-price priority, which benefits investors by providing opportunities for price improvement, with customer priority, which promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing public customers access to CBOE's market.

    The proposed rule change to amend the definitions of Voluntary Professional and Professional clarify that, for purposes of Rule 6.47, as is the case for all other allocation rules, those participants will be treated as broker-dealers rather than public customers for allocation purposes. The same result occurs under current allocation rules, as those rules provide with respect to open outcry priority that public customers in the book receive priority (and the definitions of Voluntary Professional and Professional provide that those participants are treated as broker-dealers for purposes of those rules); this merely clarifies it in the Rules.

    The Exchange believes the nonsubstantive changes to Rule 6.47 will benefit investors by describing the applicability of split-price priority more simply and clearly. The revised language is also more consistent with other Exchange rules regarding priority.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The priority afforded by Rules 6.47(a) and (b) continues to be available to all Trading Permit Holders who trade open outcry, of which all Trading Permit Holders that engage in open outcry trading may avail themselves. Rules often apply to open outcry trading only because of the different nature of the open outcry market versus the electronic market (such as allocation rules). The proposed rule change may result in better pricing for customer orders submitted to the trading floor, particularly those that may require execution at multiple prices, and market participants may submit orders to CBOE to take advantage of these better prices. CBOE believes that the proposed rule change will continue to encourage Trading Permit Holders on CBOE's trading floor to bid or offer better prices, thus creating more opportunities for price improvement, which ultimately enhances competition. The nonsubstantive changes and codification of the applicability of split-price priority in a minimum width market do not impact the manner in which split-price priority applies and thus have no effect on competition.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received 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 16 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.17 Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.

    16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its 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.

    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 will 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-CBOE-2016-034 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-034. 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-CBOE-2016-034, and should be submitted on or before June 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.18

    18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11652 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736 Extension: Schedule 14D-9F SEC File No. 270-339, OMB Control No. 3235-0382

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.

    Schedule 14D-9F (17 CFR 240.14d-103) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 et seq.) is used by any foreign private issuer incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada or by any director or officer of such issuer, where the issuer is the subject of a cash tender or exchange offer for a class of securities filed on Schedule 14D-1F. The information required to be filed with the Commission is intended to permit verification of compliance with the securities law requirements and assures the public availability of such information. The information provided is mandatory and all information is made available to the public upon request. We estimate that Schedule 14D-9F takes approximately 2 hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 6 respondents annually for a total reporting burden of 12 hours (2 hours per response × 6 responses).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11640 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77818; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-16] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Add Subparagraph (5) to Rule 21.1(h) Modifying the Operation of Orders Subject to the Display Price Sliding Process When a Contra-Side Post Only Order Is Received by the Bats BZX Exchange Options Platform May 12, 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 May 3, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to add subparagraph (5) to Rule 21.1(h) modifying the operation of orders subject to the display price sliding process when a contra-side Post Only Order 5 is received by the Exchange's options platform (“BZX Options”).

    5See Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(8).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    (A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange is proposing to add subparagraph (5) to Rule 21.1(h) modifying the operation of orders subject to the display price sliding process when a contra-side Post Only Order is received by BZX Options.

    Under current Exchange Rule 21.1(h), an order subject to the display price sliding process that, at the time of entry, would lock or cross a Protected Quotation of another options exchange will be ranked at the locking price in the BZX Options Book 6 and displayed by the System at one minimum price variation below the current National Best Offer (“NBO”) 7 (for bids) or to one minimum price variation above the current National Best Bid (“NBB”) 8 (for offers). Post Only Orders are orders that are to be ranked and executed on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 21.8 (Order Display and Book Processing) or cancelled, as appropriate, without routing away to another trading center.9 Currently, a Post Only Order will not remove liquidity from the BZX Options Book unless the value of price improvement associated with such execution equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the order posted to the BZX Options Book and subsequently provided liquidity. In order to prevent circumstances on the BZX Options Book where an order is ranked at the displayed price of a resting contra-side order, which could result in apparent violations of the Exchange's priority rule, an incoming Post Only Order is currently rejected if it would be posted at the locking price of a contra-side order subject to the display price sliding process. In particular, accepting such order would result in a situation where an order is displayed on the Exchange and a contra-side order is ranked at the same price as such order. In turn, if an execution at that price is reported by the Exchange, the Exchange believes a User 10 representing the order displayed on the Exchange might believe that an incoming order was received by the Exchange and then bypassed such order (i.e., removing some other liquidity on the same side of the market as the displayed order). As described in further detail below, the proposal will avoid the possibility of an execution of an order subject to display-price sliding at the same price as an order displayed on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the circumstance described above, where an incoming Post Only Order is rejected by the Exchange, is limited to times when the Exchange is not already quoting at the NBBO and a Post Only Order is seeking to join either the NBB or NBO but there is a resting display-price slid order on the contra-side of the Exchange's order book.

