Federal Register Vol. 80, No.104,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 104 (June 1, 2015)

Page Range30919-31297
FR Document

80_FR_104
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 31090 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 31091 - In the Matter of America West Resources, Inc., Sonoma Valley Bancorp, and WorldStar Energy, Corp.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 31091 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSEMKT Rule 13-Equities and Related Rules Governing Order Types and ModifiersPDF
80 FR 31095 - Privacy Act of 1974, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 30997 - Monsanto Co.; Availability of Preliminary Plant Pest Risk Assessment and Draft Environmental Assessment of Maize Genetically Engineered for Protection Against Corn Rootworm and Resistance to GlyphosatePDF
80 FR 31076 - Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1PDF
80 FR 30959 - Importation of Phalaenopsis Spp. Plants for Planting in Approved Growing Media From China to the Continental United StatesPDF
80 FR 30934 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mokelumne River, East Isleton, CAPDF
80 FR 30936 - Safety Zone; Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, Lake Erie; Lakeside, OHPDF
80 FR 31014 - Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 31075 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 31081 - Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation of Upcoming MeetingPDF
80 FR 30962 - Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Working Group: Notice of Open Meetings and WebinarPDF
80 FR 30935 - Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina, San Francisco Bay, Berkeley, CAPDF
80 FR 30935 - Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, Crescent City, Crescent City Harbor, Crescent City, CAPDF
80 FR 30990 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Remove the Bone Cave Harvestman (Texella reyesi) From the List of Endangered and Threatened WildlifePDF
80 FR 30955 - General Schedule Locality Pay AreasPDF
80 FR 30936 - Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Eureka, Humboldt Bay, Eureka, CAPDF
80 FR 30934 - Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CAPDF
80 FR 31030 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5PDF
80 FR 31011 - Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee: Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 30984 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 30965 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead StandardPDF
80 FR 31031 - Proposed Settlement AgreementPDF
80 FR 31075 - Service Contracts InventoryPDF
80 FR 31024 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho National LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 30974 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 NO2PDF
80 FR 31016 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset ReviewsPDF
80 FR 31033 - Notice to all Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10274, NorthWest Bank and Trust, Acworth, GeorgiaPDF
80 FR 31082 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 31065 - Request for Nominations for the Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site Advisory CommissionPDF
80 FR 31091 - Advisory Committee on the Secretary of State's Strategic Dialogue With Civil Society; Notice of the Intent To Re-Establish an Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 31092 - Notice of Meeting of Advisory Committee on International LawPDF
80 FR 31053 - Proposed Collection; 60-day Comment Request; National Institute of Mental Health Recruitment and Milestone Reporting System (NIMH)PDF
80 FR 31012 - Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) ReviewPDF
80 FR 31083 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 31092 - Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
80 FR 31019 - New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 31014 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order in PartPDF
80 FR 31017 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
80 FR 31041 - International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products; Studies To Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach To Establish an Acute Reference Dose; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 31050 - Established Conditions: Reportable Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Changes for Approved Drug and Biologic Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 31024 - DOE Proposals for the 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)PDF
80 FR 31042 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; MedWatch: The Food and Drug Administration Medical Products Reporting ProgramPDF
80 FR 30962 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meeting and WebinarPDF
80 FR 31009 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for the Strategic Economic and Community Development Programs for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015PDF
80 FR 31073 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Safe Drinking Water ActPDF
80 FR 31094 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Lucas County, Ohio; Midwest Rail, LLC d/b/a/Toledo, Lake Erie and Western Railway-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Lucas County, OhioPDF
80 FR 31023 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 31056 - Extension of the Designation of Somalia for Temporary Protected StatusPDF
80 FR 31011 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 31063 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; ColoradoPDF
80 FR 31033 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 31028 - NuStar Logistics, L.P.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
80 FR 31061 - Proposed Information Collection; Wildlife and Sport Fish Grants and Cooperative AgreementsPDF
80 FR 31051 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 31021 - Council Coordination Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 31021 - Administrative Officers MeetingPDF
80 FR 31029 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 31054 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal AgenciesPDF
80 FR 31084 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of Proposed Amendments to the MSRB Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, and the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System and Subscription ServicePDF
80 FR 30924 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1PDF
80 FR 31033 - Meeting of the Community Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force)PDF
80 FR 31025 - Combined Notice of Filings-2PDF
80 FR 31027 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 31026 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 31028 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 31027 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 31090 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing and Trading Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02 of Shares of the Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond Index FundPDF
80 FR 31087 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Exchange's Pricing Schedule Under Section VIII With Respect to Execution and Routing of Orders in Securities Priced at $1 or More Per SharePDF
80 FR 31055 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 31083 - Amendment to Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 31081 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 30931 - Medical Devices; Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Classification of the Rectal Control SystemPDF
80 FR 31074 - Agency Information Collection Activities; OMB Approvals; H-2B Temporary Employment Certification ProgramPDF
80 FR 31092 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 31050 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Current Good Manufacturing Practices for Blood and Related Regulations for and Blood Components; and Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and “Lookback”PDF
80 FR 31048 - Patient-Focused Drug Development for Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 30998 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Forms FNS 543 and FNS 543-APDF
80 FR 31063 - Notice of Intent To Prepare the Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan and an Associated Environmental Impact Statement for the Royal Gorge Field Office, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 30947 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 29PDF
80 FR 31023 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 31052 - Findings of Research MisconductPDF
80 FR 31052 - Meeting of the 2015 Hurricane Sandy Conference: Translating Research Into PracticePDF
80 FR 31053 - National Institute of Mental Health: Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 31017 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 31034 - Medicaid Program; State Allotments for Payment of Medicare Part B Premiums for Qualifying Individuals (QIs): Federal Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014PDF
80 FR 31040 - Medicare Program; Announcement of Request for Applications for the Million Hearts® Cardiovascular Risk Reduction ModelPDF
80 FR 30988 - Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance YearPDF
80 FR 30941 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Determination of Attainment of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Baltimore, Maryland Moderate Nonattainment AreaPDF
80 FR 30939 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQSPDF
80 FR 30928 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 31097 - Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, Medicaid and CHIP Comprehensive Quality Strategies, and Revisions Related to Third Party LiabilityPDF
80 FR 31076 - Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Pacific Gas & Electric CompanyPDF
80 FR 31022 - Proposed Monterey Bay Regional Water Project Desalination Facility; Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Scoping MeetingPDF
80 FR 31068 - Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From China; Institution of Five-Year ReviewsPDF
80 FR 31071 - Certain Steel Grating From China; Institution of Five-Year ReviewsPDF
80 FR 31065 - Certain Tissue Paper Products From China; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 30919 - Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2014-15 Crop Year for Tart CherriesPDF
80 FR 30963 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan EnginesPDF

Issue

80 104 Monday, June 1, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Free and Restricted Percentages: Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al., 30919-30923 2015-12762 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

See

Rural Housing Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Imports: Phalaenopsis Spp. Plants for Planting in Approved Growing Media From China to the Continental United States, 30959-30961 2015-13162 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Monsanto Co.; Availability of Preliminary Plant Pest Risk Assessment and Draft Environmental Assessment of Maize Genetically Engineered For Protection Against Corn Rootworm and Resistance to Glyphosate, 30997-30998 2015-13164 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Preventive Services Task Force, 31033-31034 2015-13080 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs: Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, Medicaid and CHIP Comprehensive Quality Strategies, and Revisions related to Third Party Liability, 31098-31297 2015-12965 NOTICES Medicaid Programs: State Allotments for Payment of Medicare Part B Premiums for Qualifying Individuals (QIs): Federal Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014, 31034-31039 2015-13043 Medicare Programs: Announcement of Request for Applications for the Million Hearts Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Model, 31040-31041 2015-13042 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Mokelumne River, East Isleton, CA, 30934 2015-13160 Safety Zones: Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina, San Francisco Bay, Berkeley, CA, 30935 2015-13138 Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Eureka, Humboldt Bay, Eureka, CA, 30936 2015-13133 Fourth of July Fireworks, Crescent City, Crescent City Harbor, Crescent City, CA, 30935-30936 2015-13137 Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, Lake Erie; Lakeside, OH, 30936-30938 2015-13159 San Francisco Giants Fireworks, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA, 30934-30935 2015-13132 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 31095-31096 2015-13165 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Petitions, 31011 2015-13093 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: H-2B Temporary Employment Certification Program, 31074-31075 2015-13066 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Appliance and Equipment Standards Program: Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Meeting and Webinar, 30962 2015-13101 Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Working Group; Meetings and Webinar, 30962-30963 2015-13139 NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho National Laboratory, 31024 2015-13125
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Meetings: DOE Proposals for the 2018 International Energy Conservation Code, 31024-31025 2015-13103 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maryland; Determination of Attainment of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Baltimore Moderate Nonattainment Area, 30941-30946 2015-13030 New York; Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 30939-30941 2015-13029 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Colorado; Infrastructure Requirements for the Ozone, Lead, and NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 30974-30984 2015-13123 Missouri; Lead Standard, 30965-30974 2015-13128 Montana — Revisions to the Administrative Rules; Correction, 30984-30988 2015-13129 Cross-State Air Pollution Allowances: New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance Year Data Allocations, 30988-30990 2015-13031 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS Implementation Rule, 31030-31031 2015-13131 Proposed Settlement Agreements, 31031-31033 2015-13127 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 30928-30931 2015-13018 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Pratt and Whitney Division Turbofan Engines, 30963-30965 2015-12663 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receiverships NorthWest Bank and Trust, Acworth, GA, 31033 2015-13121 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 31029-31030 2015-13084 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: NuStar Logistics, LP, 31028 2015-13090 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 31033 2015-13091 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31092 2015-13065 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-Day Finding on a Petition to Remove the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi), 30990-30996 2015-13136 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Wildlife and Sport Fish Grants and Cooperative Agreements, 31061-31063 2015-13089 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices: Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Classification of the Rectal Control System, 30931-30933 2015-13067 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Current Good Manufacturing Practices for Blood and Related Regulations for and Blood Components, etc., 31050 2015-13064 MedWatch -- The Food and Drug Administration Medical Products Reporting Program, 31042-31048 2015-13102 Guidance: Established Conditions: Reportable Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Changes for Approved Drug and Biologic Products, 31050-31051 2015-13104 Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food -- General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose, 31041-31042 2015-13105 Meetings: Patient-Focused Drug Development for Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency, 31048-31050 2015-13063 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Forms, 30998-31009 2015-13062 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Meetings: 2015 Hurricane Sandy Conference -- Translating Research into Practice, 31052-31053 2015-13050 Research Misconduct, 31052 2015-13054
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31051-31052 2015-13088 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee, 31011-31012 2015-13130 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews, 31016-31017 2015-13122 Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Reviews, 31012-31013 2015-13111 Opportunity to Request Reviews, 31017-31019 2015-13106 Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal, 31017 2015-13044 Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 31014-31016 2015-13107 Meetings: Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee, 31014 2015-13158 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, 31068-31070 2015-12876 Certain Steel Grating from China, 31071-31073 2015-12872 Certain Tissue Paper Products from China, 31065-31068 2015-12870 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 31073-31074 2015-13098 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Royal Gorge Field Office, Colorado; Resource Management Plan, 31063-31065 2015-13060 Plats of Survey: Colorado, 31063 2015-13092 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance; Approvals: Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, 31092-31094 2015-13109 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Institute of Mental Health Recruitment and Milestone Reporting System, 31053-31054 2015-13112 Meetings: National Institute of Mental Health, 31053 2015-13049 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 29, 30947-30954 2015-13059 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31023-31024 2015-13095 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Monterey Bay Regional Water Project Desalination Facility, 31022-31023 2015-12877 Meetings: Administrative Officers, 31021 2015-13086 Council Coordination Committee, 31021-31022 2015-13087 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 31023 2015-13056 New England Fishery Management Council, 31019-31021 2015-13108 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site Advisory Commission, 31065 2015-13116 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, 30924-30928 2015-13081 NOTICES Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board: Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 31076 2015-12933 License Amendment Applications: Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 31076-31081 2015-13163 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31075-31076 2015-13156 Service Contracts Inventory, 31075 2015-13126 Personnel Personnel Management Office PROPOSED RULES General Schedule Locality Pay Areas, 30955-30959 2015-13135 NOTICES Meetings: Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancelation, 31081 2015-13153 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 31082 2015-13120 Postal Products; Amendments, 31083 2015-13070 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Funding Availability: Strategic Economic and Community Development Programs, 31009-31011 2015-13100 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Funding Availability: Strategic Economic and Community Development Programs, 31009-31011 2015-13100 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Funding Availability: Strategic Economic and Community Development Programs, 31009-31011 2015-13100 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31090-31091 2015-13322 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 31084-31087 2015-13082 NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC, 31087-31090 2015-13072 NYSE Arca, Inc., 31090 2015-13073 NYSE MKT LLC, 31091 2015-13172 Trading Suspension Orders: America West Resources, Inc.; Sonoma Valley Bancorp, and WorldStar Energy, Corp., 31091 2015-13320 State Department State Department NOTICES Charter Renewals: Secretary of State's Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society, 31091-31092 2015-13115 Meetings: Advisory Committee on International Law, 31092 2015-13114 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities: Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 31054-31055 2015-13083 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: Norfolk Southern Railway Co. and Midwest Rail, LLC d/b/a/ Toledo, Lake Erie and Western Railway, Lucas County, OH, 31094-31095 2015-13096 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Extension of the Designation of Somalia for Temporary Protected Status, 31056-31061 2015-13094 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Accreditations and Approvals: Intertek USA, Inc., 31055-31056 2015-13071 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 31098-31297 2015-12965 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, 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.

80 104 Monday, June 1, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 930 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0077; FV14-930-2 FR] Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2014-15 Crop Year for Tart Cherries AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board) to establish free and restricted percentages for the 2014-15 crop year under the marketing order for tart cherries grown in the states of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin (order). The Board locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and handlers of tart cherries operating within the production area. This action establishes the proportion of tart cherries from the 2014 crop which may be handled in commercial outlets at 80 percent free and 20 percent restricted. In addition, this action increases the carry-out volume of fruit to 50 million pounds for this season. These percentages should stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns.

DATES:

Effective June 2, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the order provisions now in effect, free and restricted percentages may be established for tart cherries handled during the crop year. This rule establishes free and restricted percentages for tart cherries for the 2014-15 crop year, beginning July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.

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

This final rule establishes free and restricted percentages for the 2014-15 crop year at 80 percent free and 20 percent restricted. In addition, this action increases the carry-out volume of fruit to 50 million pounds for calculation purposes for this season. This action should stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns. The change in carry-out was recommended by the Board at a meeting on June 26, 2014, and the final percentages were recommended by the Board at a meeting on September 11, 2014.

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

Under § 930.52, only those districts with an annual average production of at least six million pounds are subject to regulation, and any district producing a crop which is less than 50 percent of its annual average is exempt. The regulated districts for the 2014-2015 crop year are: District 1—Northern Michigan; District 2—Central Michigan; District 3—Southern Michigan; District 4—New York; District 7—Utah; District 8—Washington; and District 9—Wisconsin. Districts 5 and 6 (Oregon and Pennsylvania, respectively) are not regulated for the 2014-15 season.

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

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

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

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

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

The Board met on June 26, 2014, and computed an optimum supply of 218 million pounds for the 2014-15 crop year using the average of free sales for the three previous seasons and a desirable carry-out of 20 million pounds. The Board then subtracted the estimated carry-in of 81 million pounds from the optimum supply to calculate the production needed from the 2014-15 crop to meet optimum supply. This number, 137 million pounds, was subtracted from USDA's estimated 2014-15 production of 264 million pounds to calculate a surplus of 127 million pounds of tart cherries. The surplus minus the market growth factor was then divided by the expected production in the regulated districts (261 million pounds) to reach a preliminary restricted percentage of 41 percent for the 2014-15 crop year.

In discussing the calculations, industry participants commented that a carry-out of 20 million pounds would not meet their needs at the end of the season before the new crop is available. To address that concern, the Board recommended increasing the desirable carry-out to 50 million pounds for the 2014-2015 season. This change increased the optimum supply to 248 million pounds, reducing the surplus to 97 million pounds.

The Board also discussed whether the three-year average was an accurate estimate of supply needed for the coming season, considering the substantial loss of supply in 2012 due to weather. Including the use of reserves, sales in 2012-13 reached only 123 million pounds, nearly 100 million pounds less than 2013-14 sales. Using data from earlier seasons, the Board agreed that 250 million pounds of free supply is needed in a typical season and voted to make an economic adjustment of 52 million pounds to reach that level.

In addition, USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. This requirement is codified in § 930.50(g) of the order, which specifies that in years when restricted percentages are established, the Board shall make available tonnage equivalent to an additional 10 percent of the average sales of the prior three years for market expansion (market growth factor). The Board complied with this requirement by adding 20 million pounds (198 million times 10 percent, rounded) to the free supply.

The economic adjustment and market growth factor further reduced the preliminary surplus to 25 million pounds. After these adjustments, the preliminary restricted percentage was recalculated as 10 percent (25 million pounds divided by 261 million pounds).

The Board met again on September 11, 2014, to consider establishing final volume regulation percentages for the 2014-15 season. The final percentages are based on the Board's reported production figures and the supply and demand information available in September. The total production for the 2014-15 season was 297.7 million pounds, 34 million pounds above USDA's June estimate. In addition, growers diverted 0.2 million pounds in the orchard, leaving 297.5 million pounds available to market. Using the actual production numbers, and accounting for the recommended increase in desirable carry-out and economic adjustment, as well as the market growth factor, the restricted percentage was recalculated.

The Board subtracted the carry-in figure used in June of 81 million pounds from the optimum supply of 248 million pounds to determine 167 million pounds of 2014-15 production would be necessary to reach optimum supply. The Board subtracted the 167 million pounds from the actual production of 298 million pounds, resulting in a surplus of 131 million pounds of tart cherries. The surplus was then reduced by subtracting the economic adjustment of 52 million pounds and the market growth factor of 20 million pounds, resulting in an adjusted surplus of 59 million pounds. The Board then divided this final surplus by the actual production in the regulated districts (295 million pounds) to calculate a restricted percentage of 20 percent with a corresponding free percentage of 80 percent for the 2014-15 crop year, as outlined in the following table:

Millions of pounds Final Calculations: (1) Average sales of the prior three years 198 (2) Plus desirable carry-out 50 (3) Optimum supply calculated by the Board 248 (4) Carry-in as of July 1, 2014 81 (5) Adjusted optimum supply (item 3 minus item 4) 167 (6) Board reported production 298 (7) Surplus (item 6 minus item 5) 131 (8) Total economic adjustments 52 (9) Market growth factor 20 (10) Adjusted Surplus (item 7 minus items 8 and 9) 59 (11) Crop estimate for regulated districts 295 Percent Final Percentages: Restricted (item 10 divided by item 11 × 100) 20 Free (100 minus restricted percentage) 80

The primary purpose of setting restricted percentages is an attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market is oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially. Restricted percentages have benefited grower returns and helped stabilize the market as compared to those seasons prior to the implementation of the order. The Board believes the available information indicates that a restricted percentage should be established for the 2014-15 crop year to avoid oversupplying the market with tart cherries. Consequently, based on its discussion of this issue and the result of the above calculations, the Board recommended final percentages of 80 percent free and 20 percent restricted by a vote of 16 in favor and 2 against.

Of the two Board members who opposed the recommendation, one stated that the industry should focus on sales rather than restriction and the other expressed concerns that some segments would be more impacted by the restriction than others.

Regarding maximizing sales, one member noted that even storm-damaged fruit had been bought for processing, signaling that the processors still needed fruit toward the end of harvest. Other members, however, noted the extra sales some farmers experienced may have simply been due to gaps left by the areas that had damage, which reduced the amount of fruit available to fully supply their processors. Additionally, the economic adjustment and market growth factor included in the recommended restriction make additional fruit available for sales.

A member also noted that some processors, such as those making pie filling, are not likely to purchase excess fruit and would have to restrict their sales. Another believed this level of restriction would signal to the ingredient market that processed fruit may be hard to obtain. However, others stated that a preliminary restriction was announced before harvest and all processors, regardless of product segment, are familiar with the process. Also, though the restricted percentage increased since the preliminary announcement in June, the total volume of fruit available to the market remained unchanged.

Finally, there were also some comments regarding incorporating sales of imported fruit into the demand considerations and that rigid interpretation of the supply formula does not allow the Board to react to the current market conditions. As the order does not provide for reporting processing of imported fruit or regulating such fruit, there are no reliable data on the issue. Others noted that with the increased recommended carry-out, the market growth factor, and adjustment to the demand calculations, the Board has taken steps toward making enough fruit available to continue current growth and have fruit in reserve in case of another crop disaster.

After reviewing the available data, and considering the concerns expressed, the Board determined that a 20 percent restriction with a carry-out volume of 50 million pounds meets sales needs and establishes some reserves without oversupplying the market. Thus, the Board recommended establishing final percentages of 80 percent free and 20 percent restricted.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

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

According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and Board data, the average annual grower price for tart cherries during the 2013-14 season was $0.35 per pound, and total shipments were around 289 million pounds. Therefore, average receipts for tart cherry producers were around $168,800, well below the SBA threshold for small producers. In 2014, The Food Institute estimated an f.o.b. price of $0.96 per pound for frozen tart cherries, which make up the majority of processed tart cherries. Using this data, average annual handler receipts were about $6.9 million, which is also below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers and handlers of tart cherries may be classified as small entities.

The tart cherry industry in the United States is characterized by wide annual fluctuations in production. According to NASS, tart cherry production in 2011 was 232 million pounds, 85 million pounds in 2012, and in 2013, production was 294 million pounds. Because of these fluctuations, the supply and demand for tart cherries are rarely equal.

Demand for tart cherries is inelastic, meaning changes in price have a minimal effect on total sales volume. However, prices are very sensitive to changes in supply, and grower prices vary widely in response to the large swings in annual supply, with prices ranging from a low of 7.3 cents in 1987 to a high of 46.4 cents in 1991.

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

This final rule establishes free and restricted percentages using an increased carry-out volume of 50 million pounds for the 2014-15 crop year under the order for tart cherries. This action controls the supply of tart cherries by establishing percentages of 80 percent free and 20 percent restricted for the 2014-15 crop year. These percentages should stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower returns. This rule regulates tart cherries handled in Michigan, New York, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The authority for this action is provided for in §§ 930.51(a) and 930.52 of the order. The Board recommended this action at a meeting on September 11, 2014.

This action will result in some fruit being diverted from the primary domestic markets. However, as mentioned earlier, the USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. The quantity available under this rule is greater than 110 percent of the quantity shipped in the prior three years.

In addition, there are secondary uses available for restricted fruit, including the development of new products, sales into new markets, the development of export markets, and being placed in reserve. While these alternatives may provide different levels of return than the sales to primary markets, they play an important role for the industry. The areas of new products, new markets, and the development of export markets utilize restricted fruit to develop and expand the markets for tart cherries. In 2011-12, the last season there was a restriction, these activities accounted for more 39 million pounds in sales, 14 million of which were exports.

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

In addition, the Board recommended an increased carry-out of 50 million pounds and made a demand adjustment of 52 million pounds in order to make the regulation less restrictive. Even with the recommended restriction, over 300 million pounds of fruit will be available to the domestic market. Consequently, it is not anticipated that this action will unduly burden growers or handlers.

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

The three districts in Michigan, along with the districts in New York, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, are the restricted areas for this crop year with a combined total production of 295 million pounds. A 20 percent restriction means 236 million pounds will be available to be shipped to primary markets from these five states. The 236 million pounds from the restricted districts, nearly 3 million pounds from the unrestricted districts (Oregon and Pennsylvania), and the 81 million pound carry-in inventory make a total of 320 million pounds available as free tonnage for the primary markets. In comparison, the 12 percent restriction in 2011-2012 made less than 262 million pounds available.

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

In addition, absent volume control, the industry could start to build large amounts of unwanted inventories. These inventories would have a depressing effect on grower prices. The econometric model shows for every 1 million-pound increase in carry-in inventories, a decrease in grower prices of $0.0037 per pound occurs.

Retail demand is assumed to be highly inelastic, which indicates that changes in price do not result in significant changes in the quantity demanded. Consumer prices largely do not reflect fluctuations in cherry supplies. Therefore, this action should have little or no effect on consumer prices and should not result in a reduction in retail sales.

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

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

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

Regarding demand, the Board began with the actual sales average of 198 million pounds. There was concern, however, that this value, which incorporated the weather-related crop failure of 2012, would result in an over-restrictive calculation. After considering options in the range of 24 to 52 million pounds, the Board determined that an adjustment of 52 million pounds, to reach an average demand of 250 million pounds, was most appropriate for the industry. Thus, the other alternatives were rejected, and the Board recommended the 52 million pound economic adjustment.

Regarding the carry-out value, the Board considered keeping this value at the order's 20 million pound maximum. However, many noted that the industry now regularly carries over more volume than in the past to keep its expanded product lines supplied at the end of the season. One member noted that even at the end of the disaster season, there were 17 million pounds carried out. Another noted that the 81 million pound carry-in this season was seen as burdensome. Others were concerned that in addition to the previous adjustment, too high of a carry-out figure might discourage using reserves to protect the industry from another disaster. The Board considered 60 million pounds and 30 million pounds, but these were considered respectively too large and too restrictive and thus were rejected. The Board then reached a consensus and recommended the Secretary increase the maximum carry-out to 50 million pounds for the 2014-2015 season alone.

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

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

As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this final rule. Further, the public comment received concerning the proposal did not address the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

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

In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 26, 2014, and September 11, 2014, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8817). Copies of the rule were mailed, emailed, or sent by facsimile to all Board members and tart cherry handlers. Finally, the rule was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending March 23, 2015, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal.

One negative comment was received during the comment period. The concerns expressed in the negative comment pertained to pending litigation or to issues not applicable to the proposed rule. Additionally, the commenter did not provide any alternatives for consideration. Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comment received.

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

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

It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because handlers are already shipping tart cherries from the 2014-2015 crop. Further, handlers are aware of this rule, which was recommended at a public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930

Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tart cherries.

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

PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WISCONSIN 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 930 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

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

For the crop year beginning on July 1, 2014, the desirable carry-out inventory, for the purposes of determining an optimum supply volume, will be 50 million pounds.

3. Section 930.256 is added to read as follows:
§ 930.256 Free and restricted percentages for the 2014-15 crop year.

The percentages for tart cherries handled by handlers during the crop year beginning on July 1, 2014, which shall be free and restricted, respectively, are designated as follows: Free percentage, 80 percent and restricted percentage, 20 percent.