    6 “BZX Options Book” is defined as “the electronic book of options orders maintained by the Trading System.” See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(9).

    7See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(29) (defining the terms “NBB”, “NBO”, and “NBBO”).

    8Id.

    9See Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(8).

    10 “User” is defined as “any Options Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3 (Access).” See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(63).

    In order to facilitate the entry of orders priced at the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”), the Exchange proposes to add subparagraph (5) to Rule 21.1(h) modifying the operation of orders subject to the display price sliding process when a contra-side Post Only Order is received by BZX Options. Under proposed subparagraph (5), to the extent an incoming Post Only Order would be ranked and displayed at a price equal to the ranked price of a contra-side order subject to display-price sliding (i.e., the locking price) the order subject to display-price sliding would be re-ranked at one (1) cent above the current NBB (for offers) or one (1) cent below the current NBO (for bids). An order subject to display price sliding that is re-ranked pursuant to proposed subparagraph (5) of Rule 21.1(h) would be re-ranked at the locking price in the event there is no longer displayed contra-side interest at the locking price. In both cases, the order would remain displayed by the System at one minimum price variation below the current NBO (for bids) or to one minimum price variation above the current NBB (for offers).

    The below examples describe the operation of orders subject to display price sliding under proposed subparagraph (5) to Rule 21.1(h).

    Example 1:

    Securities Quoted in Penny Increments—Proposed Operation. Assume the NBBO is $1.00 × $1.01 and that the Exchange's displayed best bid and offer (“BBO”) is $1.00 × $1.02. Also assume that a non-routable order to buy at $1.01 subject to display price sliding is resting on the BZX Options Book, ranked at $1.01 and displayed at $1.00. Assume a Post Only Order to sell at $1.01 is entered and, under current functionality, would be rejected because it is executable at the locking price of the order to buy subject to display price sliding resting on the BZX Options Book. As proposed, the order to buy subject to display price sliding would be re-ranked and would remain displayed at $1.00, one (1) cent below the current NBO. The Post Only Order to sell would be posted to the BZX Options Book, ranked and displayed at $1.01 (i.e., allowing the Exchange to join the NBBO of $1.00 × $1.01). If the Post Only Order to sell is executed or cancelled, the order to buy subject to display price sliding would be re-ranked at $1.01, its original ranked price, and would remain displayed at $1.00.

    Example 2:

    Securities Quoted in Non-Penny Increments—Proposed Operation. Assume the NBBO is $1.00 × $1.05 and that the Exchange's BBO is $1.00 × $1.10. Also assume that a non-routable order to buy at $1.05 subject to display price sliding is resting on the BZX Options Book, ranked at $1.05 and displayed at $1.00. Assume a Post Only Order to sell at $1.05 is entered and, under current functionality, would be rejected because it is executable at the locking price of the order to buy subject to display price sliding resting on the BZX Options Book. As proposed, the order to buy subject to display price sliding would be re-ranked at $1.04, one (1) cent below the NBO, and would remain displayed at $1.00. The Post Only Order to sell would be posted to the BZX Options Book, ranked and displayed at $1.05 (i.e., allowing the Exchange to join the NBBO of $1.00 × $1.01). If the Post Only Order to sell is executed or cancelled, the order to buy subject to display price sliding would be re-ranked at $1.05, its original ranked price, and would remain displayed at $1.00.

    The Exchange notes that similar behavior currently exists on its equities platform that permits an order to buy(sell) subject to display price sliding to be executed at one-half minimum price variation more(less) than the price of a contra-side displayed BZX Post Only Order.11 Specifically, under Exchange Rule 11.9(g)(1)(E), BZX Post Only Orders are permitted to post and be displayed opposite the ranked price of orders subject to display-price sliding. In the event an order subject to display-price sliding is ranked on the BZX Book 12 at a price equal to an opposite side order displayed by the Exchange, it cannot be executed at that price and instead will be subject to processing as set forth in Rule 11.13(a)(4)(D). Under Exchange Rule 11.13(a)(4)(D), in the event that an incoming order is a market order or is a limit order priced more aggressively than the displayed order, the Exchange will execute the incoming order at, in the case of an incoming sell order, one-half minimum price variation less than the price of the displayed order, and, in the case of an incoming buy order, at one-half minimum price variation more than the price of the displayed order. This behavior is designed to avoid an apparent priority issue. In particular, in such a situation the Exchange believes a User representing an order that is displayed on the Exchange might believe that an incoming order was received by the Exchange and then bypassed such displayed order, removing some other non-displayed liquidity on the same side of the market as such displayed order. Similar to what the Exchange proposes for BZX Options, the above described functionality on its equites platform also effectively changes the ranked price of the order subject to display price sliding. Although the underlying solution is intended to solve the same circumstance, because half-penny executions are not permitted with respect to options transactions, on BZX Options the Exchange proposes to adjust the ranked price of the display-price slid order when a contra-side Post Only order is received by BZX and posted at the locking price.

    11See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(6).

    12See BZX Rule 1.5(e).

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.13 In particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 14 because it is designed to encourage displayed liquidity and offer market participants greater flexibility to post liquidity on the BZX Options Book, thereby promoting just and equitable principles of trade, fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, removing impediments to, and perfecting the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    Under current functionality, an incoming Post Only Order would be rejected if it is executable at the locking price of a contra-side order subject to display price sliding resting on the BZX Options Book. This, at times, inhibits market participants, including Market Makers 15 from utilizing Post Only Orders to quote at the NBBO. Post Only Orders allow Users to post aggressively priced liquidity, as such Users have certainty as to the fee or rebate they will receive from the Exchange if their order is executed. Without such ability and by rejecting such Post Only Orders in scenarios described herein, the Exchange believes that certain Users would simply post less aggressively priced liquidity, and prices available for market participants, including retail investors, would deteriorate. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade by enhancing the liquidity available to all market participants by allowing Market Makers and other liquidity providers to add liquidity to the Exchange at the NBBO without fear that their order would be rejected. In addition, the proposed rule change would assist Market Makers in satisfying their two-sided quoting obligations under Exchange Rules 22.5(a)(1) and 22.6(d)(1). The proposed rule change should increase displayed liquidity at the NBBO on the Exchange, resulting in improved market quality and price discovery for all participants. The Exchange also notes that similar behavior currently exists on its equities platform that permits an order to buy(sell) subject to display price sliding to be executed at one-half minimum price variation more(less) than the price of a contra-side displayed BZX Post Only Order.16

    15See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(37).

    16See Exchange Rules 11.9(g)(1)(E) and 11.13(a)(4)(D). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64754 (June 27, 2011), 76 FR 38712 (July 1, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-015) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Amend BATS Rule 11.9, Entitled “Orders and Modifiers” and BATS Rule 11.13, Entitled “Order Execution”).

    (B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would enhance competition by enabling market participants to post liquidity at the NBBO, thereby increasing the liquidity on the Exchange at the NBBO. For all the reasons stated above, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and believes the proposed change will enhance competition.

    (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. 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 17 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.18 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 19 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.20

    17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    18 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    20 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 21 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 22 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 proposed rule change will benefit market participants by enhancing their ability to post liquidity at the NBBO, and that waiver of the operative delay may increase displayed liquidity at the NBBO on the Exchange, resulting in improved market quality and price discovery for all participants in a timely manner. Further, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will not require any systems changes by Exchange Users that would necessitate a delay, as the Exchange will now accept and no longer reject Post Only Orders in the situations described herein. 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.23 The Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the proposal operative upon filing.

    21 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    22 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    23 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-BatsBZX-2016-16 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-BatsBZX-2016-16. 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 will also 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-BatsBZX-2016-16 and should be submitted on or before June 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.24

    24 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11641 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77817; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-10] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 612, Aggregate Risk Manager (“ARM”) May 12, 2016.

    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 29, 2016, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 612, Aggregate Risk Manager (“ARM”).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 612, Aggregate Risk Manager (“ARM”), to modify the minimum Allowable Engagement Percentage (as described below) determined by Exchange Market Makers, and to codify the Exchange's existing practice of establishing default ARM settings, as described below. The Exchange is also proposing two minor technical amendments to Rule 612(a), as described below.

    ARM protects MIAX Market Makers 3 and assists them in managing risk by limiting the number of contracts they execute in an option class on the Exchange within a specified time period that has been established by the Market Maker (a “specified time period”). MIAX Market Makers establish a percentage of their quotations (the “Allowable Engagement Percentage” or “AEP”) and the specified time period for each option class in which they are appointed.4 The System activates the Aggregate Risk Manager when it has determined that a Market Maker has traded a number of contracts equal to or above their AEP during the specified time period. When an execution against a Market Maker's Standard quote 5 or Day eQuote (as defined below) occurs, the System looks back over the specified time period to determine whether the execution is of sufficient size to trigger the Aggregate Risk Manager. The Aggregate Risk Manager then automatically cancels and removes the Market Maker's Standard quotes and/or Day eQuotes from the Exchange's disseminated quotation in all series of that particular option class until the Market Maker sends a notification to the System of the intent to reengage quoting and submits a new revised quotation in the affected class.

    3 The term “Market Maker” refers to a “Lead Market Maker,” “Primary Lead Market Maker” and “Registered Market Maker” collectively. A Lead Market Maker is a Member registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in securities traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of these Rules with respect to Lead Market Makers. A Primary Lead Market Maker is a Lead Market Maker appointed by the Exchange to act as the Primary Lead Market Maker for the purpose of making markets in securities traded on the Exchange. A Registered Market Maker is a Member registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in securities traded on the Exchange, who is not a Lead Market Maker. See Exchange Rule 100.