Dated: May 21, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-12762 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2014-0275] RIN 3150-AJ52 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of June 2, 2015, for the direct final rule that was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2015. This direct final rule amended the NRC's spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International, Inc. (Holtec), HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032. Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, allows these casks to accept 14X14B fuel assemblies with minor changes in the internal diameter of the fuel cladding, diameter of the fuel pellet, and spacing between the fuel pins. The amendment also updates testing requirements for the fabrication of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing structural material.

DATES:

Effective date: The effective date of June 2, 2015, for the direct final rule published March 19, 2015 (80 FR 14291), is confirmed.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0275 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0275. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5175; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Discussion

On March 19, 2015 (80 FR 14291), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in § 72.214 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) by revising the Holtec HI-STORM FW System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032. Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, allows these casks to accept 14X14B fuel assemblies with minor changes in the internal diameter of the fuel cladding, diameter of the fuel pellet, and spacing between the fuel pins. The amendment also updates testing requirements for the fabrication of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing structural material.

II. Public Comments on the Companion Proposed Rule

In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on June 2, 2015. The NRC received eight public comments from private citizens on the companion proposed rule (80 FR 14332). Electronic copies of these comments can be obtained from the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by searching for Docket ID NRC-2014-0275. The comments also are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15113B266, ML15113B275, ML15141A021, ML15119A201, ML15119A206, ML15119A210, ML15119A214, and ML15119A230. For the reasons discussed in more detail in Section III, “Public Comment Analysis,” of this document, none of the comments received are considered significant adverse comments.

III. Public Comment Analysis

The NRC received eight comments from private citizens on the proposed rule, many raising multiple and overlapping issues. As explained in the March 19, 2015, direct final rule, the NRC would withdraw the direct final rule only if it received a “significant adverse comment.” This is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or technical specifications (TSs).

The NRC determined that none of the comments submitted on this direct final rule met any of these criteria. The comments either were already addressed by the NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14276A620), were beyond the scope of this rulemaking, or failed to provide a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment rulemaking. The NRC has not made any changes to the direct final rule as a result of the public comments. However, the NRC is taking this opportunity to respond to the individual comments to clarify information about the CoC rulemaking process.

For rulemakings amending or revising a CoC, the scope of the rulemaking is limited to the specific changes requested by the applicant in the request for the amendment or amendment revision. Therefore, comments about the system, or spent fuel storage in general, that are not applicable to the changes requested by the applicant are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Comments about details of the particular system that is the subject of the rulemaking, but that are not being addressed by the specific changes requested, have already been resolved in prior rulemakings. Persons who have questions or concerns about prior rulemakings and the resulting final rules may consider the NRC's process for petitions for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. Additionally, safety concerns about any NRC-regulated activity may be reported to the NRC in accordance with the guidance posted on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/safety-concern.html. This Web site provides information on how to notify the NRC of emergency or non-emergency issues.

The NRC identified 12 overall issues raised in the comments, and the NRC's responses to these issues follow.

Issue 1: Stress Corrosion Cracking

Multiple commenters raised the issue of the potential for premature failure of the multi-purpose canisters (MPCs) containing spent fuel within Holtec casks due to stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of the MPC's stainless steel walls. One commenter cited evidence that similar Holtec canisters at Diablo Canyon have already shown conditions for chloride-induced SCC after having been loaded with fuel for only 2 years. Another commenter noted that thin-walled canisters like the Holtec design do not have American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) certification and do not meet ASME standards. Another commenter asked whether the NRC's seismic analysis assumes that the MPC's 1/2 inch-thick walls remain intact. Still another commenter asked the NRC to specify the extent of cracking from SCC that would require replacement of an MPC to ensure that the spent fuel inside would remain protected in a large earthquake or tsunami and associated mud flooding event. Another commenter alleged that although there is no seismic rating for cracked spent fuel storage canisters, the NRC plans to allow up to a 75 percent crack in these canisters.

NRC Response

These comments are not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking makes no changes to this system other than those identified in the revisions previously described. Other aspects of this system not identified in the revisions are not considered part of this rulemaking activity. These other aspects of the system were previously evaluated by the NRC as part of the original certification of the HI-STORM FW System dated March 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103020151). The NRC's evaluation and approval of the certification of the original HI-STORM FW System included an evaluation of the susceptibility to, and effects of, stress corrosion cracking and other corrosion mechanisms on safety-significant systems for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) dry cask storage (DCS) systems during an initial 20-year certification period. As indicated in the supporting SER for the original certification, the NRC staff determined that the HI-STORM FW System, when used within the requirements of the proposed CoC, will safely store SNF and prevent radiation releases and exposure in compliance with regulatory requirements. None of the revisions being made by this rule have any impact on the NRC staff's prior analysis in this area.

Regarding the ASME certification issue, the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 72 do not require DCS system canisters to be ASME-certified. However, the ASME Code requirements are often contained within the TSs that a general licensee is required to follow. As for the assertions that the NRC's “plans to allow up to a 75 percent crack in these canisters,” and that there is evidence of potential cracking or failing of canisters at Diablo Canyon, the NRC has no such plan and is unaware of any such evidence. Importantly, general licensees (10 CFR part 50 licensees that store spent fuel under a general 10 CFR part 72 license) are required to have programs in place to monitor and address any such issues should they arise. For example, 10 CFR 72.122(h)(4) requires storage confinement systems to have the capability for continuous monitoring in a manner such that the licensee will be able to determine when corrective action needs to be taken to maintain safe storage conditions.

Issue 2: Inspection Challenges and Inspection Access

Several commenters questioned the ability of the HI-STORM FW System to be adequately inspected and repaired if necessary during the initial certification period of 20 years, especially if the system is used in a coastal environment where SCC could be an issue.

On the issue of available methods for inspecting SCC, one commenter asserted that no technology exists to inspect adequately the exterior of thin welded canisters for cracks or other corrosion. The commenter said that the NRC is allowing vendors 5 years to develop an inspection method, but it will be limited, and the NRC plans to require inspection of only one canister per plant after 25 years and then the same canister at 5 years intervals. The commenter referred to an unnamed independent July 2010 report on the challenges and limitations of inspecting for SCC in stainless steel components other than loaded spent fuel dry storage canisters. The commenter asserted that no inspection method currently exists for loaded spent fuel dry storage canisters, and that the method recommended in the report as the most reliable is not possible with such canisters. Another commenter noted that if removal of the canister is the only way to inspect the bottom of a canister that has been in contact with the bottom of the concrete well, it will be unlikely that each canister will be inspected for corrosion between the canister and its concrete well, if current NRC inspection schedules for dry storage casks are followed.

Concerned about the frequency and extent of inspections, a commenter noted the limited number of dry storage canisters that have been inspected to date, and expressed concern that there will be very few canister inspections, and probably only one, performed at each installation site, with the first inspection occurring 20 years after deployment. The commenter suggested that sites prone to ground water intrusion should have annual visual inspections of the bottom of each canister.

NRC Response

These comments are not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the revisions previously described. Furthermore, the NRC has evaluated the design of the HI-STORM FW System in the initial certification of this system and determined that the design is robust, and contains numbers of layers of acceptable confinement systems in compliance with 10 CFR part 72 requirements. In making this finding, the NRC staff evaluated the HI-STORM FW System to the specific overall requirements of 10 CFR 72.122. Additionally, the two canisters used in the HI-STORM FW System are the same as those used in the HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage System previously approved by the NRC (see 80 FR 12073, dated March 6, 2015). Therefore, a detailed evaluation of this MPC system is also documented in the NRC staff's SER for the HI-STORM UMAX System (ADAMS Accession No. ML14122A441). In that review, the NRC staff noted that the current technology does provide options for inspection if necessary.

Issue 3: Unavailability of Hot Cells or Spent Fuel Pools To Transfer or Store Spent Fuel From a Damaged Canister

One commenter noted that no spent fuel storage cask has ever been opened and examined. Another pointed out that no “hot cells” (dry transfer systems) exist in the United States that are large enough to transfer spent fuel between canisters. Another asked how Holtec would handle the failure of a hypothetical 50 canisters after a major earthquake.

Yet another commenter expressed concern that the spent fuel pools at the decommissioning San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) will be demolished once the reactors' spent fuel is in dry casks. Demolition of the spent fuel pools, the commenter wrote, would essentially negate the chances of repackaging any casks leaking radionuclides without another major construction effort to build a new storage pool. Another commenter wrote that a spent fuel storage pool is required to replace canisters and casks at any reactor site with spent fuel in dry storage, and that transporting cracked canisters to another facility with a pool presents numerous safety risks.

NRC Response

These comments are not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the HI-STORM FW System. This rulemaking does not propose any change in the standards for approval of a CoC, or the requirements that govern use of the CoC by a general licensee. In 10 CFR parts 50 and 72, the NRC places the responsibility for providing facilities necessary to perform spent fuel transfers between canisters, and store spent fuel removed from a damaged or defective MPC, with the 10 CFR part 50 licensee, not the canister system manufacturer. Moreover, in its March 28, 2011, SER for the CoC for the original HI-STORM FW System, the NRC staff evaluated and found acceptable a key subsystem of the applicant's storage system, the HI-TRAC Variable Weight (VW) transfer cask, for its operability with hot cells. In the March 28, 2011, SER, the NRC staff stated that “[t]he HI-TRAC VW transfer cask also allows dry loading (or unloading) of SNF into the MPC in a hot cell.”

Finally, the NRC has not approved the demolition of the spent storage pools at SONGS. The decommissioning of the SONGS facility will be conducted pursuant to the NRC's decommissioning regulations which include opportunities for public involvement. (See 10 CFR part 20, subpart E; 10 CFR 50.75 and 50.82; 10 CFR 51.53 and 51.95). More information about the SONGS decommissioning activities can be found on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/songs/decommissioning-plans.html.

Issue 4: Seismic Protection

Several comments raised concerns regarding the ability of this CoC system to withstand seismic events, particularly if the system were to be used at specific sites with known seismic activity, such as SONGS. There is also a question of whether the Holtec casks at issue have been fully tested to handle all United States seismic conditions, particularly those in California. One commenter contended that the NRC lacks information to support a sound determination on whether the casks could withstand the vertical and horizontal ground acceleration and significant ground displacement from a sizable earthquake on one of California's known faults. Another commenter expressed a belief that the NRC has not adequately responded to concerns the U.S. Geological Survey pointed out in comments on the “Fukushima Lessons Learned” process.

NRC Response

These comments are not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the HI-STORM FW System. Additionally, as explained when the NRC addressed a similar comment about the ability of HI-STORM casks to withstand seismic events during the UMAX System certification rulemaking, the certification provided by approval of the HI-STORM FW System does not, in and of itself, authorize use of this system at any specific site. Under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), before applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC and loading a cask, a general licensee wishing to use this cask system must perform written evaluations to establish, among other things, that:

• Cask storage pads and areas have been designed to adequately support the static and dynamic loads of the stored casks, considering potential amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure interaction, and soil liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion; and

• The independent spent fuel storage installation at the reactor site where the casks will be located will meet the requirements of 10 CFR 72.104 to ensure that radiation doses beyond the reactor's controlled area do not exceed 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to the whole body, 0.75 mSv (75 mrem) to the thyroid and 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to any other critical organ, and are further to controlled to a level as low as is reasonably achievable.

In addition, under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6), before using the general license, the reactor licensee must review the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) referenced in the CoC or amended CoC and the NRC's SER evaluating the SAR to determine whether the reactor site parameters, including analyses of earthquake intensity and tornado missiles, are enveloped by the cask design bases considered in these reports.

The seismic design levels of the HI-STORM FW System as provided in Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, of this CoC are acceptable for most areas in the continental United States. For locations with potential for seismic activity beyond those analyzed for this system, additional NRC evaluations and certifications may be required before the system may be used in those locations. The NRC is currently evaluating another HI-STORM UMAX System amendment request that provides additional analysis intended to ensure the system's integrity during an earthquake with higher seismic demands.

Issue 5: Unacceptable Definition of “Undamaged”

One commenter said that corrosion, pitting, and cracks cannot be considered undamaged.

NRC Response

This comment is not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the HI-STORM FW System. To the extent that the comment is intended to raise safety concerns with the change in the definition of damaged fuel, the definition would not be affected by this rulemaking and is therefore not within its scope. The purpose of the definition of damaged fuel is to identify conditions under which additional engineering measures are required to confine and secure the spent fuel before it can be loaded into a DCS system. The requirement to use these measures, which include isolating the affected spent fuel assembly in an additional container before loading it into an MPC, apply to all fuel assemblies, although the definition of “damaged” fuel may be revised to address calculated strengths or known weaknesses in a given assembly design. The NRC staff evaluated and found acceptable a proposed change in the definition of damaged fuel in the SER to CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, dated December 17, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14351A475). The NRC staff evaluated the safety of this revision to CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, in the SER dated March 13, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14276A620). No information is provided that would cause the NRC to change its conclusion regarding the safety of this change in the definition of damaged fuel as documented in the SER.

Issue 6: How will casks be removed from service?

One commenter pointed out that for any cask placed into service during the final renewal term of a CoC, or during the remaining term of a CoC that was not renewed, the general license for that cask must terminate after a storage period not to exceed the term specified by the cask's CoC, generally 20 years. The commenter further noted that when the general license expires, all casks subject to it must be removed from service. The commenter asked how a cask can be removed from service after its licensed service life of 20 years if the cask contains still-hot radioactive waste, given the fact that, according to Holtec's chief executive officer, its canisters are not capable of being repackaged.

NRC Response

This comment is not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the HI-STORM FW System. The regulations governing the length of the CoC term, the standards for approval of a CoC, or the requirements that govern use of the CoC by a general licensee, are not within the changes proposed by this rule.

As to the specific comments, the NRC cannot verify the basis for comments attributed to Holtec's chief executive officer. Importantly, however, the NRC's regulations require that the systems be designed to allow for retrieval of spent fuel, and that the waste is packaged in a manner that allows handling and retrievability without the release of radioactive material above regulatory limits. (See 10 CFR 72.122(h)(5) and (l)). The HI-STORM FW System is designed to meet this requirement, and the NRC staff approved this design in its SER dated March 28, 2011 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML103020135).

Issue 7: Inadequate Tsunami Analysis

One commenter expressed concern about the NRC's process for certifying that the Holtec cask system will operate as designed after a tsunami. The commenter requested a detailed tsunami recovery procedure that should include a means to ensure that muds, salts, and other chemicals within the infiltrating tsunami water have not damaged the stainless steel canister or reduced the DCS's longevity.

NRC Response

This comment is not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the HI-STORM FW System. The NRC staff previously evaluated the impacts of flooding during the review of the initial certification for the HI-STORM FW System.

In its March 28, 2011, SER (see Sections 4.8.2 and 7.3.1) for the initial certification of the HI-STORM FW System, the NRC staff considered both full and partial flooding for both the vertical and horizontal positions for the MPC. The NRC staff found that the fully flooded condition would produce the highest reactivity in the spent fuel, and that the fully flooded model for safety evaluations “is acceptable and applicable to all of the assembly configurations that are to be stored in the HISTORM FW MPC Storage system,” including damaged fuel configurations.

In its March 28, 2011, SER, the NRC staff also noted the system's design measures to limit the rise in fuel cladding temperature under the most adverse flood event (one with a water level just high enough to block the MPC overpack's air convection inlet duct). The changes requested in this revision do not affect the NRC's prior flooding evaluation for the initial certification of this system.

Issue 8: High Burnup Fuel

One commenter said that no vendor has addressed how a cask will handle high burnup fuel (HBF) cladding that may degrade shortly after dry storage. This commenter noted that HBF burns longer in the reactor, resulting in spent fuel more than twice as radioactive, hotter, and unpredictable in storage and transport. The commenter further asserted that HBF requires more years to cool in a reactor's spent fuel storage pool before it can be transported. This raises questions about the long-term acceptability of extended storage of HBF, according to the commenter.

NRC Response

The comment is not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions in Amendment No. 1 to the HISTORM FW System. In its March 28, 2011, SER for the original certification for the HI-STORM FW System, the NRC previously evaluated the acceptability of storing HBF during the system's initial 20-year certification term. The revision authorized by this direct final rule does not affect that original evaluation. Storage beyond the initial term of 20 years will require the applicant to submit a license renewal application. The application for that CoC renewal must include, among other things, a description of the Aging Management Programs for management of issues associated with aging that could adversely affect structures, systems, and components important to safety. (See 10 CFR 72.240(c)(3)).

Issue 9: Need for New Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

One commenter asked that the NRC do a full EIS evaluating the Holtec cask as one alternative, a German cask as another, and a French cask as a third, with possibly an additional alternative.

NRC Response

This comment does not present information that would result in a determination that this revision requires an EIS, rather than an Environmental Assessment (EA). According to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, an EIS is only required if the action involves a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The NRC`s regulations in 10 CFR part 51 identify actions that require an EIS (see 10 CFR 51.20). Certificate of compliance rulemakings are not one of those actions. Instead, for CoC rulemakings, the NRC performs an EA to determine whether the action will result in a significant environmental impact. If an EA determines that the action will result in a significant impact, the agency prepares an EIS. However, if the EA concludes with a “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI), an EIS does not need to be prepared.

As explained in the March 19, 2015, direct final rule, the EA regarding the revision to Amendment No. 1 of HI-STORM FW System, concluded with a FONSI and therefore, an EIS is not required for this action. This comment presents no new information or analysis that would justify reconsidering the agency's FONSI determination.

Issue 10: Metamic Fabrication Testing Requirements

One commenter objected that Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, of the HI-STORM FW System CoC would remove fabrication testing requirements for the thermal expansion coefficient and thermal conductivity of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing structural material. The commenter noted that the justification for this change is that these properties have little variability when Metamic HT is fabricated according to the manufacturer's manual. The commenter asked the NRC what it thinks testing is for if not to verify that the product has been made according to the specifications in the manufacturer's manual.

NRC Response

This issue was addressed by the NRC staff in its SER, and the commenters do not raise any additional information that would alter the staff's determination that the HI-STORM FW System, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, casks, when used within the requirements of the proposed CoC, will safely store SNF. In its March 19, 2015, SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML14276A620), the NRC staff concluded that this was acceptable for this specific application. For a detailed discussion regarding the NRC staff's evaluation, see Section 4 of the SER.

Issue 11: Exemptions

One commenter contended that a general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec HI-STORM FW System in accordance with the changes described in this rulemaking would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Another commenter asserted that once Holtec has been given its original CoC, there should be no “exemptions.”

NRC Response

The revisions to Amendment No. 1 of CoC 1032 for the HI-STORM FW System is to provide changes to the cask system so that general licensees do not need to request an exemption from any requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 or 10 CFR 72.214. Like all other proposed CoC amendments or revisions, the general licensee under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) will have to perform written evaluations which establish that the cask will conform to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in § 72.214.

Issue 12: Reduced Circulation of Air for Cooling

Two commenters objected that the proposed change in the HI-STORM FW System CoC would restrict the circulation of air for cooling spent fuel within the MPC or cask.

NRC Response

The NRC staff evaluated this issue as part of its SER and concluded that there is no significant reduction in the cooling capacity of the HI-STORM FW System as a result of the revisions requested by the applicant. The NRC staff's SER determined that CoC 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, casks, when used within the requirements of the CoC, will safely store SNF. The comment presents no information that the NRC has not already considered, or that would cause the NRC to change its analysis.

The purpose of the revision is to permit the more compact spent fuel assemblies now in some reactors' spent fuel storage pools to be loaded into the HI-STORM FW System for dry storage. In its March 19, 2015, SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML14276A620), the NRC staff found that approval of the application would permit a volumetric increase of 0.6 percent of the fuel and a reduction of 0.13 percent of the original flow area of the 14-rod-by-14-rod fuel assembly previously approved for use in this cask system. The NRC staff also found, however, that the reduced flow area through the 14x14B fuel assembly “is still larger than the 17x17 assembly flow area used as the bounding scenario in the thermal analysis. As a result, the flow resistance factor is still less restrictive than the one used in the bounding scenario, and the passive decay heat removal of the proposed 14x14B assembly is still conservative.” The NRC staff also found that the spent fuel cladding “continues to be protected against degradation leading to gross ruptures under long-term storage by maintaining cladding temperatures below 752 °F (400 °C),” and “continues to be protected against degradation leading to gross ruptures under off-normal and accident conditions by maintaining cladding temperatures below 1058 °F (570 °C). Protection of the cladding against degradation is expected to allow ready retrieval of spent fuel for further processing or disposal.”

Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that the comments received on the companion proposed rule for the HI-STORM FW System, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, are not significant adverse comments as defined in NUREG-BR-0053, Revision 6, “United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052720461). Therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of May, 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leslie Terry, Acting Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-13081 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0342; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-007-AD; Amendment 39-18168; AD 2015-11-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747-8F, and 747-8 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of very high temperatures, near the floor in the aft lower lobe cargo compartment. This AD requires installing an additional zone temperature sensor (ZTS) assembly in the aft cargo compartment, and, for certain airplanes, installing tape and replacing the markers in the bulk cargo compartment. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of the aft lower lobe cargo compartment, where, if temperature sensitive cargo is present, the release of flammable vapors could result in a fire or explosion if exposed to an ignition source.

DATES:

This AD is effective July 6, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0342.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0342; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747-8F, and 747-8 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2014 (79 FR 35968). The NPRM was prompted by reports of very high temperatures, up to 67 degrees Celsius (152 degrees Fahrenheit), near the floor in the aft lower lobe cargo compartment on certain Model 747 airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require installing an additional ZTS in the aft cargo compartment. For certain airplanes, the NPRM proposed to first require installing tape and replacing the markers in the bulk cargo compartment, unless terminated by the early installation of the ZTS. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of the aft lower lobe cargo compartment, where, if temperature sensitive cargo is present, the release of flammable vapors could result in a fire or explosion if exposed to an ignition source.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 35968, June 25, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify “Required for Compliance” (RC) Steps

United Airlines (UA) asked that we clarify the actions required in the NPRM (79 FR 35968, June 25, 2014) by adding instructions for steps labeled, and not labeled, as “RC” in the required service information. UA did not provide a reason for this request.

We infer that the commenter is referring to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2550, dated December 6, 2013, which includes “RC” language. (Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2014, does not include “RC” language.) We acknowledge the commenter's request and provide the following clarification.

The actions specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2550, dated December 6, 2013, include steps that are identified as RC because these steps have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition. Therefore, for service information that incorporates the RC concept, steps that are identified as RC, including substeps and identified figures, must be done to comply with the AD. The RC concept does not apply to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2014, which does not include any RC steps. We have added a new paragraph (j)(4) in this AD to describe the RC concept.

Request To Clarify Certain Language in the Summary Section

Boeing asked that we clarify certain language in the Summary section of the NPRM (79 FR 35968, June 25, 2014) to specify that the solution to the unsafe condition is the installation of a “zone temperature sensor assembly,” rather than a “zone temperature sensor.” Boeing stated that the ZTS is a component within the ZTS assembly, and added that omitting the word “assembly” could confuse operators.

We agree with the commenter for the reason provided. We have included the word “assembly” after references to the ZTS in the SUMMARY of this final rule.

Request To Clarify Certain Language in the Discussion Section

Boeing asked that we clarify the first sentence of the Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 35968, June 25, 2014) to specify that the high temperatures near the floor in the aft lower lobe cargo compartment were found only on certain Model 747 airplanes. Boeing stated that the wording in the NPRM is too broad for the investigation that took place.

We agree with the request. We have changed the Discussion section of this final rule accordingly.

Boeing also asked that we clarify the following sentence of the Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 35968, June 25, 2014): “Under these conditions, the switches will not command the system valves properly, and the switches may fail to shut off the flow of hot air to the lower lobe cargo compartment, causing compartment temperatures to rise beyond 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit).” Boeing asked that the word “will” be changed to “may” in that sentence, because the blockage condition does not guarantee that the temperature switches will not control the system properly.

We acknowledge and agree with the commenter's concern. However, since that level of detail does not reappear in a final rule, no change to this final rule is necessary in this regard.

Request To Require Additional Actions for Certain Airplanes

Boeing asked that airplanes having certain variable numbers specified in paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 35968, June 25, 2014) be required to accomplish the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that airplanes having those variable numbers might have had a partial installation done in production. Boeing also stated that in the next revision of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, the action for those airplanes will be a general visual inspection to determine if both markers and tape are installed, and installation of the markers and tape if necessary.

We agree with the commenter. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2014, has been issued and addresses the concerns identified by the commenter. Therefore, we have revised this final rule to remove paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of the proposed AD. We have also revised paragraph (g) of this AD to include Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2014, as well as the option of contacting the FAA for an approval method to accomplish the actions. We have added Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, Revision 1, dated September 30, 2013, to paragraph (i) of this AD.

Request To Remove Airplane Variable Number RC520

Boeing asked that we change paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD (79 FR 35968, June 25, 2014) to remove airplane variable number RC520 because it is not a valid airplane variable number.

We agree with the commenter for the reason provided. That airplane was identified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the NPRM (79 FR 35968, June 25, 2014). That paragraph, as explained previously, is not included in this final rule.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 35968, June 25, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 35968, June 25, 2014).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2014; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2550, dated December 6, 2013. The service information describes procedures for installing warning tape and markers in the bulk cargo compartment and installing an additional zone temperature sensor assembly in the aft cargo compartment. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 130 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Install ZTS assembly 91 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,735 $7,545 $15,280 $1,986,400

    We estimate the following costs to do the optional actions specified in this AD.

    Optional Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Install tape and markers 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $33 $118
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-11-05 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18168; Docket No. FAA-2014-0342; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-007-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 6, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747-8F, and 747-8 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21-2550, dated December 6, 2013.

    (2) Airplanes identified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air conditioning.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of very high temperatures, near the floor in the aft lower lobe cargo compartment. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of the aft lower lobe cargo compartment, where, if temperature sensitive cargo is present, the release of flammable vapors could result in a fire or explosion if exposed to an ignition source.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Installation for Certain Airplanes (Interim Action)

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the existing markers and install tape and new markers in the bulk cargo compartment, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2014; or using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD within 12 months after the effective date of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

    (h) Installation for All Airplanes (Terminating Action)

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install an additional zone temperature sensor assembly in the aft cargo compartment, as specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Doing this action within 12 months after the effective date of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21-2550, dated December 6, 2013: Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21-2550, dated December 6, 2013.

    (2) For airplanes having variable numbers RC021 and RC573: Do the actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for removing the existing markers and installing tape and new markers in the bulk cargo compartment, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, dated January 15, 2013; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, Revision 1, dated September 30, 2013. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) If the service information contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD that is not incorporated by reference, contact Susan Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2544, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2014.