    4 The Exchange's Board or designated committee appoints one Primary Lead Market Maker and other Market Makers to each options class traded on the Exchange. For a complete description of the Exchange's appointment process, see Exchange Rule 602.

    5 A Standard quote is a quote submitted by a Market Maker that cancels and replaces the Market Maker's previous Standard quote, if any. See Exchange Rule 517(a)(1).

    Any eQuotes 6 other than Day eQuotes 7 present in the market are not cancelled by the Aggregate Risk Manager.

    6 An eQuote is a quote with a specific time in force that does not automatically cancel and replace a previous Standard quote or eQuote. An eQuote can be cancelled by the Market Maker at any time, or can be replaced by another eQuote that contains specific instructions to cancel an existing eQuote. See Exchange Rule 517(a)(2).

    7 A Day eQuote is a quote submitted by a Market Maker that does not automatically cancel or replace the Market Maker's previous Standard quote or eQuote. Day eQuotes will expire at the close of trading each trading day. See Exchange Rule 517(a)(2)(i).

    Currently, Exchange Rule 612(a) states that the Market Maker will establish for each option class an AEP that cannot be less than 100%.

    First, the proposed amendments to Rule 612(a) would modify the existing rule to allow a Market Maker to establish an AEP at any percentage level for an option class in which such Market Maker is appointed. The Exchange believes that this change will give Market Makers the ability to better manage their risk and help them avoid trading a number of contracts that exceeds the Market Maker's risk tolerance level across multiple series when multiple series are executed in rapid succession.8

    8 All of a Market Maker's quotes in each option class will be considered firm until such time as the AEP threshold has been equaled or crossed and the Market Maker's quotes are removed by the Aggregate Risk Manager in all series of that option class. Any marketable orders, or quotes that are executable against a Market Maker's disseminated quotation that are received prior to the time the Aggregate Risk Manager is engaged will be automatically executed at the disseminated price up to the Market Maker's disseminated size, regardless of whether such an execution results in executions in excess of the Market Maker's AEP. See Exchange Rule 612(c).

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enable individual Market Makers to enhance their risk management for an individual option class or for multiple classes as market conditions warrant, based on their own risk tolerance level and quoting behavior. Market Makers will be able to more precisely customize their risk management within the MIAX System than previously permitted, taking into account such factors as the market conditions both present and anticipated, news that may affect an option class in which they are appointed, a sudden change in the volatility of an option, and other considerations affecting their risk management, without any limitation as to the level of the AEP that will trigger the Aggregate Risk Manager. The proposed rule change will provide greater ability for Market Makers to adapt more exact and precise risk controls based on the Market Maker's risk tolerance levels.

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 612 to codify the Exchange's existing practice of establishing a default specified time period and a default AEP if such values are not established by a Market Maker. Currently, Exchange Rule 612(a) states that the specified time period cannot exceed 15 seconds. The proposed rule change would provide that the 15-second maximum will apply whether the specified time period is established by the Market Maker or as a default setting.

    The proposed rule change codifies that the Exchange will establish a default specified time period and a default AEP (“default settings”) on behalf of Market Makers that have not established a specified time period and/or an AEP. The purpose of the default settings is to assist Market Makers in managing their risk in the event that they have not established a specified time period and/or an AEP in a particular appointed option and trading in such appointed option becomes active. For example, a Market Maker might not establish a specified time period or an AEP in an appointed option that has a relatively low average daily volume. If such an appointed option becomes extremely active due to news, world events or overall market changes, the default settings are in place to ensure that the Market Maker's quotations are protected and removed from the Exchange's disseminated quotation when the default setting threshold has been reached. The default settings benefit not only the Market Maker but the marketplace as a whole by enhancing stability and maintaining fair and orderly markets on MIAX when the settings are not established by the Market Maker, and ensure that all Exchange Market Makers are protected by ARM regardless of whether they establish ARM settings on their own. The default settings will be determined by the Exchange on an Exchange-wide basis and announced to Members via Regulatory Circular. The proposed rule change will serve to notify all market participants that the Exchange will establish the default settings for Market Makers and will apply them to all appointed option classes in which a Market Maker has not determined its specified time period or AEP. Any changes to the default settings will also be announced to Members via Regulatory Circular.

    The current rule states that the specified time period cannot exceed 15 seconds. This 15-second limitation will apply to the specified time period whether it is established by a Market Maker or set by the Exchange by default; thus the proposed rule change would clarify in the rule text that the specified time period cannot exceed 15 seconds, whether established by the Market Maker or as a default setting. Additionally, although the proposed rule states that the default AEP shall not be less than 100%, this Exchange-established default AEP setting will not limit a Market Maker's ability to establish an AEP of less than or greater than 100%. A Market Maker may establish the AEP for an appointed option class at any level. The Exchange will apply the default settings when a specified time period and/or an AEP has not been established by a Market Maker appointed in an option class. The current default specified time period setting is 1 second. The current default AEP setting is 105%. The Exchange does not propose to change the current default settings in the instant proposed rule change.