    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-21-2550, dated December 6, 2013.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 21, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13018 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 876 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1338] Medical Devices; Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Classification of the Rectal Control System AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the rectal control system into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the rectal control system's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

    DATES:

    This order is effective June 1, 2015. The classification was applicable on February 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Purva Pandya, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G223, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-9979, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

    Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1), the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

    In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device. On June 23, 2014, Pelvalon, Inc., submitted a request for classification of the Eclipse System under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

    In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    Therefore, on February 12, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 876.5930.

    Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a rectal control system will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The device is assigned the generic name rectal control system, and it is identified as a prescription device intended to treat fecal incontinence by controlling the size of the rectal lumen. The device is inserted in the vagina and includes a portion that expands to reduce the rectal lumen to prevent stool leakage and retracts to allow normal passage of stool. The device includes an external regulator to control the state of expansion.

    FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device, as well as the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

    Table 1—Rectal Control System Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risk Mitigation measures Vaginal Wall Trauma Clinical Testing Labeling. Adverse Tissue Reaction Biocompatibility Testing. Infection Non-Clinical (Bench) Testing Cleaning and Disinfection Validation Labeling. Device Malfunction Non-Clinical (Bench) Testing Labeling. Urinary Urgency, Incontinence, or Voiding Problems Clinical Testing Labeling. Fecal Urgency or Difficulty in Evacuation Clinical Testing Labeling. Discomfort, Pain Clinical Testing Labeling. Change in Amount, Color, or Consistency of Vaginal Discharge Labeling.

    FDA believes that the following special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness:

    • Clinical testing must document the device acceptance data and the adverse event profile associated with clinical use, and demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use.

    • The elements of the device that contact vaginal tissue must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    • The cleaning and disinfection instructions for the device must be validated.

    • Non-clinical (bench) testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use.

    • Non-clinical (bench) testing must demonstrate that the device does not:

    ○ Enhance the growth of Staphylococcus aureus.

    ○ Increase production of Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin-1 by S. aureus.

    ○ Alter the growth of normal vaginal flora.

    • Labeling must include:

    ○ Specific instructions, contraindications, warnings, cautions, limitations, and the clinical training needed for the safe use of the device.

    ○ The intended patient population and the intended use environment.

    ○ Information on how the device is to be fitted, how the device operates, and recommendations on device maintenance.

    ○ A detailed summary of the clinical testing pertinent to the use of the device, including a summary of the device- and procedure-related complications or adverse events related to use of the device, as well as relevant safety and performance information.

    • Patient labeling must be provided and must include:

    ○ Relevant contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse events/complications.

    ○ Information on how the device operates and the recommended device maintenance (i.e., care instructions), including cleaning and disinfection.

    ○ Information on the patient population for which there was a favorable benefit/risk assessment.

    ○ The potential risks and benefits associated with the use of the device.

    Rectal control system devices are prescription devices restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device; see 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices).

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the rectal control system they intend to market.

    II. Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    IV. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

    1. DEN140020: De Novo Request per 513(f)(2) from Pelvalon, Inc., dated June 23, 2014.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 876

    Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 876 is amended as follows:

    PART 876—GASTROENTEROLOGY-UROLOGY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 876 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.

    2. Add § 876.5930 to subpart F to read as follows:
    § 876.5930 Rectal control system.

    (a) Identification. A rectal control system is a prescription device intended to treat fecal incontinence by controlling the size of the rectal lumen. The device is inserted in the vagina and includes a portion that expands to reduce the rectal lumen to prevent stool leakage and retracts to allow normal passage of stool. The device includes an external regulator to control the state of expansion.

    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

    (1) Clinical testing must document the device acceptance data and the adverse event profile associated with clinical use, and demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use.

    (2) The elements of the device that contact vaginal tissue must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    (3) The cleaning and disinfection instructions for the device must be validated.

    (4) Non-clinical (bench) testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use.

    (5) Non-clinical (bench) testing must demonstrate that the device does not:

    (i) Enhance the growth of Staphylococcus aureus.

    (ii) Increase production of Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin-1 by S. aureus.

    (iii) Alter the growth of normal vaginal flora.

    (6) Labeling must include:

    (i) Specific instructions, contraindications, warnings, cautions, limitations, and the clinical training needed for the safe use of the device.

    (ii) The intended patient population and the intended use environment.

    (iii) Information on how the device is to be fitted, how the device operates, and recommendations on device maintenance.

    (iv) A detailed summary of the clinical testing pertinent to the use of the device, including a summary of the device- and procedure-related complications or adverse events related to use of the device, as well as relevant safety and performance information.

    (7) Patient labeling must be provided and must include:

    (i) Relevant contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse events/complications.

    (ii) Information on how the device operates and the recommended device maintenance (i.e., care instructions), including cleaning and disinfection.

    (iii) Information on the patient population for which there was a favorable benefit/risk assessment.

    (iv) The potential risks and benefits associated with the use of the device.

    Dated: May 21, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13067 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0447] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mokelumne River, East Isleton, CA 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 California Department of Transportation highway drawbridge across the Mokelumne River, mile 3.0, at East Isleton, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform rehabilitation to the bridge control house. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. on May 29, 2015 to 10 p.m. on June 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0447], 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. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the California Department of Transportation highway drawbridge across the Mokelumne River, mile 3.0, at East Isleton, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides approximately 7 feet vertical clearance above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.175(a), the draw opens on signal from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., except that during the following periods the draw need only open for recreational vessels on the hour, 20 minutes past the hour, and 40 minutes past the hour: Saturdays, 10 a.m. until 2 p.m.; Sundays, 11 a.m. until 6 p.m.; and Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day 11 a.m. until 6 p.m.. At all other times the drawbridge shall open on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given. Navigation on the waterway is commercial, recreational, search and rescue, and law enforcement.

    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 p.m. on May 29, 2015 to 10 p.m. on June 26, 2015, due to rehabilitation of the bridge control house. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. Caltrans work plan and dates have been tailored to produce the least possible impacts to waterway traffic, land traffic, businesses and potential flood response plans, while allowing the work to be performed, to ensure dependable future operation of the drawbridge.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. Alternative paths for recreational vessel traffic are available via Little Potato Slough and Georgiana Slough. The Coast Guard will inform waterway users of this temporary deviation via our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, to minimize resulting navigational impacts.

    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 19, 2015. D.H. Sulouff, District Bridge Chief, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13160 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0234] Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the San Francisco Giants Fireworks display in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1 will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 26, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Joshua Dykman, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-3585 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones established in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1 on June 26, 2015. From 11 a.m. until 10 p.m. on June 26, 2015 the safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge at the launch site and until the start of the fireworks display. From 11 a.m. until 8:30 p.m. on June 26, 2015 the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. From 8:30 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. on June 26, 2015 the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′40″ N., 122°22′58″ W. (NAD83). At the conclusion of the baseball game, approximately 10 p.m. on June 26, 2015, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 700 feet in approximate position 37°46′40″ N., 122°22′58″ W. (NAD83) for the San Francisco Giants Fireworks display in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1. Upon the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate. This safety zone will be in effect from 11 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 26, 2015.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Gregory G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13132 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0208] Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina, San Francisco Bay, Berkeley, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Berkeley Marina Fourth of July Fireworks display in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 8 will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Joshua Dykman, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-3585 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a 1,000 foot safety zone around the Berkeley Pier in approximate position 37°51′40″ N., 122°19′19″ W. (NAD 83) from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015. Upon the commencement of the 30 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2015, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the Berkeley Pier within a radius 1,000 feet in approximate position 37°51′40″ N., 122°19′19″ W. (NAD83) for the Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 8. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate. This safety zone will be in effect from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Gregory G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13138 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0209] Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, Crescent City, Crescent City Harbor, Crescent City, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Crescent City Fourth of July Fireworks display in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 4 will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Joshua Dykman, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-3585 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone established in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 4 on July 4, 2015. Upon commencement of the 30 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2015, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters surrounding the land based launch site on the West Jetty of Crescent City Harbor within a radius of 700 feet in approximate position 41°44′41″ N., 124°11′59″ W. (NAD 83) for the Fourth of July Fireworks, Crescent City in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 4. Upon the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate. This safety zone will be in effect from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 23, 2015. Gregory G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13137 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0210] Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Eureka, Humboldt Bay, Eureka, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Eureka in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 3, will be enforced from 12 p.m. on July 3, 2015 through 10:40 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Joshua Dykman, Sector San Francisco Waterways Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 415-399-3585, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 12 p.m. on July 3, 2015 until 3 p.m. on July 4, 2015 the fireworks barge will be loaded off of Schneider Dock in Eureka, CA in approximate position 40°47′50″ N., 124°11′11″ W. (NAD 83). From 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. on July 4, 2015 the loaded barge will transit from Schneider Dock to the launch site off of Woodley Island near Eureka, CA at approximate position 40°48′29′ N., 124°10′06″ W. (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 25 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015, the safety zone will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 1,000 feet at approximate position 40°48′29″ N., 124°10′06″ W. (NAD 83) for the Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Eureka in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 3. This safety zone will be in effect from 12 p.m. on July 3, 2015 until 10:40 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 23, 2015. Gregory G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard. Captain of the Port San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13133 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0388] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, Lake Erie; Lakeside, OH AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zone in the waters of Lake Erie in the vicinity of Lakeside, OH. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the fireworks event at Lakeside. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect people and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2015-0388 and are available online by going to www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2015-0388 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “search.” They are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary final rule, contact or email MST1 Brett A. Kreigh, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Toledo, at (419)418-6046 or [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The details of this emergent event were not received in sufficient time for the Coast Guard to solicit public comments before the start of the fireworks. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard from protecting the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the maritime fireworks displays.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

    A fireworks display will be taking place on Lake Erie, in the vicinity of Lakeside, OH. The temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks display. Such hazards include the explosive danger of fireworks and debris falling into the water that may cause death or serious bodily harm. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the event will help ensure the safety of persons and property at this event and help minimize the associated risks.

    C. Discussion of Rule

    Because of the aforementioned safety concerns, The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined a temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading, and launching of the Lakeside July 4th Fireworks Display. The Lakeside July 4th Fireworks Display safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Sandusky Bay within a 600-foot radius of the fireworks barge located at position 41°32′54″ N., 082°44′52″ W. (NAD 83).

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize their impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, restrictions on vessel movement within the area of the safety zone expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in designated portions of Lake Erie, OH from 9:30 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

    The safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The safety zone will be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only a short period of time. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T09-0388 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0388 Safety Zone; Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, Lake Erie; Lakeside, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 600-foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°32′54″ N., 082°44′52″ W. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD83).

    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. The safety zone will be effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated on-scene representative.

    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 14, 2015. Scott B. Lemasters, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13159 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2014-0683, FRL-9928-39-Region 2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving certain elements of New York's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted to demonstrate that the State meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead (Pb). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA and is commonly referred to as an infrastructure SIP.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2014-0683. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. The Air Programs Branch dockets are available from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Air Programs Branch telephone number is 212-637-4249.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. What is the background information? II. What comments did EPA receive in response to its proposal? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background information?

    On November 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a new, rolling 3 month average NAAQS for Pb, herein referred to as the 2008 Pb NAAQS. See 73 FR 66964.1 The 2008 Pb NAAQS is 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter of air (μg/m3) maximum (not-to-be-exceeded). In the same action EPA revised the secondary Pb NAAQS to be identical in all respects to the revised primary standard, i.e., 0.15 μg/m3.

    1 Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 lead standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require, in part, that states submit to EPA plans to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. These SIPs are commonly called infrastructure SIPs. Based on the October 15, 2008 date of signature for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS were due on October 15, 2011.

    EPA is acting on New York's SIP submittal dated October 13, 2011, as supplemented on February 24, 2012, which addresses the section 110 infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time that the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA section 191. (See also CAA section 172 for general nonattainment plan requirements). These requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA.

    As a result, this action does not address the nonattainment area plan requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C) or 110(a)(2)(I).

    II. What comments did EPA receive in response to its proposal?

    On December 15, 2014 (79 FR 74046), EPA proposed to approve New York's SIP submittal addressing the section 110 infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA received one adverse comment on the December 15, 2014 proposal. A synopsis of the adverse comment, as well as EPA's response is discussed below.

    Comment: EPA must disapprove element C with regard to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) unless New York has the PM2.5 increments approved into its PSD SIP. As you may know, EPA's position is the issue of PM2.5 increments is relevant even if this is a lead infrastructure SIP.

    Response: Element C requires that each infrastructure SIP contain a permitting program “as required by part C.” CAA title I part C is applicable to all pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA. See, e.g., CAA section 165(a)(4). After further review EPA agrees that Element C is not restricted to only those provisions of CAA title I part C that pertain to the particular new or revised NAAQS addressed by the particular infrastructure SIP action. Because the scope of CAA title I part C is comprehensive (covering all pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA, including GHG), the EPA likewise reads the unrestricted reference to CAA title I part C in Element C to mean that this provision has the same scope as CAA title I part C itself. Thus, a fully approved comprehensive PSD program addressing all regulated pollutants is needed in order to approve the infrastructure SIP for any one pollutant.

    NYSDEC has adopted and submitted to EPA for approval into its SIP, a PSD program that includes PM2.5 increments. However, the PM2.5 increments have not yet been approved by EPA. EPA will defer taking final action approving New York's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, and (J) until EPA has approved, or simultaneously approves New York's adopted PSD program.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving New York's submittal as fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 primary Pb NAAQS for all section 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements, as follows: (A), (B), (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, D(i)(II) prong 4, (E), (F), (G), (H), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is not finalizing action on 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements, as follows: (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, and (J). EPA is not acting on New York's submittal as it relates to nonattainment provisions, the NSR program required by part D in section 110(a)(2)(C) and the measures for attainment required by section 110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs because the State's infrastructure SIP submittal does not include nonattainment requirements and EPA will act on them when, if necessary, they are submitted.

    IV. 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.

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

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart HH—New York 2. In § 52.1670(e), the table titled “EPA-Approved New York Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions” is amended by adding the entry “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Primary Pb NAAQS” at the end of table, to read as follows:
    § 52.1670 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS Action/SIP element Applicable geographic or nonattainment area New York submittal date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Primary Pb NAAQS Statewide 10/13/11, and supplemented on 2/24/12 6/1/15,
  • [Insert FR citation]
  • This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, D(i)(II) prong 4, (E), (F), (G), (H), (K), (L), and (M).
    [FR Doc. 2015-13029 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0884; FRL-9928-42-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Determination of Attainment of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Baltimore, Maryland Moderate Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making the determination that the Baltimore, Maryland Moderate Nonattainment Area (Baltimore Area) has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air quality monitoring data that shows the Baltimore Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. As a result of this determination, the requirement for the Baltimore Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress plans (RFP), contingency measures, and other State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the standard are suspended for as long as the area continues to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0884. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over three years) to provide increased protection of public health and the environment. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).1 The 2008 ozone NAAQS retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated as nonattainment any area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data. The Baltimore Area (specifically, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County, and Howard County) was designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.321. Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no later than six years after the effective date of designations, or July 20, 2018. See 40 CFR 51.903. Air quality monitoring data from the 2012-2014 monitoring period indicate that the Baltimore Area is now attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14041), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), which proposed to determine that the Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Public comments were received on the NPR. Summaries of the comments as well as EPA's responses are in section III of this rulemaking notice.

    1 For a detailed explanation of the calculation of the 3-year 8-hour average, see 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.

    Under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.1118,2 also known as EPA's Clean Data Policy, a determination by EPA that an area is attaining the relevant standard (through a rulemaking that includes public notice and comment) suspends the area's obligations to submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures and other planning requirements related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for as long as the area continues to attain the standard. This suspension remains in effect until such time, if ever, that EPA (i) redesignates the area to attainment at which time those requirements no longer apply, or (ii) subsequently determines that the area has violated the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA remains obligated under section 110(k)(2) to act upon these elements at any time if submitted to EPA for review and approval. On April 22, 2015, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) sent correspondence to EPA indicating its intent to submit an attainment SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.3 This determination of attainment is not equivalent to a redesignation under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The designation status of the Baltimore Area will remain nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area meets the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan. Additionally, the determination of attainment is separate from, and does not influence or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or requirements for the Baltimore Area based on any new or revised ozone NAAQS, and it remains in effect regardless of whether EPA designates this Area as a nonattainment area for purposes of any new or revised ozone NAAQS. Finally, this determination does not relieve other CAA requirements that are not related to attainment planning and achievement of the NAAQS, such as an emissions inventory as required by CAA section 172(c)(3) or a nonattainment area permitting program pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173.

    2 EPA issued its proposal to determine that the Baltimore Area was attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, EPA's Clean Data Policy under the 1997 8-hour ozone implementation rule. On April 6, 2015, EPA's plan implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS became effective, thereby replacing 40 CFR 51.918 with 40 CFR 51.1118, a functionally identical provision for purposes of this action. See 40 CFR 51.919.

    3 The April 22, 2015 letter from MDE is available in the docket for this rulemaking under docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0884.

    II. EPA's Evaluation

    EPA has reviewed the complete, quality-assured and certified ozone ambient air monitoring data for the monitoring period for 2012-2014 for the Baltimore Area. The design values for each monitor for the years 2012-2014 are less than or equal to 0.075 ppm which is the 2008 ozone NAAQS level, and all monitors meet the data completeness requirements (see Table 1).4 Based on this 2012-2014 data from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database and consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has concluded that this Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    4 Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P. This 3-year average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm at each monitor within the area, then the area is attaining the NAAQS. The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90 percent (%), and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as determined in Appendix P of 40 CFR part 50. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System.

    Table 1—2012-2014 Baltimore Area 2008 8-Hour Ozone Design Values Monitor ID Average
  • percent data completeness
  • 2012-2014 Design value (ppm)
    24-003-0014 97 0.074 24-005-1007 95 0.072 24-005-3001 99 0.072 24-013-0001 99 0.069 24-025-1001 98 0.075 24-025-9001 96 0.073 24-510-0054 90 0.064

    The data in Table 1 are available in EPA's AQS database. The AQS report with this data is available in the docket for this rulemaking under docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0884 and available online at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0884. Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale for EPA's proposed action were explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.

    III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received the following adverse comments on the proposed determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A summary of the adverse comments and our responses follow.

    Comment 1: A commenter stated that EPA's proposed determination of attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for the Baltimore Area thwarts the CAA's mandate of expeditious attainment of the NAAQS because the monitored data are the result of unusual weather patterns resulting in low ozone concentrations in Baltimore's air quality, which the commenter asserts is likely to revert back to monitored nonattainment in the near future. The commenter further states that this is of particular concern in the Baltimore Area given that asthma is an endemic problem and an environmental justice issue in Maryland. According to the commenter, issuance of a determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS would defer additional needed air quality planning requirements, delay permanent attainment, and jeopardize public health. The commenter also asserts Maryland cannot rely on voluntary control measures which are not permanent and enforceable. Therefore, the commenter stated EPA's issuance of the determination of attainment would be arbitrary, capricious and counterproductive to the mandate of the CAA.

    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should not finalize the determination of attainment because, in accordance with EPA regulations and longstanding policy for such determinations, and in accordance with the intent of the CAA, the area is factually attaining the NAAQS. As the commenter acknowledges, unlike the CAA's redesignation requirement that an area's attainment air quality is due to permanent and enforceable measures in CAA section 7407(d)(3)(E)(iii), EPA's Clean Data Policy does not require an analogous demonstration. See 40 CFR 51.1118. It is for this reason that EPA's determination of attainment merely suspends the requirement to submit attainment planning SIPs for only so long as the area continues to attain the standard. If the area falls back into nonattainment, those attainment planning SIPs become immediately due upon a determination by EPA that the area is no longer attaining the NAAQS. Moreover, Maryland may still submit SIPs in anticipation of this event, and EPA will be required to act on those SIPs in accordance with CAA section 7410(k)(2) and (3). The Clean Data Policy embodies EPA's longstanding interpretation that certain planning requirements in the CAA no longer have meaning for areas that are attaining the standard because the purpose of these provisions is to help a nonattainment area reach attainment, a goal which will already have been achieved.

    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in the general preamble for the implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble). See 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171, 172, and 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known as its “Clean Data Policy” for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning Standards, May 10, 1995 (Seitz Memorandum). The Seitz Memorandum provided that requirements to submit SIP revisions addressing RFP, an attainment demonstration, and other related requirements such as contingency measures and other specific ozone-related requirements in section 182 would be suspended for as long as the nonattainment area continued to monitor attainment of the NAAQS. EPA incorporated its “Clean Data Policy” interpretation in both its 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule in 40 CFR 51.918, its Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule (1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule) in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), the SIP requirements rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS published on March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), and the proposed PM implementation rule published on March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15340). See 72 FR 20585, 20665 (April 25, 2007).5 Over the past two decades, in regulations, guidance memoranda, and numerous individual rulemakings, EPA has consistently articulated its Clean Data Policy interpretation as applying to the attainment-related SIP planning provisions of subparts 1, 2 and 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, and the spectrum of ambient air quality standards, including the 1-hour and 1997 ozone, coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) NAAQS. See e.g. 79 FR 77911 (December 29, 2014) (determination of attainment of 2008 Pb NAAQS); 79 FR 25014 (May 2, 2014) (determination of attainment of 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS); 79 FR 21139 (April 15, 2014) (determination of attainment of 2008 ozone NAAQS); 78 FR 20244 (April 4, 2013) (determination of attainment of 1997 ozone NAAQS); and 77 FR 36163 (June 18, 2012) (determination of attainment of 1-hour ozone NAAQS). The D.C. Circuit explicitly upheld EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation as embodied in the1997 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.6 NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245, 1258-61 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that have considered and reviewed EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation have similarly upheld it and the rulemakings applying EPA's interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion); and Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos. 06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009) (memorandum opinion).

    5 While the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in a January 4, 2013 decision remanded the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule to EPA, the D.C. Circuit did not address the merits of that regulation regarding our Clean Data Policy in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), nor cast any doubt on EPA's existing interpretation of the statutory provisions for the Clean Data Policy. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

    6 “EPA's Final Rule to implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).” See 70 FR 71612, 71645-46 (November 29, 2005).

    Because EPA finds the Baltimore Area's monitoring data supports a determination that the Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS as explained above and in the NPR, EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should not issue at this time a determination of attainment which suspends SIP planning requirements for the Baltimore Area pursuant to our Clean Data Policy. EPA acts to protect the public health in accordance with the CAA and its mandates and the Agency is concerned with increased asthma incidences as well as with ensuring environmental justice for communities. EPA's determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area is in accordance with our regulations and longstanding policy and is based on monitored ozone data demonstrating attainment with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which EPA set at a level to protect the public health. Thus, EPA's action is in accordance with the CAA, its implementing regulations, and policy.

    Second, to the extent that the commenter is suggesting that EPA may not issue a determination of attainment where the factors that contributed to attainment are not permanent, EPA notes that such a requirement is a prerequisite to a redesignation of a nonattainment area under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), but not for a determination of attainment. A redesignation changes the legal status of an area from nonattainment of the NAAQS to attainment of the NAAQS, and is not pertinent to determinations of attainment that simply suspend attainment planning requirements in Part D of Title I of the CAA. Thus, EPA disagrees with the commenter that our determination of attainment, which is based on data from ozone monitors in the Baltimore Area showing attainment with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P, is arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to the CAA.

    Finally, under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rules (40 CFR 51.918 and 51.919), if EPA issues a determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard (through a rulemaking that includes public notice and comment), it will suspend the area's obligations to submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures and other planning requirements related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for as long as the area continues to attain the standard. This suspension remains in effect until such time, if ever, that EPA (i) redesignates the area to attainment at which time those requirements no longer apply, or (ii) subsequently determines that the area has violated the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA is required to act upon these elements if submitted to EPA for review and approval. In fact, Maryland has stated its intent to submit an attainment plan for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which will address SIP attainment planning requirements in sections 172 and 182 of the CAA, including control measures, RACM, RFP and contingency measures which will assist the Baltimore Area with maintenance of the NAAQS. See April 22, 2015 letter from MDE to EPA regarding plans for 2008 ozone NAAQS attainment SIP which is included in the docket for this rulemaking action. Thus, EPA has considered the commenter's concern that this rulemaking will delay attainment planning which could assist with maintenance with the NAAQS, and has determined that MDE is addressing these concerns. Furthermore, EPA's NPR which proposed to determine the Baltimore Area had attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS has not delayed or interfered with MDE's plans for additional control measures to address ozone formation and attainment and maintenance of ozone NAAQS. For example, MDE recently proposed action on new nitrogen oxide (NOX) regulations for electric generating units (EGUs), which may assist the Area with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.7 See COMAR 26.11.38 (proposed April 17, 2015).8 In addition, EPA expects further NOX reductions will occur in Maryland with the projected closure of coal-fired power generating units at NRG Energy's Dickerson and Chalk Point power plants which are projected to deactivate by 2018.9 In addition, many other coal-fired EGUs in Maryland and in states neighboring Maryland have already deactivated or will soon deactivate in 2015 and 2016, including R. Paul Smith, Potomac River, Chesapeake, Clinch River, Glen Lynn, Armstrong, Elrama, Hatfields Ferry, Mitchell, Willow Island, Albright, Kammer, Kanawha River, Phillip Sporn, Rivesville, Walter C. Beckjord, Muskingum River, Eastlake, Ashtabula, and Big Sandy, which will likely result in further NOX and ozone reductions and thereby additionally address the commenter's concerns with continued attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the Baltimore Area.10

    7 NOX is a precursor pollutant which reacts in the atmosphere to form ozone.

    8 According to MDE's Web site, MDE has petitioned the Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review (AELR) Committee of the Maryland General Assembly requesting emergency status for COMAR 26.11.38. If the AELR Committee grants its approval, the emergency measure for NOX reductions at EGUs may go into effect immediately. To become a permanent regulation, the regulation must be promulgated following the State required administrative procedures, which includes a 30-day public comment period. See http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/regulations/air/Pages/Emergency.aspx. For additional information including the proposed regulations, see http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/regulations/air/Documents/COMAR_26.11.38.pdf and http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-air-pollution-rule-20150417-story.html.

    9 For a listing of EGUs which deactivated already or are planning to deactivate in the states which are part of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., a regional transmission organization which coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity within states including Maryland, see http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-deactivation/gd-summaries.aspx.

    10See http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-deactivation/gd-summaries.aspx.

    Comment 2: The commenter asserts that EPA should not issue a determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area because the Area experienced atypical weather conditions in 2013 and 2014, leading to lower monitored ozone levels in the Area, and asserts the Area is likely to revert back to nonattainment in the near future. The commenter states that unusually cool summers, increased precipitation, and shifting ozone transport patterns which occurred in 2013 and 2014 contributed to unusually low ozone levels in the Baltimore Area, but that the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts that such aberrant weather trends will not continue through summer 2015. The commenter asserts the Baltimore Area could revert to nonattainment if summers are warmer with less precipitation than 2013 and 2014. The commenter cites to statements from Maryland and the Ozone Transport Commission regarding the shifting weather and transport patterns in 2013 and 2014.11 Furthermore, the commenter asserts that 2013 and 2014 atypical weather conditions led to lower energy demand due to less use of air conditioners by consumers in summer, and thereby led to lower coal plant operations, and presumably lower NOX emissions helping to keep ozone levels low. The commenter notes the coal-fired EGUs in Maryland have generally operated less in recent years but tend to continue to operate on warmer summer days, which the commenter says are the most “sensitive” from the ozone and public health perspective. Thus, the commenter states EPA should decline to issue the clean data determination for the Baltimore Area because of the aberrant weather in 2013 and 2014 and because the Area is likely to revert back to nonattainment in the near future.

    11 By reference to “transport,” the commenter refers to the transport of air pollution and pollutants from upwind states to downwind states in the atmosphere.

    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter that transport of NOX or ozone or that weather patterns including unusual patterns of transport of pollution and cooler, wetter weather data than historical averages should impact EPA's determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's determinations of attainment with a NAAQS are based entirely on monitoring data and on our evaluation of that data's compliance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P. Therefore, weather conditions, transport patterns, energy demand, and EGU megawatt generation that the commenter alleges may impact NOX and ozone pollution levels are irrelevant in determining whether an area is attaining a NAAQS. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P. This 3-year average is the design value. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm at each monitor within the area, then the area is attaining the NAAQS. EPA's analysis of monitoring data in the Baltimore Area (included in Section II of this rulemaking action) supports the determination that the Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, the data completeness requirement for evaluating monitoring data for NAAQS attainment is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90 percent (%), and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as defined in Appendix P of 40 CFR part 50. Monitor data must also be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's AQS. EPA's analysis in Section II of this rulemaking action of the monitor data in the Baltimore Area shows the Baltimore Area monitors meet the completeness criterion which also supports our determination that the Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    In sum, EPA reviewed the complete, quality-assured and certified ozone ambient air monitoring data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period for the Baltimore Area. The design values for each monitor for the years 2012-2014 are less than or equal to 0.075 ppm, and all monitors meet the data completeness requirements (see Table 1 in Section II of this rulemaking action). Thus, EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should not issue the determination of attainment based on factors such as atypical weather, transport, or reduced EGU generation. The Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P requirements and 40 CFR 51.918. Thus, EPA's determination is in accordance with CAA requirements and is not arbitrary or capricious.12 If the Baltimore Area's monitors show design values exceeding the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the future, EPA will take appropriate action to remove the suspension of attainment plan requirements as discussed in this rulemaking and in the NPR. Furthermore, as noted in response to Comment 1, notwithstanding the lawful suspension of these requirements in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1118, the state has indicated that it plans to continue working on submissions to address the suspended attainment planning requirements, which EPA will be required to act upon in accordance with CAA section 110(k).

    12 EPA also discussed the irrelevance of atypical weather in EPA's approval of the attainment demonstration for the Washington DC-MD-VA, moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 80 FR 19206 (April 10, 2015). In response to comments that the weather in 2012 was cooler and wetter than average which led to ozone levels lower than seen in prior years, EPA agreed that weather plays an important role in ozone formation but stated that these considerations do not require EPA to disapprove the attainment demonstration where modeling and actual design values from ambient air quality monitors demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS. Id. at 19213-214 (stating EPA's approval of attainment demonstration was in accordance with CAA statutory requirements).

    Comment 3: The commenter states that Baltimore's ozone monitors do not accurately capture all maximum ozone exposures. According to the commenter, several ozone monitors in the Baltimore Area (including specifically the Davidsonville, Padonia, and Aldino monitors) have shut off for several days during the ozone season in 2011, 2012 and 2013, and on several occasions, shut off on very hot days as ozone concentrations increased. The commenter asserts these monitors may have missed exceedances that would have kept the monitor in nonattainment for 2012-2014 with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The commenter states the untimely shut-offs of ozone monitors call into question the “cleanliness” of the Area's data as monitors were “down and failing to record ambient ozone levels at critical points during ozone season and summer heat waves.” The commenter states EPA should decline to grant the clean data determination at this time due to “illusory air quality improvements.” Because the commenter questions the monitoring data due to certain shut off episodes, the commenter additionally claims EPA's determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.

    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should not finalize this determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS due to concerns raised by the commenter with respect to certain ozone monitors in the Area, and disagrees that EPA's determination is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. As discussed previously, EPA issues determinations of attainment for the NAAQS based solely on monitoring data input into EPA's AQS demonstrating attainment with a NAAQS in accordance with requirements for attainment in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P, regardless of weather or transport conditions or patterns. For EPA to issue a determination of attainment, one important criterion is that the monitoring data must meet the completeness requirements set forth in Appendix P of 40 CFR part 50 (amongst other requirements.) The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data completeness. EPA has determined that the 2012-2014 ozone monitoring data in the Baltimore Area meet these requirements because the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90% and because no single year has less than 75% data completeness. Therefore, EPA has sufficient data in accordance with Appendix P of 40 CFR part 50 for issuance of the determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the monitors “shutting off” create illusory air quality improvements as the monitors satisfy EPA's data completeness requirements.

    In addition, EPA disagrees with the commenter's characterization that the monitors were “shutting off,” and EPA finds it unreasonable to infer ozone exceedances may have occurred during any periods when monitors may not have collected valid data. Ozone monitors are sophisticated analytical instruments. While they mostly operate quite reliably, there may be occasional incidences where monitors malfunction or produce erroneous or compromised data despite best efforts at maintenance and good operating practices. EPA believes it is unreasonable to expect any ozone monitor to operate continuously twenty-four hours a day for seven days a week over the seven month ozone season without experiencing any operational issues. EPA believes routine issues may be expected to occur affecting monitor operation and performance including issues such as ultraviolet lamps and vacuum pumps needing repair, particulate filters becoming clogged, and water vapor condensing in the sample manifold and being drawn into the monitor.

    In addition, monitors must be operated in environmentally controlled buildings or instrument shelters. If the air conditioning fails and the monitors overheat, unstable readings may occur. If the temperature gets too cold in a shelter on a hot and humid day, condensation can occur and affect the ozone readings. Condensation may also impact a monitor because ozone exceedance days are often observed on warm and humid days. Further, monitoring stations frequently house additional monitoring equipment creating a high electrical demand. Thus, monitors are susceptible to electrical power disturbances from power failures due to stress on the electrical grid or from power failures due to thunderstorms which also frequently occur during hot and humid ozone exceedance days.

    To combat such issues, a strict schedule of preventative maintenance, operational checks, daily zero and span challenges, periodic audits and a minimum of bi-weekly precision checks are in place by state agencies operating monitors such as MDE to insure that any monitor problems are addressed in a timely manner and that the highest possible quality data is being produced. Since MDE produces daily ozone forecasts, MDE's monitoring site operators are alerted ahead of time when they can expect ozone exceedance days and extra efforts are taken to insure that the monitors are operating properly as practically possible.

    Because of these concerns with monitor operations, Appendix P of 40 CFR part 50 accounts for potential missing data with the completeness criterion discussed previously. All of the Baltimore Area ozone monitors meet these requirements for the period in question. EPA reviewed data from the Davidsonville, Padonia, and Aldino monitors noted by the commenter as having missing data from 2011-2013 including on hotter days in the ozone season. In general, EPA believes that the characterization of these monitors as being “shut off” is not accurate. Instead, EPA found the data from these monitors was invalidated for very brief periods or was briefly not collected due to operational concerns such as malfunctioning air conditioning units, power failures, and condensation concerns in sample lines. EPA's analysis of the Davidsonville, Padonia, and Aldino monitors for the time periods noted by the commenter is included in a Supplemental Technical Support Document (Supplemental TSD) which is available in the docket for this rulemaking action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0884. EPA also believes it is unlikely that the monitors missed high ozone exceedances as other monitors were operating in or near the Baltimore Area during some of these limited occasions and were not reporting exceedances. EPA finds it is unreasonable for the commenter to infer ozone exceedances would have occurred during the very limited periods of invalidated data or uncollected data due to power outages because ozone concentrations are not solely dependent on temperature, because ozone concentrations do not behave linearly from day to day at each monitor, and because such inference ignores the meteorology and the behavior of the other ozone monitors in Maryland, which did not report exceedances on the same days and times when these three monitors had limited periods of invalidated data.13 For a detailed discussion of monitor performance and an explanation for the brief periods of invalidated data at each of the noted monitors, see the Supplemental TSD.

    13 For example, one period of unavailable monitor data noted by the commenter around June 29, 2012 at the Davidsonville monitor occurred due to a power failure brought on by a historic storm (known as a derecho) which caused extensive power outages and property damage in Maryland. Despite the summer heat, none of the other Baltimore area monitors registered exceedances during that period of time as temperature is not always directly linked to ozone exceedances. EPA finds it reasonable during this derecho that strong winds likely swept ozone away from the Area based on monitoring data from nearby monitors.

    In conclusion, because EPA's determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area is in accordance with established CAA requirements and is supported by EPA analysis in the NPR and in Section II of this rulemaking action regarding complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data that shows the Baltimore Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period, EPA's determination is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to the CAA.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA has determined that the Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the Baltimore Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. This determination suspends the requirement for Maryland to submit an attainment demonstration for the Baltimore Area, RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning requirements related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for so long as the Baltimore Area continues to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, EPA is still obligated to act upon revisions addressing these requirements if submitted to EPA for review and approval. Finalizing this determination does not constitute a redesignation of the Baltimore Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3). Therefore, the designation status of the Baltimore Area will remain nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA takes final rulemaking action to determine that the Baltimore Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment. Finally, this determination does not relieve other CAA requirements that are not related to attainment planning and achievement of the NAAQS such as an emissions inventory as required by CAA section 172(c)(3) or a nonattainment area permitting program pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    This action makes a determination of attainment based on air quality, and will result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, and will not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

    • 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 se.);

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et se., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

    This action determining that the Baltimore Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 19, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart V—Maryland
    2. In § 52.1082, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:
    § 52.1082 Determinations of attainment.

    (i) EPA has determined, as of June 1, 2015, that based on 2012 to 2014 ambient air quality data, the Baltimore nonattainment area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1118, suspends the requirement for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for as long as this area continues to meet the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13030 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 141107936-5399-02] RIN 0648-BE55 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 29 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 29 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) (Amendment 29), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). Amendment 29 and this final rule revise annual catch limits (ACLs) and recreational annual catch targets (ACTs) for four unassessed snapper-grouper species and three snapper-grouper species complexes based on an update to the acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule and revised ABCs for 14 snapper-grouper stocks. Additionally, this final rule revises management measures for gray triggerfish in Federal waters in the South Atlantic region, including modifying minimum size limits, establishing a split commercial season, and establishing a commercial trip limit. The purpose of this final rule is to revise ACLs for select snapper-grouper species using the best scientific information available, and to address concerns about inconsistent minimum size limits among states, and early harvest closures in the commercial sector for gray triggerfish.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of Amendment 29, which includes an environmental assessment (EA), a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/s_atl/sg.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karla Gore, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    On November 24, 2014, NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 29 and requested public comment through January 23, 2015 (79 FR 69819). On December 8, 2014, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 29 and requested public comment through January 7, 2015 (79 FR 72567). NMFS approved Amendment 29 on February 20, 2015. The proposed rule and Amendment 29 set forth the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by Amendment 29 and this final rule is provided below.

    Management Measures Contained in Amendment 29 and This Final Rule

    Amendment 29 updates the ABC control rule for unassessed stocks, revises the ABCs for 14 snapper-grouper species through application of the new control rule, and revises the recreational ACTs for three snapper-grouper species complexes and four snapper-grouper species based on the revised ABCs. Amendment 29 and this final rule revise the ACLs for the commercial and recreational sectors for three snapper-grouper species complexes and four snapper-grouper species based on the revised ABCs, and for gray triggerfish, modify the minimum size limits, and establish a split commercial fishing season and a commercial trip limit.

    Amendment 29 Updates the ABC Control Rule

    Amendment 29 modifies the ABC control rule to use the Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) approach, recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), which is a method for calculating ABC values for unassessed stocks when there is only reliable catch information available. Amendment 29 describes the ORCS approach in detail. Amendment 29 employs the ORCS approach to revise ABC values for the following unassessed snapper-grouper species: Bar jack, margate, red hind, cubera snapper, yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, Atlantic spadefish, gray snapper, lane snapper, rock hind, tomtate, white grunt, scamp, and gray triggerfish.

    Revise Annual Catch Limits for Select Species

    Amendment 29 and this final rule revise the ACLs for the commercial and recreational sectors for three snapper-grouper species complexes and four snapper-grouper species based on the revised ABCs using the ORCS approach, and set the ACL and optimum yield (OY) equal to the ABC for the snappers complex, grunts complex, shallow-water complex, bar jack, Atlantic spadefish, and gray triggerfish. For scamp, the ACL and OY equal 90 percent of the ABC, due to concerns about stock status.

    Modify Minimum Size Limit for Gray Triggerfish

    Amendment 29 and this final rule establish a 12-inch (30.5-cm), fork length (FL), minimum size limit for gray triggerfish in Federal waters off North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia for both the commercial and recreational sectors and increase the minimum size limit to 14 inches (35.6 cm) FL off the east coast of Florida for both the commercial and recreational sectors.

    Establish a Split Commercial Season for Gray Triggerfish

    Amendment 29 and this final rule divide the annual commercial fishing season for gray triggerfish into two 6-month fishing seasons and allocate 50 percent of the 312,324 lb (141,668 kg) commercial gray triggerfish ACL, or 156,162 lb (70,834 kg), round weight, to each fishing season, January 1 through June 30, and July 1 through December 31. When the quota is reached during either fishing season, the commercial sector closes. In addition, any unused portion of the quota from the first fishing season is added to the quota in the second season. Any unused portion of the quota specified in the second fishing season, including any addition of quota from the first season, becomes void and is not added to any subsequent quota. Because this final rule is being implemented halfway through the 2015 fishing year and commercial landings of gray triggerfish have accumulated, the quota for the 2015 July 1 through December 31 fishing season will be the difference between the new total commercial ACL of 312,324 lb (141,668 kg) and the amount of commercial landings that have occurred by July 1, 2015.

    Establish a Commercial Trip Limit for Gray Triggerfish

    Amendment 29 and this final rule establish a commercial trip limit of 1,000 lb (454 kg), round weight, for gray triggerfish.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received a total of 15 comment letters from the public during the comment period on Amendment 29 and the proposed rule. Of these, seven expressed opposition and one expressed support for actions in Amendment 29. The remaining letters were unrelated to the actions proposed in the amendment. The comments related to Amendment 29 and NMFS's respective responses are summarized below.

    Comment 1: The ORCS approach is not based on the best available scientific information because it diverges from the recommendations contained within the Berkson et al. (May 2011) ORCS Working Group NOAA Technical Memorandum and previous technical guidance from NMFS (i.e., Restrepo et al. (July 1998) NOAA Technical Memorandum) that indicate maximum landings should only be used in the catch statistic for lightly exploited non-target species.

    Response: NMFS disagrees, and both the Council's SSC and the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) determined that the actions in Amendment 29 are based on the best scientific information available. The SSC and the Council considered the recommendations in the technical guidance from the Berkson et al. (May 2011) ORCS Working Group NOAA Technical Memo, which can be found in Appendix H of Amendment 29, and Restrepo et al. (1998), which can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/NSGtkgd.pdf, and determined that the use of maximum landings for the catch statistic for the species addressed by Amendment 29 was appropriate based on the following considerations. The Chair of the SSC indicated that the stocks addressed through the ORCS approach in Amendment 29 are, for the most part, minor stocks, and the probability that they are already overexploited is lower than for the species that have been assessed. That is because for many of these unassessed species, catch is not directed but is incidental to other targeted species, and landings are episodic and highly variable, with some years of fairly high catches and other years of low catches. The SSC considered the use of a median, instead of maximum, catch statistic for these stocks, but was concerned that it would not adequately represent the high fluctuation in landings. Therefore, the SSC set the catch statistic at the upper bound of the band of landings during the time period 1999-2007 to account for the variability in catch, intending that the resulting ABC from using maximum landings as the catch statistic in ORCS would serve as a limit, not a target, and landings would be expected, on average, to be below the ABC. Accountability measures would be triggered if an ACL that resulted from the ABC was reached or projected to be reached. However, if the ABC is repeatedly exceeded, that would suggest that effort for a stock is not incidental but is directed and expanding, and Council action would be needed.

    Comment 2: NMFS failed to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of its proposed action to set ABCs for species in Amendment 29. Peer-reviewed literature and scientific evidence presented to NMFS, the Council, and the SSC demonstrates that the use of catch scalars, that set an ABC level as a multiple of the maximum catch statistic or at the third highest historic landings, have high probabilities of overfishing and reduce long-term yields. Despite having been notified of these environmental consequences before and during scoping for Amendment 29, neither Amendment 29 nor the proposed rule addresses any of this scientific information or seeks to justify the rationale behind the decision based on the information presented to NMFS and the Council. Furthermore, NMFS has not taken a hard look at the significant new information that has come to light in recent publications.

    Response: NMFS and the Council have taken a hard look at the environmental consequences of setting the ABCs for species in Amendment 29, including reviewing the recommendations from the ORCS Workgroup, the simulation approach presented to the SSC and the Council, and other information available during the development of the amendment. Studies by Newman et al. 2015 and a December 2014 report from the Natural Resources Defense Council, as cited by the commenter, were published after Amendment 29 was approved by the Council for submission to the Secretary of Commerce, and were not available during the development of the document. Because these additional studies did not indicate that drastic changes have occurred in the fishery, it was unnecessary to revise the management measures in Amendment 29 (50 CFR 600.315(e)(1)).

    Additionally, during two workshops in August 2012 and April 2013, the Council's SSC discussed the ORCS approach for determining the ABCs of unassessed species in the South Atlantic, and extensively discussed the designation of a catch statistic used in the ORCS approach to specify the ABC for the 14 species in Amendment 29.

    At the October 2013 SSC meeting, a member of the public who is an academic scientist, presented a simulation approach to inform the SSC about new methods they could consider. The simulation approach, which was subsequently published in March 2014, was conducted on two assessed species, porgy and snapper, and was not conducted on any of the 14 unassessed snapper-grouper species addressed by Amendment 29. The SSC discussed this simulation approach, but did not consider the presentation to be a relevant evaluation of how the ORCS method was applied to the unassessed stocks in Amendment 29. Instead, the SSC reiterated its prior endorsement, from its August 2012 workshop, of using the ORCS approach to revise the ABCs for 14 unassessed species with the maximum landings as the catch statistic. The SSC considered ORCS to be the best approach to allow the stocks to yield their historic average landings in the future.

    At its March 2014 meeting, the Council was informed of a public comment expressing concerns with using maximum landings as the catch statistic for ORCS and received a presentation on the SSC's use of the ORCS method, and on the simulation approach, which was presented to the SSC in October 2013. At its June 2014 meeting, the Council further discussed the SSC's rationale for choosing maximum landings as a catch statistic in the ORCS approach, and discussed the report from the April 29-May 1, 2014, SSC Meeting which contains a dissenting opinion from one SSC member (addressed in the response to comment 3, below) regarding concerns with how the ORCS approach was being applied. Based on all the foregoing and for the reasons explained in the above response to comment 1, the Council decided to move forward with the proposed revisions to the ABC control rule as recommended by the SSC, with the understanding that further revisions to the ABC control rule may be warranted in the future.

    Comment 3: One member of the SSC concluded that the ORCS approach was not based on the best available science and the associated catch level recommendations should not be used for fisheries management.

    Response: During the discussion of Amendment 29 at the April 29-May 1, 2014, SSC Meeting, a few members of the SSC expressed concerns with the application of the ORCS approach and one member disagreed with the use of the ORCS approach and requested his position be presented as a “minority opinion” in the report of the April 29-May 1, 2014, SSC Meeting. The SSC member did not agree with the choice of catch statistics and associated scalars because he thought it would provide less of a buffer for uncertainty than that prescribed for assessed species in the ABC control rule. However, despite this SSC member's individual opinion, the SSC reaffirmed its decision at that meeting and in the report of their April 29-May 1, 2014, meeting regarding the application of the ORCS approach to specify the catch level recommendations contained in Amendment 29. Further, the SSC confirmed that the ORCS approach, as applied in Amendment 29, still represents the best scientific information available and considered the associated catch level recommendations appropriate for management. NMFS finds that Amendment 29 is based on the best scientific information available.

    Comment 4: A recent peer-reviewed article documents how the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fishery management regions routinely and almost uniformly set ABCs for previously unassessed stocks above the long-term mean landings (e.g., 3rd highest landings over 10 years or 2 standard deviations above the mean), while all other regions with large numbers of data-poor stocks take a more precautionary approach. The use of catch scalars that are set above historic mean landings/catch levels conflicts with the way catch scalars are applied throughout the rest of the country.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. Information presented in the comment shows that the ABCs for a substantial portion of the data poor species from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council are also set at levels greater than median and mean levels, and the Pacific Fishery Management Council also set ABCs at levels greater than median and mean levels for some species. The ABCs for species in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were based on recommendations from the Council's SSC and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's SSC, and were considered to be the best scientific information available at the time. In August 2012 and April 2013, the Council's SSC extensively discussed the designation of a catch statistic to be used in the ORCS approach for the unassessed species addressed in Amendment 29. For many of these unassessed species, catch is incidental to other targeted species, and landings are episodic and highly variable. The SSC considered the use of median landings as a catch statistic but was concerned that it would not adequately represent the high fluctuation in landings. By using maximum landings for the catch statistic in the ORCS approach, the SSC recommended an ABC that is a limit, not a target. The ABC is set slightly above the level where stock biomass and landings will vary naturally but average landings would be expected to be below the ABC. Accountability measures would be triggered if an ACL that resulted from the ABC was exceeded.

    Comment 5: The Southeast Region's approach to stock assessment and ABC setting for data limited stocks leaves all of the analysis and decision making to the Councils and SSC with no substantive analytical support from expert stock assessment scientists in the SEFSC.

    Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act National Standard 1 guidelines state that each fishery management council should establish an ABC control rule based on the scientific advice from its SSC (50 CFR 600.310(f)(4)). The ABCs are then recommended by the SSC to the fishery management council, usually through the application of the ABC control rule. The Council's SSC, which includes expert stock assessment scientists, including two scientists from the SEFSC during the development of Amendment 29, made recommendations for modifications to the ABC control rule and application of the ORCS approach contained in Amendment 29 during the SSC's extensive workshop discussions in August 2012 and April 2013.

    The ABC control rule considers different levels and methods for setting ABCs, depending on the availability of data. For unassessed species, the control rule allows for the ABC to be determined using Depletion-Based Stock Reduction Analysis (DBSRA), Depletion-Corrected Average Catch (DCAC), third highest landings, or median landings. Amendment 29 modifies the ABC control rule to add the ORCS approach to the list of methods that can be used to calculate ABC values for unassessed stocks that may have only reliable catch data.

    Regardless of which level of the ABC control rule is applied and which method is used, when the Council ultimately chooses an ABC in an amendment to the FMP, that amendment will be reviewed by the SEFSC to advise whether the amendment is based upon the best scientific information available. The SEFSC reviewed Amendment 29 and determined that it is based upon the best scientific information available. NMFS agrees with that determination.

    Comment 6: Amendment 29 and the ABC control rule for the snapper-grouper fishery fail to incorporate and account for discard mortality in the ACL setting mechanism. The FMP, as amended by Amendment 29, fails to include a standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM).

    Response: NMFS disagrees. The ABC control rule for the snapper-grouper fishery was established in 2012 through the Comprehensive ACL Amendment, which amended the FMP. Applying the control rule requires consideration of different levels and methods for setting an ABC and considers discard mortality. As discussed above, Amendment 29 modifies the ABC control rule to add the ORCS approach to the list of methods that can be used to calculate ABC values for unassessed stocks. When employing the ORCS approach to specify the ABCs for the 14 species addressed in Amendment 29, the SSC considered discard mortality to calculate the risk of overexploitation. Their evaluation of discard mortality for a species included both the discard mortality rate and magnitude of discards. Thus, discard mortality was accounted for in setting the ACLs for the species in Amendment 29.

    The FMP does contain an SBRM, and the SBRM uses a variety of sources to assess and monitor bycatch, such as those set forth in Amendment 15B to the FMP. Additionally, Amendment 29 includes a bycatch practicability analysis (Appendix F), which describes bycatch and discard information being collected for the species addressed in this amendment, and provides an overview of the programs to collect bycatch information for snapper-grouper species in the southeast region.

    Additionally, in 2014, a workgroup was established in the southeast region to determine the effectiveness of the current SBRMs in all FMPs in the southeast region. This is an ongoing effort, and the workgroup will be providing recommendations on how to improve the SBRMs as needed in 2015. NMFS anticipates that if adjustments to SBRMs based on the recommendations of the workgroup are needed, they will be made through amendments to FMPs.

    Comment 7: Amendment 29 does not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act in that it fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives for Action 1 to update the ABC control rule. There are only two alternatives for Action 1, including the no action alternative. At the very least, the EA should have fully examined the impacts of the alternative catch scalars and other data-limited methods discussed in the ORCS Technical Memorandum, Restrepo et al. (1998), and the practices of other NMFS fishery management regions. These include the use of a more precautionary catch statistic, such as the mean or median historic catch level, as well as alternative data-limited methods, such as DBSRA and DCAC.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. A reasonable range of alternatives was considered in Amendment 29. In addition, the SSC and the Council considered the recommendations in technical guidance from the Berkson et al. (May 2011) ORCS Working Group NOAA Technical Memo, which can be found in Appendix H of Amendment 29, and Restrepo et al. (1998), which can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/NSGtkgd.pdf. The use of mean or median historic catch levels, and DBSRA and DCAC data-limited methods, which are also used in other regions, are already a part of the Council's current ABC control rule. As such, they were considered by the Council as a component of Alternative 1, the no action alternative.

    Action 1 analyzes two alternatives: Alternative 1, the no-action, status quo alternative; and Alternative 2, which adds the ORCS approach recommended to the Council by its SSC to the list of methods that can be used to determine an ABC. Under the ABC Control rule developed in Amendment 29, Level 1 is used for stocks with assessment information, DBSRA is used in Level 2, DCAC is used in Level 3, ORCS is used in Level 4, and the third highest or median landings is Level 5 of the updated ABC control rule.