    The Exchange is proposing two minor technical changes to Exchange Rule 612(a). First, the Rule currently refers to a Market Maker's “assigned” option classes. In order to maintain uniformity within Rule 612, the Exchange proposes to replace the word “assigned” with the word “appointed,” as it is used later in the Rule.9 Additionally, the current Rule states that “[T]he Market Maker will also establish for each option class an Allowable Engagement Percentage . . .” Because of the new codification of the default AEP setting established by the Exchange on behalf of a Market Maker that has not established an AEP in a given appointed class, the Exchange proposes to state that a Market Maker “may” establish an AEP, with the understanding that an AEP will be established by the Exchange on the Market Maker's behalf if not set by the Market Maker.

    9See Exchange Rule 612, Interpretations and Policies .02(a).

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change by Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 60 days following the operative date of the proposed rule. The implementation date will be no later than 60 days following the issuance of the Regulatory Circular.

    2. Statutory Basis

    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 11 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 mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    Market Makers are obligated to submit continuous two-sided quotations in a certain number of series in their appointed option classes for a certain percentage of each trading session,12 rendering them vulnerable to risk from unusual market conditions, volatility in specific option classes, and other market events that may cause them to receive multiple, extremely rapid automatic executions before they can adjust their quotations and overall risk exposure in the market. The ability of each Market Maker to adapt their specified time period and AEP to current market conditions is a valuable tool in assisting Market Makers in risk management. The proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by giving Market Makers the means to establish an AEP that corresponds to their ability to assume the risks inherent in quoting in a marketplace in which executions are instant and quotations must be changed rapidly to account for volatility. This protects investors and the public interest by ensuring that liquidity providers such as Exchange Market Makers are able to quote aggressively within their risk tolerance levels with respect to both price and size, resulting in narrower bid/ask differentials and deeper liquidity on the Exchange, all to the benefit and protection of investors and the public interest.

    12 For a complete description of MIAX Market Maker quoting obligations, see Exchange Rule 604.

    The proposed default settings further protect investors and the public interest by enhancing the risk management features provided by the Exchange on behalf of Market Makers that have not established a specified time period and/or AEP. The default settings provide Market Makers with risk management tools implemented by the Exchange in the event that a Market Maker has not determined the duration of the specified time period or the AEP for an option class in which the Market Maker is appointed.

    Without adequate risk management tools in place on the Exchange, the incentive for Exchange Market Makers to quote aggressively respecting both price and size could be diminished, and could result in a concomitant reduction in the depth and liquidity they provide to the market. Such a result may undermine the quality of the markets that would otherwise be available to customers and other market participants. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to help Market Makers better manage their risk exposure by giving them the ability to more precisely tailor their AEP to the market conditions present. This should encourage Market Makers to provide additional depth and liquidity to the Exchange's markets, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.

    Significantly, the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest because it codifies and enhances certain features of a risk management tool that is currently available to MIAX Market Makers. The elimination of the minimum AEP threshold requirement simply provides more alternatives to Market Makers in setting their AEP, on a class-by-class basis, without affecting their firm quote obligations. A Market Maker may set its AEP at any level (whether greater than, equal to, or less than 100%) in an appointed option, depending on that Market Maker's evaluation of its own risk tolerance level for that appointed option. The default settings serve to further enhance Market Makers' confidence in the Exchange's ability to assist them in their management of risk, and Market Makers are therefore likely to quote more aggressively in price and size, resulting in potentially narrower bid/ask differentials and deeper liquidity on the Exchange, serving to benefit and protect investors and the public interest.

    The proposed rule change also promotes just and equitable principles of trade by codifying the Exchange's current practice of establishing the default settings, thus providing Exchange Market Makers with additional protection in risk management mechanisms on the Exchange. The default settings are proposed to reduce the risks associated with their Market Making obligations. Finally, the proposed rule change is designed to protect investors and the public interest by helping Market Makers prevent executions resulting from activity that exceeds their risk tolerance level under these rules as established by the Exchange and by codifying the Exchange's existing practices concerning default ARM settings.

    The Exchange further notes that its proposal regarding minimum and default settings is consistent with rules that are currently in place on other exchanges.

    For example, the International Securities Exchange LLC (“ISE”) does not impose any minimum AEP or specified time period equivalent on its market makers, but the requirement for ISE market makers to provide these parameters is mandatory. ISE Rule 804(g) requires its market makers to provide parameters by which the Exchange will automatically remove a market maker's quotations. ISE Rule 804(g) differs from the instant proposed rule change in that it has no default percentage or time period settings if not established by the ISE market maker.