    The National Standard 1 guidelines state that “for stocks and stock complexes required to have an ABC, each Council must establish an ABC control rule based on scientific advice from its SSC.” The SSC provided no other options or modifications to the ABC control rule for the Council to consider. Therefore, the Council and NMFS determined that it was reasonable to analyze the two alternatives for modifications to the ABC control rule, and that there was no other reasonable alternative.

    Comment 8: NMFS should have conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the actions in Amendment 29.

    Response: An EIS was conducted for the Comprehensive ACL Amendment, because that amendment first established the ABC control rule, applied the control rule to specify ABCs and ACLs for all snapper-grouper species and species managed under other FMPs, and also specified sector allocations. Amendment 29 proposes to modify one aspect of the ABC control rule through the addition of the ORCS approach, and utilize the ORCS approach to revise ABCs for 14 snapper-grouper species. For the reasons set forth in its EA, NMFS determined that the actions in Amendment 29 would not lead to significant biological, economic, social, or administrative impacts and that an EIS was not required. This determination was made in the finding of no significant impact.

    Comment 9: Scientific advances in data-limited assessment methods and tools provide a more scientifically defensible and transparent framework for conducting an assessment and setting ABCs for data limited stocks. The Data-Limited Fisheries Toolkit should have been used to specify ABCs for data-limited stocks.

    Response: The Data-Limited Fisheries Toolkit was referenced in a 2015 publication by Newman et al. and in a December 2014 report from the Natural Resources Defense Council. Amendment 29 was approved by the Council in September 2014 and the toolkit was not available for consideration during the development of the amendment. Because this additional information did not indicate that drastic changes have occurred in the fishery, it was unnecessary to revise the management measures in Amendment 29 (50 CFR 600.315(e)(1)). However, the SEFSC is planning to examine the use of the toolkit at data limited workshops in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, and there is potential for use of the toolkit in the South Atlantic in the future.

    Comment 10: How are the estimates for recreational landings of gray triggerfish determined?

    Response: Recreational landings for gray triggerfish and other snapper-grouper species are collected through the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), and the Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS). In the southeast region, MRIP covers both coastal Atlantic states from Maine to Florida and Gulf of Mexico coastal states from Florida to Louisiana. (Texas provides data on recreational landings through their coastal creel survey conducted by the Texas Division of Parks and Wildlife.) MRIP provides estimated landings and discards for six 2-month periods (waves) each year. The survey provides estimates for three recreational fishing modes: Shore based fishing, private and rental boat fishing, and for-hire charter and guide fishing. Catch data are collected through dockside angler intercept surveys of completed recreational fishing trips and effort data are collected using telephone surveys. The SRHS estimates landings and discards for headboats in the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico from required electronic logbooks. Landings data from MRIP and SRHS are compared to the recreational ACL. If the ACL has been met or exceeded, an accountability measure is triggered, such as an in-season closure. If landings for either MRIP or SRHS are incomplete, projections of landings based on information from previous years are used to predict when the ACL is expected to be met.

    Comment 11: Closing gray triggerfish is going to be detrimental to the fishermen of South Carolina. There needs to be different regulations for different states. One management scheme does not fit all areas.

    Response: To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, as required by National Standard 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, NMFS agrees that one management scheme for gray triggerfish might not be appropriate for all areas of the South Atlantic, and Amendment 29 should allow more access to gray triggerfish by fishermen in North Carolina and South Carolina. Currently, commercial harvest for gray triggerfish opens on January 1, and closes when the commercial ACL is met. Fishermen in North Carolina and South Carolina sometimes have limited or no access to gray triggerfish in the early months of the year due to poor weather, and could risk unsafe conditions to fish at that time. Amendment 29 includes an action to change the current management scheme by dividing the annual commercial fishing season for gray triggerfish into two 6-month fishing seasons with two separate quotas to improve fishing opportunities for gray triggerfish throughout the South Atlantic and throughout the year. This action would allocate 50 percent of the commercial gray triggerfish ACL to the time period January 1 through June 30, and 50 percent to the time period July 1 through December 31. A split commercial season would likely increase access to gray triggerfish in North Carolina and South Carolina during times of the year when weather conditions are good. NMFS also expects that the split commercial season will align the commercial harvest of gray triggerfish with that of vermilion snapper, as these are two species are commonly caught together.

    Comment 12: The minimum size limit for gray triggerfish should be 12 inches (30.5 cm), fork length (FL), for both recreational and commercial fishermen in state and Federal waters. The recreational bag limit should be five fish per person per day. Enforcement is hindered when rules are different for state and Federal waters.

    Response: Currently there is no minimum size limit for gray triggerfish in Federal waters off North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This final rule specifies a minimum size limit for gray triggerfish of 12 inches (30.5 cm) FL in Federal waters off North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The current minimum size limit for gray triggerfish is 12 inches (30.5 cm), total length (TL), in Federal waters off the east coast of Florida. This final rule specifies a minimum size limit of 14 inches (35.6 cm) FL for gray triggerfish in Federal waters off the east coast of Florida. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission recently approved an increase in the minimum size limit for gray triggerfish from 12 inches (30.5 cm) FL to 14 inches (35.6 cm) FL in state waters off the east coast of Florida. The Council's purpose is to achieve consistency with Florida regulations and aid law enforcement, since a 14-inch (35.6 cm) FL minimum size limit for gray triggerfish is already in place for Federal and state waters off the west coast of Florida. Gray triggerfish are included in the Federal 20-fish aggregate snapper-grouper bag limit and Amendment 29 did not include an action to establish a more specific recreational bag limit for gray triggerfish. A stock assessment is currently underway for gray triggerfish, and the Council may consider adjustments to management measures for the species pending the outcome of the assessment.

    Comment 13: The minimum size limit for gray triggerfish is unnecessary and will only add to discards the Council deducts from quotas every year with no benefit to the fish, fishermen, or consumer.

    Response: This final rule includes management measures for gray triggerfish to modify the minimum size limit for the commercial and recreational sectors, implement a split commercial season and a commercial trip limit. The Council determined that these management measures were needed to provide biological benefits for gray triggerfish and lengthen the fishing season.

    Because most gray triggerfish currently retained are larger than the 12-inch (30.5-cm) FL minimum size limit included in this final rule for commercial and recreational fishermen off Georgia and the Carolinas, increased discards are not expected. Regulatory discards would be expected to increase with a 14-inch (35.6-cm) FL fork length minimum size limit; however, the survival of released fish is estimated to be high (87.5 percent). The establishment of a 12-inch (30.5-cm) FL minimum size limit off Georgia and the Carolinas, as well as an increase in the minimum size limit off the east coast of Florida is expected to have increased biological benefits for gray triggerfish through improved spawning opportunities. Thus, increased biological benefits associated with spawning opportunities at larger size limits would offset negative effects of the low level of mortality associated with a small increase in regulatory discards. The combined effect of the commercial management measures proposed for gray triggerfish is expected to benefit fishermen by lengthening the commercial fishing season.

    Comment 14: The commercial trip limit does nothing to avoid closures or regulatory discards. The gray triggerfish quota should be managed with a 100 lb (45 kg) bycatch allowance for the final 25 percent of each seasonal quota to limit closures and discards. This would follow the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates to limit waste and make efficient use of our resources. Failure to follow these mandates should result in non-compliant amendments getting sent back to the Council with instructions to correct its mistakes.

    Response: Closures would still be expected if the gray triggerfish quota was managed with a 100 lb (45 kg) bycatch allowance for the final 25 percent of each seasonal quota. The Council selected a 1,000-lb (454 kg), round weight, trip limit as its preferred alternative. The Council considered various commercial trip limit alternatives, including an alternative that would reduce the commercial trip limit to 200 lb (91 kg), round weight, for the final 25 percent of each seasonal quota. Analysis provided in Amendment 29 indicated that a step-down in the trip limit to 200 lb (91 kg), round weight, would lengthen the season by only a small amount, and would provide little economic benefit to fishermen. Regulatory discards of gray triggerfish can be expected after an ACL is reached or after a small trip limit is reached if fishermen are targeting co-occurring species. However, in situations where there are discarded gray triggerfish due to regulations, survival of released gray triggerfish is estimated to be high (87.5 percent).

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic snapper-grouper species and is consistent with Amendment 29, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for this final rule. The FRFA uses updated information, when available, and analyzes the anticipated economic impacts of the final actions and any significant economic impacts on small entities. The FRFA is below.

    The description of the action, why it is being considered and the legal basis for the rule are contained in the preamble of the proposed rule and in the preamble of this final rule. Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires NMFS to summarize significant issues raised by the public in response to the IRFA, a summary of the assessment of such issues, and a statement of any changes made as a result of the comments. No significant issues were raised by the public in response to the IRFA.

    Up to 681 commercial fishing vessels operate in the snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic and NMFS estimates that up to 592 businesses will be directly affected; however, as explained below, the number is likely closer to 287. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards, a business in the finfish fishing industry (NAICS 114111) is considered a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million. NMFS estimates that all of the directly affected businesses have annual revenues less than the size standard. Consequently, up to 592, but more likely closer to 287, small commercial fishing businesses own and operate the directly affected vessels. From 2009 through 2013, an annual average of 281 commercial fishing vessels landed gray triggerfish and 6 landed bar jack.

    Anglers who catch snapper-grouper species in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone will be directly affected; however, anglers are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6), whether fishing from for-hire fishing, private or leased vessels. Recreational for-hire fishing vessels will be indirectly affected.

    Amendment 29 changes the ABC rule and assigns scalar values and risk tolerance levels for ORCS. These are administrative actions that do not have a direct economic impact on any small entity.

    The rule revises the total and commercial ACLs for Atlantic spadefish, bar jack, gray triggerfish, scamp, grunts complex, shallow-water grouper complex, and snappers complex. The commercial ACLs for scamp and the grunts complex will decrease, while the commercial ACLs for the other species and species complexes will increase. Because baseline commercial landings are less than the current and revised commercial ACLs for Atlantic spadefish, scamp, grunts complex, shallow-water grouper complex, and snappers complex, NMFS expects no impact on annual landings of and associated dockside revenues from these five species and species complexes.

    NMFS expects the revised commercial ACL for gray triggerfish to increase annual dockside revenue from gray triggerfish landings from $44,118 to $66,674 (2013 dollars). Florida businesses would receive approximately 14 percent to 27 percent of those benefits ($6,177 to $18,002) and North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia businesses would receive from 86 percent to 73 percent ($57,340 to $32,206). Divided across all 592 businesses, the average annual increase in dockside revenue from gray triggerfish landings would range from approximately $75 to $113 (2103 dollars) per business. However, the number of small businesses directly affected is likely less than that. From 2009 through 2013, an annual average of 281 vessels landed gray triggerfish. The average annual benefit would range from approximately $157 to $237 (2013 dollars) per small business across 281 small businesses.

    NMFS expects the revised commercial ACL for bar jack to increase average annual dockside revenue from bar jack landings from $0 to $1,943 (2013 dollars), and divided across all 592 businesses, the average annual benefit would range from $0 to approximately $3 (2013 dollars) per business. However, if that benefit is divided across the average of six vessels with bar jack landings annually from 2009 through 2013, the average annual benefit would range from $0 to $324 (2013 dollars) per small business.

    This rule revises the minimum size limit for gray triggerfish to 12 inches (30.5 cm) FL in Federal waters off North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and 14 inches (35.6 cm) FL off the east coast of Florida. NMFS estimates that these minimum size limits will reduce baseline commercial landings of gray triggerfish in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia from 1 percent to 3 percent and in Florida from 14 percent to 22 percent. These size limits are expected to reduce average annual dockside revenue from gray triggerfish landings from $14,775 to $42,595 in the region as a whole. NMFS estimates these impacts will not be shared equally across the region. NMFS estimates that average annual dockside revenue from gray triggerfish landings could decrease. That average decrease can range from $10,269 to $31,121 (2013 dollars) in Florida and from $3,825 to $13,517 (2013 dollars) in the other three states. The average loss of dockside revenue per small business could range from $53 to $151 in Florida (with 205 businesses) and from $50 to $178 in the other three states (with 76 businesses).

    NMFS estimates the combined changes of the commercial ACL and minimum size limits for gray triggerfish to yield a net increase in average annual dockside revenue from gray triggerfish landings in the combined states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The average annual net benefit could range from $18,689 to $53,515 (2013 dollars). With an estimated 76 businesses annually landing gray triggerfish in these states, the average annual increase could range from $246 to $704 per small business. The combined changes of the commercial ACL and minimum size limit for gray triggerfish are estimated to produce a net decrease in dockside revenue from gray triggerfish landings in Florida in four of six baseline scenarios. The net average annual loss could range from $1,803 to $24,945 in the state. In two scenarios, however, Florida businesses could collectively receive an average net gain in dockside revenue from $398 to $7,733. With an estimated 205 small businesses in Florida that annually land gray triggerfish, the average annual net loss of dockside revenue from gray triggerfish landings could be from $9 to $122 or the average annual net gain could be from $2 to $38 per small business.

    This rule will divide the commercial season for gray triggerfish into two 6-month seasons, with each season receiving 50 percent of the commercial ACL. NMFS expects the split seasons to have no effect on annual landings or dockside revenues. However, the divided commercial season will provide small businesses an increased opportunity to fish for gray triggerfish in the summer months when weather conditions are more favorable.

    This rule will establish a commercial trip limit for gray triggerfish of 1,000 lb (454 kg), round weight, which is expected to increase the number of days that each season is open; however, NMFS also expects no change in annual landings and dockside revenues. From 2009 through 2013, an annual average of 10 percent of vessels with landings of gray triggerfish had landings that exceeded the trip limit. This indicates 28 vessels and small businesses that annually land the species could be directly affected. These 28 vessels will either have less annual landings and dockside revenue from the same number of trips or have to increase the number of trips to maintain landings and dockside revenues at their current levels. These 28 vessels may be larger than the average vessel and the trip limit could decrease their net revenue per pound by increasing their average cost per pound. There is insufficient information, however, to estimate the impact, if any, on net revenues from gray triggerfish landings.

    The net annual benefit is the sum of an average annual increase in dockside revenues ranging from $44,118 to $68,617 and an average annual decrease in dockside revenues ranging from $14,778 to $42,595. This results in a collective net annual benefit ranging from $1,523 to $53,839 to 287 small businesses.

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as small entity compliance guides. As part of the rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all interested parties.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Annual catch limit, Annual catch target, Commercial trip limit, Fisheries, Fishing, Quotas, Size limit, Snapper-grouper, South Atlantic.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.185, paragraph (c)(2) is revised to read as follows:
    § 622.185 Size limits.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Gray triggerfish. (i) In the South Atlantic EEZ off Florida—14 inches (35.6 cm), FL.

    (ii) In the South Atlantic EEZ off North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia—12 inches (30.5 cm), FL.

    3. In § 622.190, add paragraph (a)(8) and revise the heading of paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 622.190 Quotas.

    (a) * * *

    (8) Gray triggerfish. (i) For the period January through June each year—156,162 lb (70,834 kg), round weight.

    (ii) For the period July through December each year—156,162 lb (70,834 kg), round weight.

    (iii) Any unused portion of the quota specified in paragraph (a)(8)(i) of this section will be added to the quota specified in paragraph (a)(8)(ii) of this section. Any unused portion of the quota specified in paragraph (a)(8)(ii) of this section, including any addition of quota specified in paragraph (a)(8)(i) of this section that was unused, will become void and will not be added to any subsequent quota.

    (c) * * *

    (1) South Atlantic gag, greater amberjack, snowy grouper, golden tilefish, vermilion snapper, black sea bass, red porgy, wreckfish, and gray triggerfish. * * *

    4. In § 622.191, paragraph (a)(11) is added to read as follows:
    § 622.191 Commercial trip limits.

    (a) * * *

    (11) Gray triggerfish. Until the applicable quota specified in either § 622.190(a)(8)(i) or (ii) is reached, 1,000 lb (454 kg), round weight. See § 622.190(c)(1) for the limitations regarding gray triggerfish after either quota specified in § 622.190(a)(8)(i) or (ii) is reached or projected to be reached.

    5. In § 622.193: a. The first sentence of paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(2), (j)(1)(i), (j)(2), (m)(1)(i), (m)(2), (p)(1)(i), (p)(2), (q)(1)(i), (q)(2), (t)(1)(i), and (t)(2) are revised; b. Paragraph (x) is revised; and c. The heading for paragraph (p) is revised.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 622.193 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    (i) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) If commercial landings for scamp, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of 219,375 lb (99,507 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. * * *

    (2) Recreational sector. If recreational landings for scamp, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL of 116,369 lb (52,784 kg), round weight, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. * * *

    (j) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) If commercial landings for other SASWG, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of 55,542 lb (25,193 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for this complex for the remainder of the fishing year. * * *

    (2) Recreational sector. If recreational landings for other SASWG, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL of 48,648 lb (22,066 kg), round weight, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. * * *

    (m) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) If commercial landings for bar jack, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of 13,228 lb (6,000 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. * * *

    (2) Recreational sector. If recreational landings for bar jack, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL of 49,021 lb (22,236 kg), round weight, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. * * *

    (p) Other snappers complex (including cubera snapper, gray snapper, lane snapper, dog snapper, and mahogany snapper)—(1) * * *(i) If commercial landings combined for this other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the complex commercial ACL of 344,884 lb (156,437 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for this complex for the remainder of the fishing year. * * *

    (2) Recreational sector. If the combined recreational landings for this other snappers complex, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL of 1,172,832 lb (531,988 kg), round weight, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL for this complex in the following fishing year. * * *

    (q) * * *

    (1)* * *

    (i) If commercial landings for gray triggerfish, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the applicable commercial ACL (commercial quota) specified in § 622.190(a)(8)(i) or (ii), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for that portion of the fishing year applicable to the respective quota. * * *

    (2) Recreational sector. If recreational landings for gray triggerfish, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL of 404,675 lb (183,557 kg), round weight, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. * * *

    (t) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) If commercial landings for Atlantic spadefish, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL of 150,552 lb (68,289 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. * * *

    (2) Recreational sector. If recreational landings for Atlantic spadefish, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL of 661,926 lb (300,245 kg), round weight, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. * * *

    (x) Grunts complex (including white grunt, sailor's choice, tomtate, and margate)—(1) Commercial sector. (i) If commercial landings for the grunts complex, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to reach the commercial complex ACL of 217,903 lb (98,839 kg), round weight, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial sector for this complex for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or purchase of the grunts complex is prohibited, and harvest or possession of these species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

    (ii) If the combined commercial landings for the grunts complex exceed the ACL, and at least one of the species in the complex is overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the ACL for that following year by the amount of the overage in the prior fishing year.

    (2) Recreational sector. If recreational landings for the grunts complex, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL of 618,122 lb (280,375 kg), round weight, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the length of the following recreational fishing season for the grunts complex by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. However, the length of the recreational season will not be reduced during the following fishing year if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available, that a reduction in the length of the following fishing season is unnecessary.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13059 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 104 Monday, June 1, 2015 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 531 RIN 3206-AM88 General Schedule Locality Pay Areas AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing proposed regulations on behalf of the President's Pay Agent to link the definitions of General Schedule (GS) locality pay area boundaries to updated metropolitan area definitions established by the Office of Management and Budget in February 2013. Under this proposal, locations that would otherwise move to a lower-paying locality pay area due to use of the updated metropolitan area definitions in the locality pay program would remain in their current locality pay area. This proposal does not modify the current commuting and GS employment criteria used in the locality pay program to evaluate, for possible inclusion in a locality pay area, locations adjacent to the metropolitan area comprising the basic locality pay area. However, regarding calculation of commuting interchange rates used to evaluate such locations, the locality pay area definitions proposed in this document reflect use of the commuting patterns data collected as part of the American Community Survey between 2006 and 2010, as recommended by the Federal Salary Council in January 2014.

    Under this proposal, 13 new locality pay areas would also be established. The Federal Salary Council recommended these 13 locality pay areas after reviewing pay levels in all “Rest of U.S.” metropolitan statistical areas and combined statistical areas with 2,500 or more GS employees. The Federal Salary Council found that the percentage difference between GS and non-Federal pay levels for the same levels of work—i.e., the pay disparity—in these 13 locations was substantially greater than the “Rest of U.S.” pay disparity over an extended period. The President's Pay Agent has agreed to issue proposed regulations in response to the Federal Salary Council's recommendation to establish the 13 new locality pay areas. Locality pay rates for the new locality pay areas would be set by the President after the new locality pay areas would be established by regulation.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on or before July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 3206-AM88,” by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include “RIN 3206-AM88” in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 606-0824.

    Mail: Brenda L. Roberts, Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Leave, Office of Personnel Management, Room 7H31, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415-8200.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joe Ratcliffe, (202) 606-2838; fax: (202) 606-0824; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), authorizes locality pay for General Schedule (GS) employees with duty stations in the United States and its territories and possessions. Section 5304(f) of title 5 U.S.C. authorizes the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) to determine locality pay areas. The boundaries of locality pay areas must be based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The Pay Agent must give thorough consideration to the views and recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, a body composed of experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy and representatives of Federal employee organizations. The President appoints the members of the Federal Salary Council, which submits annual recommendations to the Pay Agent on the locality pay program. The establishment or modification of locality pay area boundaries must conform with the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553).

    This proposal provides notice and invites comment on proposed regulations to implement the Pay Agent's plan to link locality pay area definitions to OMB-defined metropolitan areas, to use new commuting patterns data for evaluating locations adjacent to the metropolitan area comprising the basic locality pay area, and to establish 13 new locality pay areas. (Annual Pay Agent reports on locality pay can be found posted on the OPM Web site at http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/#url=Pay-Agent-Reports. The Pay Agent announced its plan to propose regulations linking locality pay area boundaries to OMB-defined metropolitan areas and using new commuting patterns data in its June 2014 report on locality pay. The Pay Agent announced its plan to establish 12 of the 13 new locality pay areas in its May 2013 report on locality pay. The Federal Salary Council, in its November 2014 recommendations, recommended establishing Kansas City, MO-KS, as a new locality pay area. Because the Federal Salary Council used the same selection criteria as used for the 12 new locality pay areas the Pay Agent tentatively approved, the Pay Agent proposes establishing Kansas City, MO-KS as a new locality pay area.)

    Linking Locality Pay Area Boundaries to OMB-Defined Metropolitan Areas

    OMB-defined metropolitan areas have been the basis of locality pay area boundaries since locality pay was implemented in 1994. OMB periodically updates its definitions of metropolitan areas, and regulations defining locality pay areas normally allow any minor changes in OMB-defined metropolitan areas to be reflected in locality pay area definitions automatically. However, because we anticipated significant changes to metropolitan area definitions in 2013, in January 2013, we revised the regulations defining locality pay areas so that updates based on OMB's redefinitions would not automatically be reflected in locality pay area definitions. (See Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 16, page 5115, January 24, 2013, and the current definitions of “CSA” and “MSA” in 5 CFR 531.602.) That action provided time for the Federal Salary Council and the Pay Agent to review the updated metropolitan area definitions for suitability for use in the locality pay program. As a result, locality pay area definitions were frozen and are currently based on December 2009 OMB-defined metropolitan areas.

    In February 2013, OMB issued new metropolitan area definitions, and in its January 2014 recommendations to the Pay Agent, the Federal Salary Council recommended that the Pay Agent use the February 2013 metropolitan area definitions in the locality pay program. The Pay Agent, in its June 2014 report to the President on locality pay, tentatively approved that recommendation, pending the issuance of revised locality pay regulations. This proposed rule would implement the change by revising the definitions of “CSA” and “MSA” in 5 CFR 531.602, to link the definitions of locality pay areas to the February 2013 OMB-defined metropolitan areas, and by updating the locality pay area definitions in 5 CFR 531.603 accordingly. The proposed revisions to the definitions of “CSA” and “MSA” in 5 CFR 531.602 would provide that any OMB additions to the CSAs and MSAs comprising basic locality pay areas would be reflected in locality pay area definitions automatically. The proposed rule also implements the Pay Agent's plan to retain, in their current locality pay area, any locations that would otherwise move to a lower-paying locality pay area as a result of linking locality pay area definitions to the February 2013 OMB-defined metropolitan areas, as recommended by the Federal Salary Council. Under this proposed rule, any such retained area would no longer be part of the basic locality pay area due to use of the February 2013 OMB-defined metropolitan areas and would be treated as an area of application.

    OMB-defined metropolitan areas are called Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) and are grouped into three categories: Micropolitan Statistical Areas, where the largest included urban area has a population of 10,000 to 49,999; Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), where the largest included urban area has a population of 50,000 or more; and Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs), which are composed of two or more adjacent CBSAs with an employment interchange measure of at least 15 percent. (The employment interchange measure is the sum of the percentage of workers living in the smaller entity who work in the larger entity and the percentage of employment in the smaller entity that is accounted for by workers who reside in the larger entity.) CBSA definitions used for the locality pay program under this proposal are contained in OMB Bulletin 13-01 of February 28, 2013, and are available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b-13-01.pdf.

    Criteria for Areas of Application

    As explained in the June 2014 Pay Agent report, locality pay areas consist of 1) the main metropolitan area comprising the basic locality pay area and, where criteria recommended by the Federal Salary Council and approved by the Pay Agent are met, 2) areas of application. Areas of application are locations that are adjacent to the basic locality pay area and meet approved criteria for inclusion in the locality pay area.

    Current criteria for evaluating locations adjacent to a basic locality pay area for possible inclusion in the locality pay area as areas of application are as follows: For adjacent CSAs and adjacent multi-county MSAs the criteria are 1,500 or more GS employees and a commuting interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent. For adjacent single counties, the criteria are 400 or more GS employees and a commuting interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent. The commuting interchange rate is defined as the sum of the percentage of employed residents of the area under consideration who work in the basic locality pay area and the percentage of the employment in the area under consideration that is accounted for by workers who reside in the basic locality pay area.

    The locality pay program also has criteria for evaluating Federal facilities that cross county lines into a separate locality pay area. To be included in an adjacent locality pay area, the whole facility must have at least 500 GS employees, with the majority of those employees in the higher-paying locality pay area, or that portion of a Federal facility outside of a higher-paying locality pay area must have at least 750 GS employees, the duty stations of the majority of those employees must be within 10 miles of the separate locality pay area, and a significant number of those employees must commute to work from the higher-paying locality pay area.

    New Commuting Patterns Data

    As stated in the June 2014 Pay Agent report, new commuting patterns data were collected as part of the American Community Survey from 2006 to 2010, and the Federal Salary Council recommended, in its January 2014 recommendations, using those data for evaluating potential areas of application. The Pay Agent tentatively agreed in its June 2014 report that it would be appropriate to use the new commuting patterns data for evaluating potential areas of application, and the areas of application included in the locality pay area definitions in this proposed rule, at 5 CFR 531.603(b), reflect use of the new commuting patterns data for that purpose.

    Locations Almost or Completely Surrounded by Higher-Paying Locality Pay Areas

    In its November 2012 recommendations, the Federal Salary Council noted that, if its recommendations for changing pay area boundaries were adopted, some areas currently in the “Rest of U.S.” locality pay area and not meeting the criteria for areas of application would be almost or completely surrounded by higher-paying locality pay areas. The Federal Salary Council recommended that completely surrounded locations be added to the locality pay area with which the surrounded location has the highest level of commuting to and from the basic locality pay area. For locations almost but not completely surrounded by higher-paying locality pay areas, the Federal Salary Council recommended that the Pay Agent evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, any locations almost but not completely surrounded by separate pay areas. The Federal Salary Council reiterated those recommendations in its January 2014 recommendations.

    Without criteria to address locations completely surrounded by higher-paying locality pay areas, this proposal's changes to locality pay area boundaries would leave Kent County, MD, and Lancaster County, PA, in the “Rest of U.S.” locality pay area, and both counties could also be completely surrounded by higher-paying locality pay areas. The Pay Agent believes that single-county locations completely surrounded by higher-paying locality pay areas should be included in the locality pay area with the highest commuting interchange rate between the surrounded county and the basic locality pay area. Accordingly, this proposed rule would amend the locality pay area definitions at 5 CFR 531.603(b) to include Kent County, MD, in the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality pay area and Lancaster County, PA, in the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, locality pay area.

    The issue of how to address “Rest of U.S.” locations that are almost but not completely surrounded by higher-paying locality pay areas requires careful consideration. The Pay Agent's preliminary view is that partially surrounded locations warranting some action would most likely be single “Rest of U.S.” counties—not multi-county metropolitan areas or large groups of counties—that are bordered by multiple higher-paying locality pay areas or are surrounded by water and isolated as “Rest of U.S.” locations within a reasonable commuting distance of a higher-paying locality pay area. The Pay Agent believes any such “Rest of U.S.” locations considered for inclusion in a separate locality pay area should be evaluated with criteria designed to evaluate such locations. The Pay Agent invites public comment on this issue.

    Effect of Changes to Locality Pay Area Boundaries

    This proposal would amend 5 CFR 531.603(b) to add the following locations to existing locality pay areas:

    Atlanta—Athens-Clarke County—Sandy Springs, GA

    Clarke County, GA; Gordon County, GA; Jackson County, GA; Madison County, GA; Morgan County, GA; Oconee County, GA; and Oglethorpe County, GA.

    Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME

    Androscoggin County, ME; Cumberland County, ME; Sagadahoc County, ME; and all portions of York County, ME, that are currently in the “Rest of U.S.” locality pay area.

    Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI

    Bureau County, IL; LaSalle County, IL; and Putnam County, IL.

    Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN

    Mason County, KY, and Union County, IN.

    Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH

    Carroll County, OH; Erie County, OH; Huron County, OH; Stark County, OH; and Tuscarawas County, OH.

    Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH

    Guernsey County, OH; Hocking County, OH; Logan County, OH; Muskingum County, OH; and Perry County, OH.

    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK

    Bryan County, OK; Hopkins County, TX; and Navarro County, TX.

    Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH

    Shelby County, OH.

    Houston-The Woodlands, TX

    Trinity County, TX; Washington County, TX; and Wharton County, TX.

    Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL

    Marshall County, AL.

    Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN

    Decatur County, IN; Delaware County, IN; and Jackson County, IN.

    Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA

    All portions of Kern County, CA, currently included in the “Rest of U.S.” locality pay area.

    Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL

    Indian River County, FL; Martin County, FL; Okeechobee County, FL; and St. Lucie County, FL.

    Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI

    Dodge County, WI; Jefferson County, WI; and Walworth County, WI.

    Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

    Le Sueur County, MN; Mille Lacs County, MN; and Sibley County, MN.

    New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA

    Carbon County, PA; Lehigh County, PA; and Northampton County, PA.

    Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV

    Jefferson County, OH; Indiana County, PA; Brooke County, WV; and Hancock County, WV.

    Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA

    Benton County, OR; Linn County, OR; and Cowlitz County, WA.

    Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC

    Lee County, NC; Robeson County, NC; Scotland County, NC; Vance County, NC; and all portions of Granville County, NC, currently included in the “Rest of U.S.” locality pay area.

    Seattle-Tacoma, WA

    Lewis County, WA.

    Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA

    Dorchester County, MD; Kent County, MD; Talbot County, MD; Franklin County, PA; and Rappahannock County, VA.

    Establishing 13 New Locality Pay Areas

    Locality pay is set by comparing GS and non-Federal pay rates for the same levels of work in each locality pay area. Non-Federal salary survey data used to set locality pay rates are collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Over the last several years, BLS has developed a method that permits Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data to be used for locality pay. OES data are available for all MSAs and CSAs in the country and permit evaluation of salary levels in many more locations than could be covered under the prior National Compensation Survey alone.

    The Federal Salary Council reviewed pay comparisons of GS and non-Federal pay in all “Rest of U.S.” MSAs and CSAs with 2,500 or more GS employees as of June 2011. Based on its review, the Federal Salary Council recommended new locality pay areas be established for 12 metropolitan areas with pay gaps averaging more than 10 percentage points above that for the “Rest of U.S.” locality pay area over an extended period. The Federal Salary Council's recommendations are posted on the OPM Web site at http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/federal-salary-council/recommendation12.pdf. In its November 2014 recommendations, using the same selection methodology, the Federal Salary Council recommended that Kansas City, MO-KS, also be established as a separate locality pay area.

    The President's Pay Agent has agreed to issue proposed regulations in response to the Federal Salary Council's recommendation to establish 13 new locality pay areas and proposes to modify 5 CFR 531.603(b) to add the new locality pay areas. The 13 new locality pay areas proposed are Albany-Schenectady, NY; Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM; Austin-Round Rock, TX; Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC; Colorado Springs, CO; Davenport-Moline, IA-IL; Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA; Laredo, TX; Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS; Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ; Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL; St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL; and Tucson-Nogales, AZ. Locality pay rates for the 13 new locality pay areas would be set by the President at a later date after they would be established by regulation.

    Adjacent Areas Qualifying as Areas of Application to New Locality Pay Areas

    Applying the criteria explained above for evaluating locations adjacent to basic locality pay areas as areas of application, this proposed rule would add the following counties to the new locality pay areas at 5 CFR 531.603(b): Fremont County, CO, and Pueblo County, CO, to the Colorado Springs, CO, locality pay area; Lancaster County, PA, to the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA, locality pay area; Jackson County, KS, Jefferson County, KS, Osage County, KS, Shawnee County, KS, and Wabaunsee County, KS to the Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS, locality pay area; and Cochise County, AZ, to the Tucson-Nogales, AZ, locality pay area.

    Regarding the criteria explained above for evaluating Federal facilities that cross locality pay area boundaries, the Pay Agent is not aware of any Federal facilities that qualify for inclusion in the new locality pay areas under these criteria.

    Impact and Implementation

    Using February 2013 CBSA definitions as the basis for locality pay area boundaries and using updated commuting patterns data to evaluate potential areas of application would add a number of counties now covered by “Rest of U.S.” locality pay to higher-paying locality pay areas, which would impact about 6,300 GS employees.

    The proposal to establish 13 new locality pay areas would impact about 102,000 GS employees. Implementing that proposal would not automatically change locality pay rates now applicable in those areas because locality pay percentages are established by Executive order under the President's authority in 5 U.S.C. 5304 or 5304a, and the President decides each year whether to increase locality pay percentages. When locality pay percentages are increased, past practice has been to allocate a percent of the total GS payroll for locality raises and to have the overall dollar cost for such pay raises be the same, regardless of the number of locality pay areas. If a percent of the total GS payroll is allocated for locality pay increases, the addition of new areas results in a smaller amount to allocate for locality pay increases in existing areas. Implementing higher locality pay rates in the 13 new locality pay areas could thus result in relatively lower pay increases for employees in existing locality pay areas than they would otherwise receive.

    Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866

    OMB has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 13563 and E.O. 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would apply only to Federal agencies and employees.

    List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 531

    Government employees, Law enforcement officers, Wages.

    Office of Personnel Management.

    Katherine Archuleta, Director.

    Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 531 as follows:

    PART 531—PAY UNDER THE GENERAL SCHEDULE 1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 5115, 5307, and 5338; sec. 4 of Pub. L. 103-89, 107 Stat. 981; and E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 316; Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5303(g), 5305, 5333, 5334(a) and (b), and 7701(b)(2); Subpart D also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5335 and 7701(b)(2); Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5336; Subpart F also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 5941(a), E.O. 12883, 58 FR 63281, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 682 and E.O. 13106, 63 FR 68151, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 224.

    Subpart F—Locality-Based Comparability Payments 2. In § 531.602, the definitions of CSA and MSA are revised to read as follows:
    § 531.602 Definitions.

    CSA means the geographic scope of a Combined Statistical Area, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Bulletin No. 13-01, plus any areas subsequently added to the CSA by OMB.

    MSA means the geographic scope of a Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Bulletin No. 13-01, plus any areas subsequently added to the MSA by OMB.

    3. In § 531.603, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
    § 531.603 Locality pay areas.

    (b) The following are locality pay areas for the purposes of this subpart:

    (1) Alaska—consisting of the State of Alaska;

    (2) Albany-Schenectady, NY—consisting of the Albany-Schenectady, NY CSA;

    (3) Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM—consisting of the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM CSA;

    (4) Atlanta—Athens-Clarke County—Sandy Springs, GA-AL—consisting of the Atlanta—Athens-Clarke County—Sandy Springs, GA CSA and also including Chambers County, AL;

    (5) Austin-Round Rock, TX—consisting of the Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA;

    (6) Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME—consisting of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA, except for Windham County, CT, and also including Androscoggin County, ME, Cumberland County, ME, Sagadahoc County, ME, and York County, ME;

    (7) Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY—consisting of the Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY CSA;

    (8) Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC—consisting of the Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC CSA;

    (9) Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI—consisting of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA;

    (10) Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN—consisting of the Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN CSA and also including Franklin County, IN;

    (11) Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH—consisting of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH CSA;

    (12) Colorado Springs, CO—consisting of the Colorado Springs, CO MSA and also including Fremont County, CO, and Pueblo County, CO;

    (13) Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH—consisting of the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH CSA;

    (14) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK—consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA and also including Delta County, TX, and Fannin County, TX;

    (15) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL—consisting of the Davenport-Moline, IA-IL CSA;

    (16) Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH—consisting of the Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH CSA and also including Preble County, OH;

    (17) Denver-Aurora, CO—consisting of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and also including Larimer County, CO;

    (18) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI—consisting of the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI CSA;

    (19) Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA—consisting of the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA CSA, except for and Adams County, PA, and York County, PA, and also including Lancaster County, PA;

    (20) Hartford-West Hartford, CT-MA—consisting of the Hartford-West Hartford, CT CSA and also including Windham County, CT, Franklin County, MA, Hampden County, MA, and Hampshire County, MA;

    (21) Hawaii—consisting of the State of Hawaii;

    (22) Houston-The Woodlands, TX—consisting of the Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA and also including San Jacinto County, TX;

    (23) Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL—consisting of the Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL CSA;

    (24) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN—consisting of the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also including Grant County, IN;

    (25) Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS—consisting of the Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA and also including Jackson County, KS, Jefferson County, KS, Osage County, KS, Shawnee County, KS, and Wabaunsee County, KS;

    (26) Laredo, TX—consisting of the Laredo, TX MSA;

    (27) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ—consisting of the Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ CSA;

    (28) Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA—consisting of the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA and also including Kern County, CA, and Santa Barbara County, CA;

    (29) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL—consisting of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA and also including Monroe County, FL;

    (30) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI—consisting of the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA;

    (31) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI—consisting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI CSA;

    (32) New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA—consisting of the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA and also including all of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;

    (33) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL—consisting of the Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;

    (34) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD—consisting of the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;

    (35) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ—consisting of the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA;

    (36) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV—consisting of the Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV CSA;

    (37) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA—consisting of the Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA;

    (38) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC—consisting of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC CSA and also including Cumberland County, NC, Hoke County, NC, Robeson County, NC, Scotland County, NC, and Wayne County, NC;

    (39) Richmond, VA—consisting of the Richmond, VA MSA and also including Cumberland County, VA, King and Queen County, VA, and Louisa County, VA;

    (40) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV—consisting of the Sacramento-Roseville, CA CSA and also including Carson City, NV, and Douglas County, NV;

    (41) San Diego-Carlsbad, CA—consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad, CA MSA;

    (42) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA—consisting of the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also including Monterey County, CA;

    (43) Seattle-Tacoma, WA—consisting of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA and also including Whatcom County, WA;

    (44) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL—consisting of the St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA;

    (45) Tucson-Nogales, AZ—consisting of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA and also including Cochise County, AZ;

    (46) Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA—consisting of the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA and also including Kent County, MD, Adams County, PA, York County, PA, King George County, VA, and Morgan County, WV; and

    (47) Rest of U.S.—consisting of those portions of the United States and its territories and possessions as listed in 5 CFR 591.205 not located within another locality pay area.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13135 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0106] RIN 0579-AE10 Importation of Phalaenopsis Spp. Plants for Planting in Approved Growing Media From China to the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the importation of plants for planting to authorize the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting from China in approved growing media into the continental United States, subject to a systems approach. The systems approach would consist of measures that are currently specified in the regulations as generally applicable to all plants for planting authorized importation into the United States in approved growing media. This proposed rule would allow for the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting from China in approved growing media, while providing protection against the introduction of plant pests.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0106.

    • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0106, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0106 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lydia E. Colón, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2302.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products into the United States to prevent the introduction of quarantine plant pests. The regulations contained in “Subpart—Plants for Planting,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations), prohibit or restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation or planting.

    The regulations differentiate between prohibited articles and restricted articles. Prohibited articles are plants for planting whose importation into the United States is not authorized due to the risk the articles present of introducing or disseminating plant pests. Restricted articles are articles authorized importation into the United States, provided that the articles are subject to measures to address such risk.

    Conditions for the importation into the United States of restricted articles in growing media are found in § 319.37-8. Within that section, the introductory text of paragraph (e) lists taxa of restricted articles that may be imported into the United States in approved growing media, subject to the provisions of a systems approach. Paragraph (e)(1) of § 319.37-8 lists the approved growing media, while paragraph (e)(2) contains the provisions of the systems approach. Within paragraph (e)(2), paragraphs (i) through (viii) contain provisions that are generally applicable to all the taxa listed in the introductory text of paragraph (e), while paragraphs (ix) through (xi) contain additional, taxon-specific provisions.

    Currently, Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting from China are not authorized for importation into the United States in approved growing media. However, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has received a request from the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of China to authorize the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting in approved growing media into the continental United States.

    In evaluating China's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    The PRA, titled “Importation of Phalaenopsis spp. Orchid Plants in Approved Growing Media from China into the Continental United States; A Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment,” analyzed the potential pest risk associated with the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting in approved growing media into the continental United States from China.

    The PRA identified four quarantine pests that could be introduced into the continental United States through the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting from China in approved growing media:

    Spodoptera litura, tropical armyworm;

    Thrips palmi, melon thrips;

    Cylindrosporium phalaenopsidis, a pathogenic fungus that causes orchid black spot;

    Lissachatina fulica, the giant African snail.

    The PRA determined that these four pests pose a medium risk of following the pathway of Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting in approved growing media from China into the continental United States and having negative effects on U.S. agriculture.

    Based on these risk ratings, the RMD, titled “Importation of Phalaenopsis spp. Orchids in Approved Growing Media from China into the Continental United States,” identifies the phytosanitary measures necessary to ensure the safe importation into the continental United States of Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting in approved growing media from China. The RMD finds that the mitigations that are currently specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (e)(2)(viii) of § 319.37-8 and that are generally applicable to the importation of all restricted articles authorized importation into the United States in approved growing media will mitigate the risk associated with the importation Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting in approved growing media from China into the continental United States.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend the introductory text of paragraph (e) of § 319.37-8 to add Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting from China to the list of taxa authorized importation into the United States in approved growing media. We also propose to add a paragraph (e)(2)(xii) to § 319.37-8 that would specify that such plants for planting may only be imported into the continental United States.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.

    APHIS is proposing to amend the regulations in 7 CFR 319.37-8(e) to authorize the importation from China into the continental United States of orchids of the genus Phalaenopsis established in an approved growing medium, subject to specified growing, inspection, and certification requirements.

    Currently, only bare-rooted Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting may be imported from China into the United States. Eliminating this restriction by allowing the importation of plants in growing media, as well as bare-rooted plants, is expected to increase the number and quality of orchids imported from China by U.S. producers, who then finish the plants for the retail market. This change could result in cost savings for these U.S. producers, which may or may not be passed on to U.S. buyers. The amended regulations could also result in the importation of market-ready Phalaenopsis spp. in approved growing media from China that would directly compete at wholesale and retail levels with U.S. finished potted orchids. The latter scenario is considered unlikely, given the technical challenges and additional marketing costs incurred when shipping finished plants in pots.

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) small-entity standard for entities involved in Floriculture Production (NAICS 111422) is $750,000 or less in annual receipts. The number of entities participating in this broadly defined industry was 26,963 in 2012, with $5.9 billion in sales that year. Orchid producers numbered 177 in 2012, or 0.6 percent of the total industry. In 2013, the average wholesale value of orchids produced by the largest producers was $1.4 million. These businesses fall above the SBA threshold for small entities. However, this average sales value excludes sales by an unknown number of smaller establishments that qualify as small entities by the SBA definition.

    While many of the U.S. entities that would be affected by the proposed rule such as orchid producers and importers may be small by SBA standards, we expect economic effects for these entities to be modest. We welcome informed public comment that would enable us to better determine the extent to which U.S. small entities may be affected positively or negatively by this proposed rule.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. plants in approved growing media from China into the continental United States, we have prepared an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    The environmental assessment may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (A link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0106. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. APHIS-2014-0106, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, Room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.

    APHIS is proposing to amend the plants for planting regulations to allow the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting in approved growing media from China into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the plantlets would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach. This action would allow for the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting from China into the continental United States in approved growing media while providing protection against the introduction of plant pests.

    Allowing Phalaenopsis spp. plants for planting to be imported into the continental United States will require information collection activities, including phytosanitary certificates, inspections, agreements between producers and the NPPO of China, and an agreement between the NPPO of China and APHIS.

    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on those who are to respond (such as 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).

    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.6956 hours per response.

    Respondents: NPPO of China, producers, exporters.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 5.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 4.6.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 23.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 16 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment 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. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

    Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

    PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. Section 319.37-8 is amended as follows: a. In the introductory text of paragraph (e), in the entry for “Phalaenopsis spp. from Taiwan”, by adding the words “and the People's Republic of China” after the word “Taiwan”. b. By adding a paragraph (e)(2)(xii).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 319.37-8 Growing media.

    (e) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (xii) Plants for planting of Phalaenopsis spp. from the People's Republic of China may only be imported into the continental United States, and may not be imported or moved into Hawaii or the territories of the United States.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of May 2015. Kevin Shea Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13162 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 429 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005] Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meeting and Webinar AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting and webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    June 17, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Room 8E-089. Individuals will also have the opportunity to participate by webinar. To register for the webinar and receive call-in information, please register https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5483145007578718466.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC, 20024. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations to the Energy Department on the development of standards and test procedures for residential appliances and commercial equipment.

    Tentative Agenda: (Subject to change; final agenda will be posted at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005):

    • Discussion and prioritization of topic areas that ASRAC can assist the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program.

    Public Participation: Members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the meeting and, if time allows, may make oral statements during the specified period for public comment. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, email [email protected] In the email, please indicate your name, organization (if appropriate), citizenship, and contact information. Please note that foreign nationals participating in the public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary procedures can be completed. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present a government photo identification, such as a passport, driver's license, or government identification. Due to the required security screening upon entry, individuals attending should arrive early to allow for the extra time needed.

    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.

    DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, Louisiana, New York, American Samoa, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Minnesota.

    Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 26, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13101 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043] Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Working Group: Notice of Open Meetings and Webinar AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meetings and webinars.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces a series of meetings of the Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Working Group (MREF Working Group). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    Unless otherwise specified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the meetings will be held at U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Individuals will also have the opportunity to participate by webinar. To register for the webinar and receive call-in information, please register https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6152385849392379138.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meetings will be held:

    • June 11-12, 2015;

    • July 15-16, 2015;

    • August 11-12, 2015; and

    • August 18-19, 2015;

    The first day of each meeting series will take place from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT). The second day will take place from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT).

    Members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the meeting and, if time allows, may make oral statements during the specified period for public comment. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, email [email protected] In the email, please indicate your name, organization (if appropriate), citizenship, and contact information. Please note that foreign nationals participating in the public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary procedures can be completed. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present a government photo identification, such as a passport, driver's license, or government identification. Due to the required security screening upon entry, individuals attending should arrive early to allow for the extra time needed.

    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.

    DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington.

    Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 26, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13139 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0787; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-10-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4164, PW4168, PW4168A, PW4164C, PW4164C/B, PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D, PW4170, PW4164C-1D, PW4164C/B-1D, PW4050, PW4052, PW4056, PW4060, PW4060A, PW4060C, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4152, PW4156, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4160, PW4460, PW4462, and PW4650 turbofan engines with a low-pressure turbine (LPT) 4th stage inner air seal (IAS), P/N 51N038, installed. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery, during routine overhaul of the LPT, of cracks in the barrel section of the 4th stage IAS. This proposed AD would require removal of the LPT 4th stage IAS, P/N 51N038, according to a prescribed schedule. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the LPT 4th stage IAS, which could lead to an uncontained IAS release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

    • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: (860) 565-8770; fax: (860) 565-4503. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238-7125.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0787; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katheryn Malatek, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7747; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0787; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-10-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for all PW PW4164, PW4168, PW4168A, PW4164C, PW4164C/B, PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D, PW4170, PW4164C-1D, PW4164C/B-1D, PW4050, PW4052, PW4056, PW4060, PW4060A, PW4060C, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4152, PW4156, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4160, PW4460, PW4462, and PW4650 turbofan engines with an LPT 4th IAS, P/N 51N038, installed. This proposed AD was prompted by 9 occasions of discovering, during routine overhaul of the LPT, cracks in the barrel section of the 4th stage IAS. This condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained IAS release, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft. This proposed AD would require removal of the 4th stage IAS, P/N 51N038, according to a prescribed schedule. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the LPT 4th stage IAS, which could lead to an uncontained IAS release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4G-100-A72-254, dated December 12, 2014. The ASB describes procedures and timetables for removing the LPT 4th stage IAS. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removal of the LPT 4th stage IAS, P/N 51N038, according to a prescribed schedule.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A72-254, dated December 12, 2014, applies to certain PW4000 engine models. This proposed AD applies to the 7 engine models listed in the ASB, plus 4 additional PW4000 engine models certificated for use in the U.S. for which the affected LPT 4th IAS, P/N 51N038, is eligible for installation. These 11 engine models are listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD.

    We further expanded the applicability to cover 16 additional engine models, listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, which are prohibited from installing P/N 51N038, if that part was ever installed on any engine listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD. The unsafe condition described in paragraph (d) of this AD could exist in the part if it was ever operated in any engine listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 72 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that 9 of the engines would require replacement parts during shop visit, and that for these engines the pro-rated replacement parts cost would be $23,805 per engine, and compliance with this proposed AD would require about 49 hours of labor per engine. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We also estimate that 63 of the engines would require replacement parts during LPT overhaul, that the prorated replacement parts cost for these 63 engines would be $43,545 per engine, and that compliance with this proposed AD for these 63 engines would require 0 additional hours of labor per engine since the parts are already exposed during LPT overhaul. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,995,065.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Pratt & Whitney Division: Docket No. FAA-2015-0787; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-10-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 31, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to:

    (1) All Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4164, PW4168, PW4168A, PW4164C, PW4164C/B, PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D, PW4170, PW4164C-1D, and PW4164C/B-1D turbofan engines with a low-pressure turbine (LPT) 4th stage inner air seal (IAS), part number (P/N) 51N038, installed.

    (2) All PW4050, PW4052, PW4056, PW4060, PW4060A, PW4060C, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4152, PW4156, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4160, PW4460, PW4462, and PW4650 turbofan engines with an LPT 4th stage IAS, P/N 51N038, installed.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the discovery, during routine overhaul of the LPT, of cracks in the barrel section of the 4th stage IAS which could, if not corrected, result in uncontained IAS release, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the LPT 4th stage IAS, which could lead to an uncontained IAS release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. For the engines listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD:

    (1) At each LPT overhaul after the effective date of this AD remove from service the LPT 4th stage IAS, P/N 51N038.

    (2) At each engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, remove from service the LPT 4th stage IAS, P/N 51N038, if it has more than 10,900 cycles since new.

    (f) Installation prohibition

    (1) Do not install any LPT 4th stage IAS, P/N 51N038, with more than 0 flight cycles on any engine listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD.

    (2) Do not install on any engine listed in paragraphs (c)(2) of this AD, any LPT 4th stage IAS, P/N 51N038, which was previously installed on any engine listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD.

    (g) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD:

    (1) An LPT overhaul is defined as maintenance which involves disassembly of the LPT rotor module.

    (2) An “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges (lettered flanges). The separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Katheryn Malatek, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7747; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) PW Alert Service Bulletin No. PW4G-100-A72-254, dated December 12, 2014, can be obtained from PW using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: (860) 565-8770; fax: (860) 565-4503.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 13, 2015. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-12663 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223; FRL-9928-53-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to grant full approval of Missouri's attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment of the Viburnum Trend area in portions of Iron, Dent and Reynolds Counties, Missouri, submitted on April 18, 2013. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the State satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) identified in EPA's Final Rule published on October 15, 2008, and will bring the area into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3) lead NAAQS in the Viburnum Trend, Missouri area.