    BATS BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BATS BZX”) Rule 21.16, Risk Monitor Mechanism, states that a single BATS user may configure a single counting program or multiple counting programs to govern its trading activity (i.e., on a per port basis). Just as with ARM, the BATS Risk Monitor Mechanism is based in part on a percentage based trigger (similar to the AEP), measured against the number of contracts executed as a percentage of the number of contracts outstanding within a time period designated by the Exchange (“percentage trigger”). The percentage trigger is calculated similarly to the AEP: The BATS counting program first calculates, for each series of an option class, the percentage of a User's order size in the specified class or a BATS market maker's quote size in the appointed class that is executed on each side of the market, including both displayed and non-displayed size; the counting program then sums the overall series percentages for the entire option class to calculate the percentage trigger. Like the MIAX proposal, BATS BZX Rule 21.16 has no minimum AEP equivalent or minimum specified time period. Unlike the MIAX proposal, BATS BZX does not establish default settings on behalf of its market makers.13

    13 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (“CBOE”) market makers may (but are not required to) establish parameters similar to the specified time period (the CBOE equivalent is a rolling time period in milliseconds) and the AEP. CBOE has no default settings. See CBOE Rule 8.18.

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will not relieve Exchange Market Makers of their continuous quoting obligations under Exchange Rule 604 and under Reg NMS Rule 602.14 All of a Market Maker's quotes in each option class will be considered firm until such time as the AEP threshold has been equaled or exceeded and the Market Maker's quotes are removed by the Aggregate Risk Manager in all series of that option class.15

    14 17 CFR 242.602.

    15See Exchange Rule 612(c).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    On the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will foster competition by providing Exchange Market Makers with the ability to enhance and specifically customize their use of the Exchange's risk management tools in order to compete for executions and order flow.

    As to inter-market competition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change should promote competition because it is designed to allow Exchange Market Makers with flexibility to modify their risk exposure in order to protect them from unusual market conditions or events that may increase their exposure in the market.

    For all the reasons stated, 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, and believes the proposed change will in fact enhance competition.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 16 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 17 thereunder.

    16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    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 No. SR- MIAX-2016-10 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-10. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-10 and should be submitted on or before June 8, 2016.

    18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.18

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11651 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9567] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor Application ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.

    DATES:

    The Department will accept comments from the public up July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Web: Persons with access to the Internet may comment on this notice by going to www.Regulations.gov. You can search for the document by entering “Docket Number: DOS-2016-0030” in the Search field. Then click the “Comment Now” button and complete the comment form.

    Email: [email protected] You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Taylor Mauck, who may be reached at 202-485-7635 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Information Collection: Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor Application.

    OMB Control Number: 1405-0101.

    Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.

    Originating Office: CA/VO/L/R.

    Form Number: DS-156E.

    Respondents: Non-Immigrant Visa Applicants.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 48,600.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 48,600.

    Average Time per Response: 4 Hours.

    Total Estimated Burden Time: 194,400 hours.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit.

    We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.

    • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.

    Abstract of Proposed Collection

    Section 101(a)(15)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E), includes provisions for the nonimmigrant classification of a national of a country with which the United States maintains an appropriate treaty of commerce and navigation who is coming to the United States to: (i) Carry on substantial trade, including trade in services or technology, principally between the United States and the treaty country; or (ii) develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which the national has invested, or is actively in the process of investing. Form DS-156E is completed by foreign nationals seeking nonimmigrant treaty trader/investor visas to the United States. The Department will use the DS-156E to elicit information necessary to determine a foreign national's visa eligibility.

    Methodology

    After completing Form DS-160, Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application, applicants will fill out the DS-156E online, print the form, and submit it in person or via mail.

    Dated: April 29, 2016. Ed Ramotowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11728 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9566] Notice of Public Meeting ACTION:

    The Department of State will conduct an open meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 1st, 2016, in Room 2N23-02, United States Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20593-7213. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 103rd Session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Legal Committee to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, June 8-10, 2016.

    The agenda items to be considered include:

    —HNS Protocol, 2010 —Fair treatment of seafarers in the event of a maritime accident —Provision of financial security in case of abandoned seafarers —Technical cooperation activities related to maritime legislation —Review of the status of conventions and other treaty instruments emanating from the Legal Committee —Any other business, which may include liability and compensation for transboundary oil pollution arising from offshore exploration and exploitation.

    Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, Ms. Bronwyn Douglass, by email at [email protected], by phone at (202) 372-3793, or in writing at 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7213, Washington DC 20593-7509 not later than May 27, 2016. Requests made after May 27, 2016 might not be able to be accommodated, and same day requests will not be accommodated due to the building's security process. Please note that due to security considerations, two valid, government issued photo identifications must be presented to gain entrance to Coast Guard Headquarters. It is recommended that attendees arrive to the Headquarters building no later than 30 minutes ahead of the scheduled meeting for the security screening process. The Headquarters building is accessible by taxi and public transportation. Parking in the vicinity of the building is extremely limited and not guaranteed.