    In this action, EPA also proposes approval of a revision to the Missouri SIP to incorporate an amendment to an existing Missouri statute to restrict lead emissions from specific sources. The amendment revises certain throughput and emissions limits applicable to the Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF) in the Viburnum Trend lead nonattainment area. Approval of this rule will ensure consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensure Federal enforceability of the revised state rule. This revision was submitted to EPA on October 30, 2009.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2015

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223, by one of the following methods:

    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Doolan at (913) 551-7719, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Background V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP Related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS A. Facility Description 1. BRRF Process Description 2. Mines/Mills Process Description B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data C. Modeling Results 1. Base Case Analysis 2. Future Case Analysis D. Control Strategy E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) F. Attainment Demonstration G. New Source Review (NSR) H. Contingency Measures I. Enforceability VI. Review of Revision to Missouri Rule Restricting Lead Emissions From Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations A. Background B. Analysis of Production and Emissions Limits C. Work Practice Manual (WPM) D. Reporting and Record Keeping E. Test Methods VII. Proposed Action I. What is being addressed in this document?

    In this document, EPA is addressing Missouri's attainment demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS nonattainment in the Viburnum Trend Missouri area. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and will bring the area into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3) lead NAAQS in the Viburnum Trend lead nonattainment area.

    In this action, EPA is also addressing a revision to the Missouri SIP to approve portions of a revision to the State of Missouri Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.120, “Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations”. This revision pertains to throughput limits applicable to the BRRF, which is the primary source of lead emissions in the Viburnum Trend nonattainment area. Pursuant to a withdrawal request from Missouri,1 EPA is taking action on specific portions Missouri rule 10 CSR 6.120. Missouri rule 10 CSR 6.120, as it pertains to the Buick Resources Recycling Facility, was previously approved in the Missouri SIP. See 69 FR 51953. The Viburnum Trend SIP addressed in this proposed action relies upon portions of the revision to 10 CSR 6.120.

    1 See email from Wendy Vit, Air Quality Planning Section Chief for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, to Michael Jay, Chief of Atmospheric Programs Section, Air Planning and Development Branch of EPA Region 7, dated March 4, 2015, available in the Docket.

    II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Missouri's attainment demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS. We are also proposing to approve portions of a revision to Missouri rule 10 CSR 6.120, “Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations”. EPA is proposing this action in order to solicit comments. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments received.

    IV. Background

    EPA established the NAAQS for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 46246). The 1978 NAAQS for lead is set at a level of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air, averaged over a calendar quarter. The Viburnum Trend area is designated as attainment for the 1978 lead NAAQS.

    On October 15, 2008, EPA established a new lead NAAQS of 0.15 ug/m3 in air, measured as a rolling three-month average. (73 FR 66964). On November 22, 2010, the Buick/Viburnum Trend area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. (75 FR 71033).2 Under sections 191(a) and 192(a) of the CAA, Missouri is required to submit to EPA an attainment demonstration SIP revision for lead and to demonstrate the nonattainment area will reach attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS no later than five years from the date of the nonattainment area designation.

    2 EPA also designated city of Herculaneum, Missouri, as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 75 FR 71033. This nonattainment area has been addressed in a separate action. 79 FR 62574.

    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 ”Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter—Refinery Installations” establishes lead stack emissions limits and testing and recordkeeping requirements at specific lead smelters including the Herculaneum facility 3 in Herculaneum, Missouri, and BRRF in Boss, Missouri. The Buick/Viburnum Trend lead NAAQS attainment SIP relies upon the requirements imposed by Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, with the exception of those requirements withdrawn by Missouri. In addition, the approval of the production limits for BRRF relies upon the modeling demonstration proposed in the Viburnum Trend area lead NAAQS attainment SIP, therefore, approval of the two SIP revisions are proposed concurrently herein.

    3 The former Herculaneum primary lead smelter ceased lead smelting operations on December 31, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree applicable to the Herculaneum facility entered into by Doe Run, Missouri, and EPA in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:10-cv-01895-JCH (2011 Consent Decree) on December 21, 2011.

    V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP Related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS A. Facility Description 1. BRRF Process Description

    There are four lead-emitting sources contributing to the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead nonattainment area: BRRF; the Buick Mine and Mill; the Casteel Mine; and K & D Crushing. BRRF operates as a secondary smelter of lead, lead-containing materials including spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot, lead-containing glass from cathode ray tubes, and lead-based paint chips from lead abatement projects. The Buick Mine and Mill, located to the south of BRRF, conducts subsurface mining and ore processing. The Casteel Mine, located to the north of BRRF, also conducts subsurface mining. K & D Crushing, also located to the north of BRRF, conducts ore crushing at the surface of the Casteel Mine. Crushed and concentrated lead-containing ore was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead smelter, but since that facility ceased primary lead smelting in December 2013, the ore gets shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.

    As stated above, BRRF is located in the Buick/Viburnum Trend nonattainment area. BRRF's production limit is limited to 175,000 tons of total lead production each year pursuant to Missouri Rule 10 CSR 6.120(3)(B)2. The majority of the lead recycled by BRRF is from spent automotive and industrial batteries.

    Lead-bearing items, primarily post-consumer lead-acid batteries, arrive at the facility by truck. Spent batteries are stored in a battery bunker until processed in a shredder. Battery acid (weak sulfuric acid) is drained during shredding, collected in storage tanks and neutralized using calcium hydroxide. The shredded batteries are placed in a vibrating feeder in route to a conveyor belt to the hammer mill. The hammer mill pounds the material into smaller pieces.

    Batteries contain metal grids, lead posts, plastic casing and other components, separators and lead sulfate paste. The paste is removed by washing through a set of screens for further processing. The batteries further undergo a separation process under which lead and metal parts are separated from the plastic and other debris. The lead and metal parts are primarily fed to the reverberatory furnace, but also may be fed to the blast furnace. The plastic and other debris are skimmed off and sent to recycling facilities.

    The lead sulfate paste is passed through a filter press and neutralized with hydrated lime to form calcium sulfate, then heated at extremely high temperatures in the reverberatory furnace to produce soft antimonial lead bullion and reverberatory slag. Sulfur emissions from the reverberatory furnace are controlled by a dry, flue gas desulfurization scrubber that introduces lime and water to the reverberatory flue gas in a reaction and forms gypsum, which is removed from the gas stream by a polishing baghouse. The reverberatory slag is fed to the blast furnace to recover the antimonial lead. The Missouri SIP submittal contains a process flow diagram that details the emission point sources throughout the process that were included in the modeling.

    2. Mines/Mills Process Description

    Modeling analysis conducted by Missouri determined that the Buick Mine and Mill, the Casteel Mine, and the K & D Crushing operations contribute significantly to the monitored violation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS at the air monitor. There are other mining and milling operations in the Viburnum Trend area, but these operations were not found to contribute significantly to the Lead NAAQS violation. Emissions from the Doe Run mining and milling operations are primarily in the form of fugitives from the processing of lead containing rock until it becomes a wet concentrate that is shipped to other customers. The process is described in greater detail as follows.

    Mining begins with the subsurface drilling and blasting of dolomite rock which contains varying amounts of lead sulfide, zinc sulfide, and copper-iron sulfide minerals. At the Casteel mine, the ore is hauled to the skip pocket “as blasted,” with no underground crushing. At the surface, the coarse ore is crushed by K & D Crushing, a contractor to Doe Run, into smaller pieces. The crushed ore is hauled to other Doe Run facilities, most frequently to the Buick Mine and Mill.

    At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore is hauled from the active mining faces to a central crusher where it is crushed down to approximately eight inch pieces. The ore is hoisted to the surface then conveyed to further on-site crushing and screening operations. After being crushed aboveground to less than 5/8-inch in size, the ore subjected to wet milling, and grinding with rods and ball mills until a coarse powder in a wet slurry is produced. The wet slurry further undergoes wet cyclone and floatation separation into lead sulfide, zinc sulfide and copper sulfide components.

    The concentrated sulfides further undergo dewatering to produce a concentrate that formerly was shipped to the Herculaneum primary lead smelter. As stated above, the Herculaneum facility ceased operations smelting operations in December 2013; thus, the concentrate is shipped overseas to primary lead smelting operations or to other customers.

    B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data

    Missouri conducted air dispersion modeling to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy. The model, AERMOD, was utilized and is EPA's preferred model for demonstrating attainment of the lead NAAQS. AERMOD estimates the combined ambient impact of sources by simulating Gaussian dispersion of emissions plumes. Emission rates, wind speed and direction, atmospheric mixing heights, terrain, plume rise from stack emissions, initial dispersion characteristics of fugitive sources, particle size and density are all factors considered by the model when estimating ambient impacts. Missouri performed two dispersion modeling analyses for the 2008 lead NAAQS for the Viburnum Trend nonattainment area. One was an analysis of current conditions to ensure the model is performing adequately (base case). The second analysis examined the effectiveness of proposed emission controls (future case). The results of these analyses will be discussed in more detail in section V.C. of this document.

    Missouri used the meteorological data from the meteorological monitoring station approximately 0.8 miles south of BRRF, co-located with the Buick South non-ambient lead air quality monitor. EPA's preference is for the use of five years of meteorological data to input the model (40 CFR part 51, appendix W, section 8.3.1.2); however, a minimum of one year of representative meteorological data are required. A detailed analysis of the meteorological data collected on-site concluded that only one consecutive year, from August 2009 to July 2010, met the data quality requirements; thus, these surface level data were used to input the model. Wind speed and direction data from the on-site meteorological station were used to input the model, and surface temperature, humidity, and other information from the Farmington, Missouri, National Weather Service observation site were added to the BRRF wind observations. Finally, upper air data from the station at National Weather Service site in Springfield, Missouri, were used to input the model for the parameters including vertical temperature, moisture and wind characteristics of the atmosphere. This data set provided confidence that the controls selected for the attainment demonstration will be effective over a large variety of meteorological conditions. The meteorological data were run through AERMOD's pre-processors to make the data usable by the model.

    As required by section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, a revised emission inventory was developed for this nonattainment area. Hourly emissions data from January 2009 to October 2010 from BRRF and the Buick Mine and Mill were used to model the base case. Beginning in late 2010, construction of emission control projects to control fugitive lead dust and sulfur dioxide (SO2) impacted the base case emissions and ambient air monitoring data, making them no longer representative of pre-control conditions. Emissions represented in the model are from release points, stack emissions validated by stack test data, and fugitive emissions calculated using field measurements wherever possible or estimated based on EPA's AP-42 guidelines.4

    4 AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.

    The 2011 lead emission totals for Viburnum Trend nonattainment area are listed in Table 1 below. As discussed above, the emissions from the other mine and mill operations in the Viburnum Trend area were not found to significantly impact the lead concentrations reported at the violating ambient air monitor and therefore are not listed.

    Facility name Site name 2011
  • Emissions a tons per year
  • (tpy)
  • BRRF Buick Smelter 16.87 Doe Run Buick Mine and Mill 1.07 Doe Run Casteel Mine 0.2 K & D Crushing Casteel Mine 0.2 Total Emissions 18.34 a Emissions reported to the Missouri Emissions Inventory System (MoEIS) database which are reported to EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database, version 1, released September 30, 2013, found at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2011inventory.html.

    In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, background concentrations must be considered when determining NAAQS compliance. Background concentrations are intended to include impacts attributable to natural sources, nearby sources (excluding the dominant source(s)), and unidentified sources. The calculated background concentration includes all sources of lead not already included in the model run script. The background concentration includes distant sources of lead, which may have originally derived from the mining and milling and smelting operations, or naturally occurring lead in soils that has become re-entrained in the atmosphere.

    In general, the background value is calculated by averaging the monitored concentrations at monitor sites outside the area of immediate dominant source impact and on days when the predominant wind direction was not blowing from the dominant source to the monitors. Missouri began with all monitored days and identified days with no measured one-hour average wind direction from the smelter. Each monitor was examined in conjunction with an acceptable wind fan and the concentrations are averaged on days with no predominant winds from the dominant sources. The monitor site chosen for the background determination is the Oates monitor located 4.9 miles south of BRRF. The days selected for the calculation match the model study period.

    EPA conducted an independent analysis of the data from the Oates monitor and corresponding wind direction to verify the background concentration calculated by Missouri. Based on its independent analysis, EPA agrees that the calculated value represents a conservative estimate of background during the study period. Additional information can be found in the Missouri SIP, Section 4.3.

    C. Modeling Results 1. Base Case Analysis

    As discussed above, Missouri used the AERMOD dispersion model to run two analyses, the base case and the future case. The base case evaluated a reasonable estimate of maximum potential emissions to account for contributing sources based on normal facility operations. The base case model analysis used monitoring, emissions and meteorological data from August 2009 through July 2010.

    Results from the base case modeling were compared with actual monitoring data from the same time period to examine the reliability of the model. The statistical analysis was conducted using the coefficient of correlation, or R2. The correlation between modeling outputs under the base case and monitoring data was 0.8551 or greater, with 1.0 indicating 1:1 correlation, confirms the accuracy and reliability of the model's inputs and results. EPA agrees with Missouri's determination that the model is sufficiently reliable to predict that the control measures modeled in the attainment demonstration (see paragraph 5.C.2 Future Case Analysis below) will result in monitored values below the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

    2. Future Case Analysis

    The future case analysis evaluated the control strategies of the 2013 SIP revision pursuant to the existing Federally enforceable requirements that are applicable to the facility as well as the enforceable 2013 Consent Judgment between Missouri, BRRF and Doe Run. See appendix M, Missouri SIP. The future case dispersion modeling is the attainment demonstration used to verify that the proposed control strategies will bring the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead nonattainment area into compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    The differences between the base and future case emissions rates are based on the changes to the operations resulting from implementation of the control measures required by the 2013 Consent Judgment. The control measures are discussed in paragraph V.D, Control Strategy, below.

    Many of the emissions reduction projects that are necessary to meet the 2008 Lead NAAQS were also required to be implemented by January 6, 2014, for compliance with the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Lead Smelting (77 FR 556, January 5, 2012). The Secondary Lead NESHAP, applicable to BRRF, requires, among other things, total enclosure and ventilation of lead processing and handling buildings to a negative pressure requirement of 0.02 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) and housekeeping procedures to reduce fugitive lead-containing dust.

    The secondary lead NESHAP, as fully implemented, is expected to result in a building capture efficiency of approximately 95 percent. EPA has allowed facilities to assume, on a site-specific basis, a building fugitive capture efficiency of greater than 95 percent upon demonstration that control measures exceed the requirements of the secondary lead NESHAP. In the case of BRRF, upon careful consideration of site-specific control measures, including the use of local exhaust ventilation devices (LEVs) and a demonstrated negative pressure in buildings exceeding 0.02 mm Hg, EPA agreed with Missouri that a building fugitives capture efficiency of 98 percent was appropriate to use in the modeling. This assumed 98 percent building capture efficiency impacts the modeled emissions rates as well as the estimated emissions reductions described in paragraph V.D, Control Strategy, below. A more detailed discussion of the building fugitives capture efficiency discussion may be found in section 6.2 of Missouri's SIP revision.

    The emissions rate reductions are expected to result in a monitored three-month rolling average of 0.128 µg/m3 lead or less at the nearest ambient monitoring location. When added to the background concentration of 0.20 µg/m3, the predicted maximum three-month rolling average lead concentration is 0.148 µg/m3. By comparison, the 2008 Lead NAAQS is 0.150 µg/m3. Therefore, Missouri's modeling demonstrates attainment of the standard.

    EPA conducted an independent analysis to verify the predictions of Missouri's modeling. EPA agrees with the modeling conducted by Missouri for its future case analysis.

    D. Control Strategy

    In order to bring the Viburnum Trend Area into attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, Missouri developed and modeled a control strategy for point source (e.g., stack) and fugitive emissions from the four significant sources of lead in the nonattainment area. Section 5.1 of the Missouri SIP revision details the control measures and the estimated emissions reductions.

    Missouri, Doe Run and BRRF developed a Consent Judgment, found in the Missouri attainment demonstration SIP, appendix M, as a means to establish enforceable emission limits, controls, operating parameters, and contingency measures to reduce lead emissions from point, area, and fugitive lead dust sources in support of achieving attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS as soon as practicable. The 2013 Consent Judgment was submitted as part of Missouri's SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    A brief description of the BRRF control measures and anticipated emissions reductions is as follows.

    a. By February 4, 2013, install a baghouse at the south refinery; this project is expected to reduce emissions by 98 percent.

    b. By February 4, 2013, relocate a baghouse from the sweat furnace to the blast furnace storage feed building; this project is expected to reduce emissions by 80 percent by totally enclosing the blast furnace feed material storage and handling, while emissions from the main stack will experience a slight increase from the relocation.

    c. By February 4, 2013, remove the rotary melter at the north refinery and connection of its baghouse to the north refinery process ducts; this represents an estimated 95 percent reduction in emissions from the previous process configuration.

    d. By February 4, 2013, install a truck tire wash system for outbound traffic; washing trucks is anticipated to reduce fugitive emissions by 95 percent.

    e. By February 4, 2013, install a pulse-jet baghouse to improve reverberatory furnace process ventilation; this project is expected to reduce reverberatory stack emissions by 45 percent and fugitives by 98 percent.

    f. By February 4, 2013, install a dry lime SO2 scrubber to further process gases as they exit the pulse-jet baghouse; this measure is intended to control SO2, but will also reduce lead-containing particulates.

    g. By January 6, 2014, enclose the refinery, blast furnace, reverberatory furnace and dross plant buildings and install a baghouse to achieve the negative pressure requirement of the Secondary Lead Smelting MACT (40 CFR 63, subpart X); the estimated reduction in overall emissions from these enclosures is expected to by 98 percent.

    h. By December 31, 2013, install a 40-foot extension on the breaking separation and neutralization scrubber stack; the elevated stack height provides no net emissions decrease, but rather, greater dispersion of lead emissions that decreases the impact upon receptors within the nonattainment area.

    i. By December 31, 2013, construct a 30,000 square foot building extension to the existing blast feed storage building enclosure; the estimated emissions reduction is included in item a. above.

    j. By October 31, 2014, install “batwing” style ventilation covers to improve LEV capture efficiencies on refinery kettles; these covers contribute to the 98 percent emissions reduction in item g. above.

    k. By December 31, 2013, install quick closing powered doors at the north refinery warehouse, south refinery warehouse, and the entrance to the reverberatory feed storage building; this measure also contributes to the 98 percent reduction in fugitives estimated for item g. above.

    These projects have all been completed.

    In addition to the control strategies required by the 2013 Consent Judgment, BRRF developed a baghouse Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and a Work Practice Manual (WPM) to minimize lead emissions from operation and maintenance of all baghouses and to minimize fugitive dust emissions, respectively. The baghouse SOP is required by the Secondary Lead NESHAP and the WPM is required by both the Secondary Lead NESHAP and the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120. On December 18, 2012, (see appendix J of Missouri's SIP revision) Missouri approved these documents. Although the baghouse SOP and WPM were prepared for compliance with the Secondary Lead NESHAP, and Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, the activities required therein support the attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS as well.

    The following is a list of the control measures required by Missouri's 2013 Consent Judgment for the Buick Mine and Mill, and the Casteel Mine. These control measures were implemented by Doe Run on or before June 1, 2013.

    a. Modify Buick Mine updraft vents 1, 2, 3 and 6 to achieve a vertical release, defined as 45 degrees from horizontal or greater; this measure improves the dispersion of lead-containing particulates.

    b. Preclude public access at the Casteel Mine at a minimum distance provided for in the 2013 Consent Judgment.

    c. Preclude public access at Buick Mine updraft vents 1, 2, 3 and 6 at a minimum distance prescribed by the Consent Judgment.

    d. Preclude access to the Buick Mine and Mill at a minimum distance prescribed by the 2013 Consent Judgment.

    The 2011 Consent Decree between EPA, Missouri and Doe Run also requires enclosure of existing lead-containing material storage areas, interior lead concentrate conveyors, lead filtering system and associated equipment, lead concentrate storage stockpile, and the truck loading area and scale at the Buick Mine and Mill. This project was completed on or before September 1, 2013.

    Based on EPA's analysis of the attainment modeling and its outcomes, EPA believes that Missouri's control strategy implemented pursuant to the 2013 Consent Judgment will bring the Viburnum Trend area into attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

    E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to implement all RACM, including emissions reductions through the adoption of Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable. EPA interprets this as requiring all nonattainment areas to consider all available controls and to implement all measures that are determined to be reasonably available, except that measures which will not assist the area to more expeditiously attain the standard are not required to be implemented.5 In March 2012, EPA issued guidance titled, “Implementation of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions” (RACM Guidance).6

    5 See 58 FR 67751, December 22 1993, for a discussion of this interpretation as it relates to lead.

    6http://www.epa.gov/oar/lead/pdfs/2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.

    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires areas designated as nonattainment for criteria pollutants to include a demonstration of Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) in attainment demonstrations. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutants as required by part D, or emission reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. Part D does not include specific RFP requirements for lead.

    Missouri performed a RACM analysis in compliance with the RACM Guidance. As stated in the final lead NAAQS rule, RFP is satisfied by the strict adherence to a compliance schedule which is expected to periodically yield significant emission reductions. Missouri has determined that existing controls and practices, combined with additional controls and practices required by the 2013 Consent Judgment, constitute RACM. The control measures have been modeled and demonstrated to achieve the lead NAAQS and also comply with RACM and RFP.

    In accordance with the Consent Judgment, all of the control measures for BRRF and the mines and mills have been installed to date. The secondary lead NESHAP requires BRRF to comply with control measures and work practices on or before January 6, 2014. Further, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 requires BRRF to implement the WPM and places production limits on the facility. Collectively, these control measures and practices exceed the requirements of EPA's RACT Guidance.

    RFP is addressed by the control strategy occurring in a timeframe consistent with the CAA and the 2013 Consent Judgment. Upon implementation of the control strategy and practices described above, ambient air quality concentrations are expected to drop at or below attainment levels immediately after implementation of the control strategy. Air monitoring data indicate that all of the nonattainment area's ambient air quality monitors reported lead (Pb) concentrations below the 2008 lead NAAQS for the three-month rolling average for February through May 2014. See http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/leadmonitordata.pdf. For the rolling calendar quarter of April through June 2014, and May through July, the Buick North monitor violated the NAAQS due to a power outage on June 22, 2014, that impacted air pollution control equipment. This violation did not trigger contingency measures because the 2013 Consent Judgment does not require the facility to begin monitoring attainment of the lead NAAQS until the rolling calendar quarter following installation of all control measures, which is November 2014 through January 2015. For the rolling calendar quarters starting in July through December 2014, the facility is attaining the lead NAAQS.

    EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting sections 172(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the CAA.

    F. Attainment Demonstration

    CAA section 172 requires a state to submit a plan for each of its nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the applicable ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the specified attainment date. This demonstration should consist of four parts: (1) Technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations of the lead NAAQS; (2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and air quality improvement resulting from already-adopted national, state, and local programs and from potential new state and local measures to meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area; (3) adopted emissions reduction measures with schedules for implementation and (4) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

    The requirements for the first two parts are described in the sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT, above and in the sections on air quality modeling and the attainment demonstration that follows immediately below. Requirements for the third and fourth parts are described in the sections on the control strategy and the contingency measures, respectively.

    As stated in section V.C.2. above, the future case dispersion modeling is the attainment demonstration used to verify that the proposed control strategies will bring the area into attainment. In order to determine whether the planned emission reduction strategies will result in attainment of the NAAQS, the modeled maximum lead air concentration (based on a rolling three-month average) is added to the calculated background lead concentration of 0.020 µg/m3, the predicted maximum three-month rolling average lead concentration is 0.148 µg/m3. By comparison, the 2008 Lead NAAQS is 0.150 µg/m3. Therefore, Missouri's modeling demonstrates attainment of the standard.

    G. New Source Review (NSR)

    Within the CAA, part D of title I requires SIP submittals to include a permit program for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources. The current definition of nonattainment areas in Missouri, which for lead includes the Viburnum Trend area, is provided in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.020. For installations in a nonattainment area, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.060 requires a permit for construction of, or major modification to, an installation with potential to annually emit one hundred (100) tons or more of a nonattainment pollutant, or a permit for a modification at a major source with potential to annually emit one thousand two hundred (1,200) pounds of lead. Both rules have previously been approved by EPA as part of the SIP, as meeting the requirements of section 173 of the CAA, and EPA implementing rules at 40 CFR 51.165. (78 FR 19602; 78 FR 37457).

    H. Contingency Measures

    As required by CAA section 172(c)(9), the SIP submittal includes contingency measures to be implemented if EPA determines that the area has failed to make RFP or if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by December 2015. If the air quality data for any three-month rolling period after the implementation of the control measures identified in the 2013 Consent Judgment exceeds the 0.15 ug/m3 three-month rolling average lead standard, BRRF shall implement the contingency measures set forth in the 2013 Consent Judgment. Missouri may also require implementation of contingency measures if Doe Run fails to implement the control strategy projects in accordance with the 2013 Consent Judgment.

    The 2013 Consent Judgment contains the following contingency measures which apply to BRRF:

    a. Ventilate the reverberatory feed storage building with a minimum design to achieve a negative pressure of 0.02 inches Hg within nine months' notice from Missouri.

    b. Within a time frame to be determined by Missouri and BRRF, BRRF shall submit a work plan for a study to determine the best practices and best available control technology to achieve compliance with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. The study shall be completed and submitted to Missouri within 180 days from Missouri's approval of the work plan. Within 60 days from receipt of the study, Missouri shall advise BRRF of whether the projects and timelines for implementation proposed by the study are acceptable. Upon Missouri's approval or 60 days with no comment, the projects identified by the study shall be implemented in accordance with the timeline therein and shall become a fully enforceable part of the 2013 Consent Judgment.

    c. Pave inbound truck parking lot within 18 months of notice from Missouri of a 2008 Lead NAAQS violation.

    d. Within a timeframe to be developed by Missouri and BRRF, BRRF shall submit and evaluation of the main baghouse capacity and will identify any projects that are deemed technically feasible and cost-effective to redistribute any excess capacity identified in the evaluation and for inclusion as contingency measures and provide an implementation timeframe. Within 60 days of receipt of the evaluation, Missouri will advise BRRF whether the projects and timelines are acceptable. Upon approval or after 60 days, the projects identified in the baghouse capacity study shall become an enforceable part of the 2013 Consent Judgment.

    The contingency measures listed above shall be implemented upon notice from Missouri of a Lead NAAQS violation and shall be implemented in the order listed above for each subsequent Lead NAAQS violation should additional violations occur.

    BRRF must notify Missouri within ten (10) days of completion of any contingency measure. Sixty days (60) after completion, BRRF will propose an additional qualified contingency measure to be added to the 2013 Consent Judgment, which will become part of the 2013 Consent Judgment and fully enforceable upon approval by Missouri. These additional contingency measures will also be subject to EPA approval as part of the SIP.