    In the case of inclement weather where the Federal Government is closed or delayed, a public meeting may be conducted virtually by calling (202) 475-4000 or 1-855-475-2447, Participant code: 887 809 72. The meeting coordinator will confirm whether the virtual public meeting will be utilized. Members of the public can find out whether the Federal Government is delayed or closed by visiting www.opm.gov/status/. Additional information regarding this and other IMO public meetings may be found at: www.uscg.mil/imo.

    Dated: May 10, 2016. Jonathan W. Burby, Coast Guard Liaison Officer, Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11727 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9568] Updated List of Goods and Services Produced by Independent Cuban Entrepreneurs Authorized for Importation AGENCY:

    Department of State.

    Subagency: Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Notice, publication of updated list of goods and services produced by independent Cuban entrepreneurs authorized for importation into the United States.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 22, 2016, the Department of State published on its Web site an updated list of goods and services produced by independent Cuban entrepreneurs whose importation into the United States is authorized by the Department of the Treasury's Cuban Assets Control Regulations (“CACR”). This list updates the version of the list published on February 13, 2015. These changes allow for more engagement with Cuba's private sector through new business opportunities.

    DATES:

    April 22, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation, tel.: 202-647-7489; Office of the Coordinator for Cuban Affairs, tel.: 202-647-9273, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Availability

    This document and additional information concerning the List are available from the Department of State's Web site (http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/cuba/515582/237471.htm). Additional information about the President's new course on Cuba is also on the Web site (www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/cu/cuba/).

    Background

    On January 16, 2015, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published a final rule in the Federal Register (80 FR 2291, Jan. 16, 2015) amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), 31 CFR part 515, to implement the President's December 17, 2014, policy announcement on Cuba. Section 515.582 of the CACR was added to authorize persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to engage in all transactions, including payments, necessary to import certain goods and services produced by independent Cuban entrepreneurs as determined by the State Department as set forth on the State Department's Section 515.582 List. Empowering the Cuban people and Cuban civil society is central to the Administration's approach to Cuba, which seeks to create new opportunities for Cuba's nascent private sector. The State Department's Section 515.582 List was first published February 13, 2015 on its Web site and went into effect immediately upon publication.

    On April 22, 2016, the State Department updated the Section 515.582 List, authorizing persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to import coffee and additional textiles and textile articles produced by independent Cuban entrepreneurs, in addition to the items previously authorized. The updated List also removes the requirement that imports of authorized goods need to be made directly from Cuba. These changes allow for more engagement with Cuba's private sector through new business opportunities.

    The List published on the State Department's Web site on April 22, 2016, replaces in full the version of the List published on February 13, 2015. The List is as follows, and may be updated by the State Department periodically.

    U.S. Department of State Section 515.582 List Goods and Services Eligible for Importation

    In accordance with the policy changes announced by the President on December 17, 2014, to further engage and empower the Cuban people, Section 515.582 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR part 515—the CACR) authorizes the importation into the United States of certain goods and services produced by independent Cuban entrepreneurs as determined by the State Department as set forth on the Section 515.582 List, below.

    Goods

    The goods whose import is authorized by Section 515.582 are goods produced by independent Cuban entrepreneurs, as demonstrated by documentary evidence, that are imported into the United States, except for goods specified in the following sections/chapters of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS):

    • Section I: Live Animals; Animal Products ○ All chapters • Section II: Vegetable Products ○ All chapters, except Chapter 9 heading 0901 (coffee)

    **Please note that exporters will be required to prove that they have met all sanitary and phytosanitary standards, including food safety.

    • Section III: Animal or Vegetable Fats and Oils and their Cleavage Products; Prepared Edible Fats; Animal or Vegetable Waxes ○ All chapters • Section IV: Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirits, and Vinegar; Tobacco and Manufactured Tobacco Substitutes ○ All chapters • Section V: Mineral Products ○ All chapters • Section VI: Products of the Chemical or Allied Industries ○ Chapters 28-32; 35-36, 38 • Section XV: Base Metals and Articles of Base Metal ○ Chapters 72-81 • Section XVI: Machinery and Mechanical Appliances; Electrical Equipment; Parts Thereof; Sound Recorders and Reproducers, Television Image and Sound Recorders and Reproducers, and Parts and Accessories of Such Articles ○ All chapters • Section XVII: Vehicles, Aircraft, Vessels, and Associated Transportation Equipment ○ All chapters • Section XIX: Arms and Ammunition; Parts and Accessories Thereof ○ All chapters This list does not supersede or excuse compliance with any additional requirements in U.S. law or regulation, including the relevant duties as set forth on the HTS.