    Doe Run or BRRF may also substitute new control(s) for the identified contingency measure(s) if Doe Run or BRRF identifies and demonstrates to Missouri and EPA's satisfaction that the alternative control measure(s) would achieve attainment with the 2008 lead NAAQS. The 2013 Consent Judgment also allows Doe Run or BRRF to change the order of implementation for contingency measures and time frames for completion upon approval by Missouri.

    Changes to contingency measures would require a public hearing at the state level and EPA approval as a formal SIP revision. Until such time as EPA approves any substitute measure, the measures included in the approved SIP will be the enforceable measure. EPA does not intend to approve any substitutions that cannot be implemented in the same timeframe as the original measure. These measures will help ensure compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS as well as meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

    I. Enforceability

    As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556, all measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by the state and EPA. The enforceable document included in Missouri's SIP submittal is the 2013 Consent Judgment. The 2013 Consent Judgment contains all control and contingency measures with enforceable dates for implementation. The only exception relates to the Federally enforceable dates found in the 2011 Consent Decree. The 2013 Consent Judgment also includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure that the control and contingency measures are met. The state adopted the 2013 Consent Judgment into Missouri's state regulations on June 19, 2013, making it state-enforceable. Upon EPA approval of the SIP submission, the 2013 Consent Judgment will become state and Federally enforceable, and enforceable by citizens under section 304 of the CAA.

    We note that the 2013 Consent Judgment also contains provisions for stipulated penalties should Doe Run or BRRF fail to comply with provisions of the 2013 Consent Judgment. The 2011 Consent Decree also contains stipulated penalty provisions. EPA is not bound by the state's 2013 Consent Judgment penalties. With regard to matters that are addressed by the 2011 Consent Decree, EPA may enforce against violations of this document under section 113 of the CAA or other Federal authorities, rather than the 2013 Consent Judgment, if EPA approves the 2013 Consent Judgment, as proposed in this action, into the SIP.

    EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting sections 172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556.

    VI. Review of Revision to Missouri Rule Restricting Lead Emissions From Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations A. Background

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the NAAQS established by EPA. In order for the state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. States submit adopted rules and revisions to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. State rules and revisions approved by EPA under section 110 authority are incorporated into the Federally-approved and enforceable SIP.

    As discussed above in paragraph I, Background, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 “Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter—Refinery Installations”, establishes lead emissions limits from stacks at specific lead smelters including the Herculaneum facility in Herculaneum, Missouri, and BRRF in Boss, Missouri.

    For enforceability, the Viburnum Trend area lead NAAQS attainment SIP relies upon the production limit imposed by Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, recordkeeping requirements, and test methods. The approval of the revision to the rule relies upon the modeling demonstration proposed in the lead NAAQS attainment SIP to demonstrate that the production limits will result in emissions limits that meet the standard. A technical analysis of the production limits proposed, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and the test methods prescribed is conducted in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD), which is included in the docket as materials relied upon for this proposed action. An abbreviated discussion of the information in the EPA TSD is discussed below.

    B. Analysis of Production and Emissions Limits

    As stated above, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120(B)(2) limits production at BRRF to 175,000 tons of Pb per year, and is consistent with the limit imposed by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued to the facility. However, the Pb emissions from the present operations are significantly less than the previous operational configuration in the PSD permit. This is due to the elimination of the Rotary Melter, and the addition of control measures listed in Section 5.1 of the SIP document, including two new baghouses, enclosure of the facility's process and materials handling areas under negative pressure to achieve the Secondary Lead NESHAP, and additional work practice standards also to comply with the NESHAP.

    The Viburnum Trend area lead NAAQS attainment SIP and supporting Consent Judgment specify Stack Emission Limits required to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS (see table 4, Stack Emission Limits). Although Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 establishes the maximum Pb production limit for BRRF rather than a specific emission limitation by stack, the Pb production limit, or throughput, correlates with the stack emission limits modeled in the SIP. The emissions limits by source are detailed in appendix H of the attainment demonstration SIP.

    The modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP are 176,482 tons of Pb produced per year. Thus, the “Future” case modeling demonstrates that under conservative production rates (i.e., slightly higher than the maximum allowable by the revised Missouri rule), the facility still attains the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    As discussed in paragraph V.C. above, EPA has conducted an independent analysis of Missouri's attainment SIP modeling and has determined that the control measures will result in attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS. The detailed analysis, contained in EPA's TSD, of the Pb production limits for BRRF imposed by Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 demonstrates that they correspond with the SIP control measures, expressed as stack emission limits, imposed by the Viburnum Trend area lead NAAQS attainment SIP and supporting Consent Judgment and will provide for attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. As demonstrated above, the revision to the Missouri SIP does not interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress.

    Pursuant to the March 4, 2015, withdrawal request from Missouri, EPA is not taking action on Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, General Provision (3)(B)1, which limits main stack, number 7 and 9 baghouse stack and number 8 baghouse stack lead emissions at the Doe Run primary lead smelter-refinery in Herculaneum, Missouri.7 In addition, EPA is not taking action on Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, General Provision (3)(B)2., which limits main stack lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) of air. Missouri has withdrawn its request for approval of these limits into the SIP because they no longer represent operating conditions at the facility and are higher than the secondary lead NESHAP, respectively.

    7 Missouri's State Implementation Plan for the Jefferson County Lead Nonattainment Area and associated lead emissions limits for ongoing refinery operations at the Doe Run Refinery in Herculaneum, Missouri were approved by EPA on October 20, 2014. 79 FR 62574.

    C. Work Practice Manual (WPM)

    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120(3)(C) contains the requirements for both the Herculaneum facility and BRRF to control fugitive emissions of lead from all process and area sources by work practices. The work practices are required to be submitted to the state in the form of a WPM for the state director's review and approval.

    Any change to the WPM requires state director approval and the change shall not lessen the effectiveness of the fugitive emission reductions for the work practice involved. Written approval by the director is required before any change becomes effective.

    If the director determines that a change in the WPM is warranted, the state director shall notify the facility in writing. The facility must make the required change(s) within 30 days of written notice from the state director.

    The requirements for the WPM are consistent with the modeled controls of fugitive emissions in the Viburnum Trend area attainment SIP. The SIP relies on the Missouri rule for implementation of work practices contained in the approved manual. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this portion of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120.

    D. Reporting and Record Keeping

    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120(4) contains the requirement for the Herculaneum facility and BRRF to keep records and files generated by the WPM's implementation. The required records include records of inspections conducted of fugitive emissions control equipment such as hoods, air ducts and exhaust fans, and records that demonstrate compliance with the sampling methods required for stack testing discussed below. These records are required to be maintained at the facility for a minimum of two (2) years and shall be made available to the state director upon request.

    The requirements for the reporting and record keeping are necessary to determine that the facility is operating in accordance with the modeled controls of fugitive emissions in the Viburnum Trend area attainment SIP. The SIP relies on the Missouri rule for implementation of work practices contained in the approved manual which are documented by the reporting and record keeping requirements contained therein. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this portion of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120.

    E. Test Methods

    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120(5) contains the required test methods for stack testing in accordance with the requirements for visible emissions contained in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.030(9), for quantifying Pb in stack gases in accordance with Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.030(12), and for measuring Pb in ambient air in accordance with Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-030(12). These methods have all been determined to comply with the equivalent EPA Methods 12 and 29 promulgated by 40 CFR part 60 appendix A.

    The Test Methods required by the revised Missouri rule are necessary to determine that the facility is complying with the stack emission limits imposed by the Viburnum Trend Area attainment SIP. The SIP relies on the Missouri rule for the Test Methods and reporting of the results of testing to determine compliance. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this portion of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120.

    VII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Missouri's attainment demonstration SIP for the Viburnum Trend 2008 lead NAAQS nonattainment area. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by Missouri satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and will result in attainment of the 0.15 ug/m3 standard in the Viburnum Trend, Missouri, area.

    Pursuant to Missouri's March 4, 2015, withdrawal request, EPA is not taking action on the Doe Run primary lead smelter-refinery emissions limits in 10 CSR 10-6.120(3)(B)1. and table I, and the 0.00087 gr/dscf main stack emissions limit for BRRF in 10 CSR 10-6.120(3)(B)2. EPA proposes to approve the remaining portions of the revision to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 as part of Missouri's SIP.

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 (with the exclusions of Paragraph 10-6.120 (3)(B)1. and Table 1, and the 0.00087 gr/dscf main stack emissions limit for BRRF) described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).

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

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this proposed 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.

    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not affect the finality of this rulemaking for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such future rule or action.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 19, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52. 1320 amend the table in paragraph (c) by revising the entry for Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 and the table in paragraph (d) by adding new entry (29) to read as follows:
    § 52.1320 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-6.120 Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations 3/30/09 6/1/15 and [Insert Federal Register citation] Paragraph (3)(B)1 and Table, Provision Pertaining to Limitations of Lead Emissions from Specific Installations, is not approved as part of the SIP.
  • The requirement to limit main stack lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 gr/dscf lead in Paragraph (3)(B)2 is not approved as part of the SIP.
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (d) * * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders Name of source Order/permit number State effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * (29) Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility Consent Judgment 13IR-CC00016 7/29/13 6/1/15 and [Insert Federal Register citation]
    [FR Doc. 2015-13128 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0972, FRL-9928-52-Region 8] Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of Colorado to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act, CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008; lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008; and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0972. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in the hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Office of Partnership and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays. An electronic copy of the State's SIP compilation is also available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI 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 on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume, date, and page number);

    • Follow directions and organize your comments;

    • 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; and,

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone, revising the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). Subsequently, on October 15, 2008, EPA revised the level of the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3 (73 FR 66964). On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) while retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb. The 2010 NO2 NAAQS is expressed as the three year average of the 98th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. The secondary NO2 NAAQS remains unchanged at 53 ppb (75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010).

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for ozone, Pb, and NO2 already meet those requirements. EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2007 Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document pertaining to the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (2009 Memo), followed by the October 14, 2011, “Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (2011 Memo). Most recently, EPA issued “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” on September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo).

    III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Colorado that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA; “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A; and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.1 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    Examples of some of these ambiguities and the context in which EPA interprets the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) are discussed at length in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040 Dec. 1, 2014) under “III. What is the Scope of this Rulemaking?”

    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007. (“NSR Reform”).

    IV. What infrastructure elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or satisfy. These infrastructure elements include requirements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories, which are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The elements that are the subject of this action are listed below.

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

    • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

    • 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.

    • 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.

    • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.

    • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

    • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.

    • 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.

    • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.

    • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

    • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

    A detailed discussion of each of these elements is contained in the next section.

    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements are due under section 172. The two elements are: (1) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as “nonattainment NSR”) required under part D, and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title 1 of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.

    V. How did Colorado address the infrastructure elements of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) submitted certifications of Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS on July 26, 2012; the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 31, 2012; and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on March 7, 2013. Colorado's infrastructure certifications demonstrate how the State, where applicable, has plans in place that meet the requirements of section 110 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. These plans reference the current Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) regulations and Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). These submittals are available within the electronic docket for today's proposed action at www.regulations.gov. The AQCC regulations referenced in the submittals are publicly available at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs and http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/. Colorado's SIP, air pollution control regulations, and statutes that have been previously approved by EPA and incorporated into the Colorado SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.320.

    VI. Analysis of the State Submittals

    1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.

    Multiple SIP-approved AQCC regulations citied in Colorado's certifications provide enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, subject to the following clarifications.

    First, EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Nevertheless, Colorado has included some SIP provisions originally submitted in response to part D requirements in its certification for the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2). For the purposes of this action, EPA is reviewing any rules originally submitted in response to part D requirements solely for the purposes of determining whether they support a finding that the State has met the basic infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2). For example, in response to the requirement to have enforceable emission limitations under section 110(a)(2)(A), Colorado cited to rules in Regulation Number 7 that were submitted to meet the reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements of part D. EPA is here approving those rules as meeting the requirement to have enforceable emission limitations on ozone precursors; any judgment about whether those emission limitations discharge the State's obligation to impose RACT under part D will be made separately, in an action reviewing those rules pursuant to the requirements of part D. Colorado also referenced SIP provisions that are relevant, such as limits on emissions of particulate matter (PM) in Regulation 1, woodburning controls in Regulation 4, and the State's minor NSR and PSD programs in Regulation 3. We propose to find these provisions adequately address the requirements of element (A), again subject to the clarifications made in this notice.

    Second, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. A number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

    Third and finally, in this action, EPA is also not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provision with regard to excess emissions during SSM or operations at a facility. A number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance 2 and the Agency is addressing such state regulations separately (78 FR 12460, Feb. 22, 2013).

    2 Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, “State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.” (Sept. 20, 1999).

    2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to “(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.”

    The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) periodically submits a Quality Management Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan to EPA Region 8. These plans cover procedures to monitor and analyze data. The provisions for episode monitoring, data compilation and reporting, public availability of information, and annual network reviews are found in the statewide monitoring SIP (58 FR 49435, Sept. 23, 1993). As part of the monitoring SIP, Colorado submits an Annual Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP) each year for EPA approval. EPA approved 2013 and 2014 network changes through an AMNP response letter (contained within the docket) mailed to CDPHE on March 13, 2015.

    In the AMNP response letter, EPA noted a deficiency in Colorado's AMNP regarding NO2 monitoring. 40 CFR 58.10(a)(5)(iv) requires that “a plan for establishing a second near-road NO2 monitor in any [Core Based Statistical Area] [CBSA] with a population of 2,500,000 or more persons, or a second monitor in any CBSA with a population of 500,000 or more persons that has one or more roadway segments with 250,000 or greater [annual average daily traffic] counts, in accordance with the requirements of Appendix D, section 4.3.2 to this part, shall be submitted as part of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan to the EPA Regional Administrator by July 1, 2014. The plan shall provide for these required monitors to be operational by January 1, 2015.” Colorado was required to start its second near-road NO2 monitor by January 1, 2015. The State did not meet this deadline. However, in a letter dated March 31, 2015 (contained within the docket) CDPHE committed to install and operate the second near-road NO2 monitoring site by December 31, 2015 at I-25/Acoma Street and 49th Avenue in Denver. The State will notify EPA once the monitor is operational, which will then satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 58.10(a)(5)(iv).

    We find that Colorado's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements for the 2008 ozone and 2010 Pb NAAQS; and therefore, propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS for this element.

    CAA 110(k)(4) states “The Administrator may approve a plan revision based on a commitment of the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year after the date of approval of the plan revision. Any such conditional approval shall be treated as a disapproval if the State fails to comply with such commitment.” Based on Colorado's commitment to install and operate the second near-road NO2 monitoring site no later than December 31, 2015, we propose to conditionally approve this element for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. If however, the State fails to meet the deadline for installing and operating the near-road NO2 monitor, EPA's conditional approval, if finalized, will revert automatically to a disapproval.

    3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D.

    To generally meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this action, EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act. EPA is evaluating the State's PSD program as required by part C of the Act, and the State's minor NSR program as required by 110(a)(2)(C).

    PSD Requirements

    With respect to elements (C) and (J), EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of element (D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. Colorado has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).

    EPA's “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline” (Phase 2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612). Among other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their PSD programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone. EPA approved revisions to Colorado's PSD program reflecting these requirements on January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1027), and therefore, Colorado has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 2008 ozone.

    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Supreme Court also said that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its interpretation of the Court's decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision, EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Utility Air. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to EPA regulations and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

    At present, EPA has determined that Colorado's SIP is sufficient to satisfy elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA 3 into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved Colorado PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Utility Air decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Utility Air decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of Colorado's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).

    3 EPA's proposed notice at 78 FR 30830 (May 23, 2013) includes a discussion of the history of Colorado's PSD program approvals for GHGs.

    Finally, we evaluate the PSD program with respect to current requirements for PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, EPA promulgated the rule, “Implementation of the New Source Review Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (73 FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010 EPA promulgated the rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” (75 FR 64864). EPA regards adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C).

    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment that remanded EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered EPA to “repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes additional provisions for PM nonattainment areas.

    The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision, “Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),” (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 Implementation rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 Implementation rule in order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's proposed approval of Colorado's infrastructure SIP as to elements C or J with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.

    The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule also does not affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some elements.

    The second PSD requirement for PM2.5 is contained in EPA's October 20, 2010 rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” (75 FR 64864). EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5 increments as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C).

    On May 11, 2012, the State submitted revisions to Regulation 3 that adopted all elements of the 2008 Implementation Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule. However, the submittal contained a definition of Major Source Baseline Date which was inconsistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). On May 13, 2013, the State submitted revisions to Regulation 3 which incorporate the definition of Major Source Baseline Date which was consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). These submitted revisions make Colorado's PSD program up to date with respect to current requirements for PM2.5. EPA approved the necessary portions of Colorado's May 11, 2012 and May 13, 2013 submissions which incorporate the requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58186). Colorado's SIP-approved PSD program meets current requirements for PM2.5. EPA therefore is proposing to approve Colorado's SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part C of the Act.

    Minor NSR

    The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR program is found in Regulation 3 of the Colorado SIP, and was originally approved by EPA as Regulation 3 of the SIP (see 68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003). Since approval of the minor NSR program, the State and EPA have relied on the program to assure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved.

    4. Interstate Transport: The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called “good neighbor” provisions) require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. The two elements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will (element 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two elements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C (element 3) to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or (element 4) to protect visibility. In this action, EPA is addressing all four elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

    In this action, EPA is addressing the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with regard to elements 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and 2 (interference with maintenance). EPA is addressing elements 3 (interference with PSD) and 4 (interference with visibility protection) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard to the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We are not addressing elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in this action. These elements will be addressed in a later rulemaking.

    A. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance 2008 Pb NAAQS

    Colorado's analysis of potential interstate transport for the 2008 Pb NAAQS includes considerations of Colorado's Pb emissions inventory, and the distance of Pb sources in Colorado to nearby states. The State's analysis is available in the docket for this action.

    As noted in the 2011 Memo, there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a Pb source increases. For this reason, EPA found that the “requirements of subsection (2)(D)(i)(I) (elements 1 and 2) could be satisfied through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to their state borders have emissions that impact the neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state.” 4 In that guidance document, EPA further specified that any source appeared unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment unless it was located less than 2 miles from a state border and emitted at least 0.5 tons per year of Pb. Colorado's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) analysis specifically noted that there are no sources in the State that meet both of these criteria. EPA concurs with the State's analysis and conclusion that no Colorado sources have the combination of Pb emission levels and proximity to neighboring states to contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance by other states for this NAAQS. Colorado's SIP is therefore adequate to ensure that such impacts do not occur. We are proposing to approve Colorado's submission in that its SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    4 2011 Memo at pg 8.

    2010 NO2 NAAQS

    Colorado's 2010 NO2 submission notes that all states are currently designated by EPA as unclassifiable/attainment for NO2, and determines that it is therefore unlikely that Colorado contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance for NO2 in any other state.

    EPA recognizes the reasonableness of Colorado's conclusion, specifically with regard to element 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment).5 In addition, EPA notes that the highest monitored NO2 design values in each state bordering Colorado are significantly below the NAAQS (see Table 2, below).6 This fact further supports the State's contention that significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS from Colorado is very unlikely based on the lack of areas with high levels of NO2. This is especially relevant for element 2 (interference with maintenance), because in addition to the lack of areas violating the NO2 NAAQS, there are also no areas near the State approaching violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS which might therefore be expected to have difficulty maintaining the standard.

    5 EPA has not interpreted element 1 to literally mean contribution to designated nonattainment areas, and has applied this interpretation in comprehensive actions addressing elements 1 and 2 (See e.g., Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011).

    6 EPA did not calculate a 2010 1-hour NO2 design value in the state of Nebraska for the 2011-2013 design value period.

    Table 2—Highest Monitored 2010 NO2 NAAQS Design Values State 2011-2013 Design value Percent of NAAQS
  • (100 ppb)
  • Kansas 65 ppb 65. Nebraska No Data No Data. New Mexico 41 ppb 41. Oklahoma 54 ppb 54. South Dakota 37 ppb 37. Utah 66 ppb 66. Wyoming 35 ppb 35. * Source: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

    In addition to the monitored levels of NO2 in states bordering Colorado being well below the NAAQS, Colorado's highest design value from 2011-2013 was also significantly below this NAAQS (62 ppb).7

    7http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

    Based on all of these factors, EPA concurs with the State's conclusion that Colorado does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in other states. EPA is therefore proposing to determine that Colorado's SIP includes adequate provisions to prohibit sources or other emission activities within the State from emitting NO2 in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect specifically to the NO2 NAAQS.

    B. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant Deterioration (PSD)

    Colorado's certifications with regard to elements 3 and 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) vary by pollutant. Each certification can be found in the docket for this action.

    With regard to the PSD portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program in the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rule(s).8 As noted in Section VI.3 of this proposed action, Colorado has such a program, and EPA is therefore proposing to approve Colorado's SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part C of the Act.

    8 See 2013 Memo.

    As stated in the 2013 Memo, in-state sources not subject to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS related to those particular pollutants may also have the potential to interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another state. One way a state may satisfy element 3 with respect to these sources is by citing an air agency's EPA-approved nonattainment NSR provisions addressing any pollutants for which the state has designated nonattainment areas. Colorado has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program which ensures regulation of major sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas.9

    9 See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section V, which was most recently approved by EPA in a final rulemaking dated February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8632).

    As Colorado's SIP meets PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, and contains a fully approved nonattainment NSR program, EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the applicable requirements of element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    C. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must address the potential for interference with visibility protection caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies. An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection as it ensures that emissions from the state will not interfere with measures required to be included in other state SIPs to protect visibility. In the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state can still make a demonstration that satisfies the visibility requirement section of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).10

    10 See 2013 Memo. In addition, EPA approved the visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for Colorado before taking action on the State's regional haze SIP. 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011).

    Colorado submitted a regional haze SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. EPA approved Colorado's regional haze SIP on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76871). In early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) filed separate petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of EPA's approval of the Colorado's regional haze SIP.11 After these petitions were filed, a settlement agreement was entered into concerning the Craig Generating Station by the petitioners, EPA, CDPHE, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., and filed with the court on July 10, 2014.12 In accordance with the settlement agreement, EPA requested and the court granted a voluntary remand to EPA of the portions of EPA's December 2012 regional haze SIP approval that related to Craig Unit 1. Because of this remand, and because the additional controls at the Craig facility will be implemented through a revision to the Colorado regional haze SIP that EPA has not yet acted on, EPA cannot rely on this approval as automatically satisfying element 4.

    11 WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on February 25, 2013, and NPCA filed its petition on March 1, 2013.

    12 This settlement agreement is included in the docket for this action; see also Proposed Settlement Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14, 2014).

    EPA does, however, consider other aspects of our approval of Colorado's regional haze SIP to be sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Specifically, EPA found that Colorado met its 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requirements to include in its regional haze SIP all measures necessary to (1) obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for any other state's Class I area to which Colorado causes or contributes to visibility impairment, and; (2) ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through a regional planning process. Colorado participated in a regional planning process with Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). In the regional planning process, Colorado analyzed the WRAP modeling and determined that emissions from the State do not significantly impact other states' Class I areas.13 Colorado accepted and incorporated the WRAP-developed visibility modeling into its regional haze SIP, and the SIP included the controls assumed in the modeling. For these reasons, EPA determined that Colorado had satisfied the Regional Haze Rule requirements for consultation and included controls in the SIP sufficient to address the relevant requirements related to impacts on Class I areas in other states. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of element 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    13 See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado regional Haze SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012.

    5. Interstate and International transport provisions: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.

    Section 126(a) requires notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed new (or modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to the Administrator of the U.S. EPA (Administrator) regarding sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 similarly pertains to international transport of air pollution.

    As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado's SIP-approved PSD program requires notice to states whose lands may be affected by the emissions of sources subject to PSD.14 This suffices to meet the notice requirement of section 126(a).

    14 See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1.

    Colorado has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or 115(b); therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those sections. In summary, the SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    6. Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof). Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to comply with the requirements respecting state boards under CAA section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to “provide necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any [SIP] provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such [SIP] provision.”

    a. Sub-elements (i) and (iii): Adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related issues. Colorado revised statues, specifically the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (APPCA) Sections 25-7-105, 25-7-111, 42-4-301 to 42-4-316, 42-4-414 and Article 7 of Title 25, provide adequate authority for the State of Colorado APCD and AQCC to carry out its SIP obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The State receives Sections 103 and 105 grant funds through its Performance Partnership Grant along with required state matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out Colorado's SIP requirements. The regulations cited by Colorado in their certifications and contained within this docket also provide the necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for adequate implementation of SIP provisions by local governments. Therefore, we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    b. Sub-element (ii): State boards. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state's SIP to contain provisions that comply with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive a significant portion of their income from persons subject to such permits and enforcement orders; and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.15

    15 EPA's proposed rule notice (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) includes a discussion of the legislative history of how states could meet the requirements of CAA section 128.

    On April 10, 2012 (77 FR 21453) EPA approved the Procedural Rules, Section 1.11.0, as adopted by the AQCC on January 16, 1998, into the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of section 128 of the Act. Section 1.11.0 specifies certain requirements regarding the composition of the AQCC and disclosure by its members of potential conflicts of interest. Details on how this portion of the Procedural Rules meets the requirements of section 128 are provided in our January 4, 2012 proposal notice (77 FR 235). In our April 10, 2012 action, we correspondingly approved Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for element (E)(ii). Colorado's SIP continues to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS for this element.

    7. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires:

    (i) The installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) Periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) Correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the Act, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.

    The Colorado AQCC Regulations listed in the State's certifications (Regulations 1, 3, 7, and Common Provisions Regulation) and contained within this docket provide authority to establish a program for measurements and testing of sources, including requirements for sampling and testing. Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) requirements are defined in Regulation 3 and requires stationary sources to report their emissions on a regular basis through APENs. Regulation 3 also requires for monitoring to be performed in accordance with EPA accepted procedures, and record keeping of air pollutants. Additionally, Regulation 3 provides for a permitting program that establishes emission limitations and standards. Emissions must be reported by sources to the state for correlation with applicable emissions limitations and standards. Monitoring may be required for both construction and operating permits.

    Additionally, Colorado is required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Colorado made its latest update to the NEI on December 31, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.

    Based on the analysis above, we propose to approve the Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires infrastructure SIPs to “provide for authority comparable to that in [CAA section 303 16 ] and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.”

    16 Discussion of the requirements for meeting CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 p.m.2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) under “VI. Analysis of State Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.”

    Under CAA section 303, the Administrator has authority to bring suit to immediately restrain an air pollution source that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment. If such action may not practicably assure prompt protection, then the Administrator has authority to issue temporary administrative orders to protect the public health or welfare, or the environment, and such orders can be extended if EPA subsequently files a civil suit