    For travelers importing authorized goods into the United States pursuant to § 515.582 as accompanied baggage, the $400 monetary limit set forth in § 515.560(c)(3) does not apply to such goods, but goods may be subject to applicable duties, fees, and taxes.

    Services

    The authorized services pursuant to 31 CFR 515.582 are services supplied by an independent Cuban entrepreneur in Cuba, as demonstrated by documentary evidence. Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction engaging in import transactions involving services supplied by an independent Cuban entrepreneur pursuant to § 515.582 are required to obtain documentary evidence that demonstrates the entrepreneur's independent status, such as a copy of a license to be self-employed issued by the Cuban government or, in the case of an entity, evidence that demonstrates that the entrepreneur is a private entity that is not owned or controlled by the Cuban government. Supply of services must comply with other applicable state and federal laws.

    Note 1:

    All payments in settlement of transactions authorized by § 515.582 should reference this section in order to avoid having them rejected.

    Note 2:

    The authorization in § 515.582 of the CACR does not supersede or excuse compliance with U.S. laws or regulations or any other additional requirements.

    Note 3:

    The Department of State, in consultation with other federal agencies, reserves the right to update this document periodically. Any subsequent updates will take effect when published on the Web page of the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs' Office of Sanctions Policy and Implementation (http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi). Updates will also be published in the Federal Register. For further information, please contact the State Department at 202-647-7489.

    Note 4:

    For provisions relating to recordkeeping and reports, see 31 CFR 501.601 and 501.602 and 19 CFR part 163.

    With this notice, the Department of State is publishing its April 22, 2016, Section 515.582 List.

    Charles H. Rivkin, Assistant Secretary, Economic and Business Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11730 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-AE-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD [Docket No. FD 35995] South Carolina Division of Public Railways d/b/a Palmetto Railways—Acquisition Exemption—Hampton & Branchville Railroad Company

    South Carolina Division of Public Railways d/b/a Palmetto Railways (Palmetto), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire three connecting line segments that constitute the entire rail line of Hampton & Branchville Railroad Company (H&B), a total distance of approximately 45.77 miles in Colleton and Hampton Counties, S.C. (H&B Line): (1) From a connection with CSX Transportation, Inc., at milepost 0.0 in Hampton to milepost 16.8 at H&B Junction, a distance of 16.8 miles; (2) from the end of track at milepost 462.37 in Lodge through H&B Junction and Stokes to the end of track at milepost 443.18 in Walterboro, a distance of 19.19 miles; and (3) from approximately milepost 447 at Stokes to the end of track at milepost 456.78 in Canadys, a distance of 9.78 miles.1

    1 Palmetto states that no rail service has been provided on the H&B Line since H&B's final customer ceased rail shipments in December 2012. Palmetto also states that the stub track between H&B Junction and Lodge has not been in service since 1986, and the stub track between Stokes and Walterboro has not been in service since 1989. According to Palmetto, certain trackage on both stubs has been removed, but neither segment has been abandoned.

    Palmetto has certified that the transaction does not involve any provision or agreement that would limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier.

    Palmetto states that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in Palmetto's becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier, but that its projected annual revenues will exceed $5 million. Accordingly, Palmetto is required, at least 60 days before this exemption is to become effective, to send notice of the transaction to the national offices of the labor unions with employees on the affected line, post a copy of the notice at the workplace of the employees on the affected line, and certify to the Board that it has done so. 49 CFR 1150.42(e). Palmetto's verified notice, however, includes a request to waive that requirement. Palmetto states that H&B has not conducted any rail operations in more than three years and does not have any employees, other than its president. Palmetto asserts that providing the 60-day notice would serve no useful purpose because it is merely acquiring the Line to prevent abandonment. Palmetto's waiver request will be addressed in a separate decision.

    Palmetto states that it expects to consummate the transaction on or after August 5, 2016.2 The Board will establish in the decision on the waiver request the earliest date this transaction may be consummated.

    2 Palmetto states that H&B and Palmetto have agreed upon the terms of an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement providing for Palmetto's acquisition of all of H&B's right, title, and interest in the H&B Line. According to Palmetto, the Agreement will be fully executed after Palmetto receives the necessary state agency approvals. Palmetto states that it will concurrently execute a Loan and Security Agreement with Colleton County Intermodal Corporation (CCIC) and Colleton County providing for CCIC's financing of the acquisition transaction through the issuance of economic development revenue bonds.

    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than May 25, 2016.

    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35995, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Thomas J. Litwiler, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606.

    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV”.

    Decided: May 13, 2016.

    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.

    Tammy Lowery, Clearance Clerk.
    [FR Doc. 2016-11721 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Determination Regarding Waiver of Discriminatory Purchasing Requirements With Respect to Goods and Services of Ukraine AGENCY:

    Office of the United States Trade Representative.

    ACTION:

    Determination regarding waiver of discriminatory purchasing requirements under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

    DATES:

    Effective May 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: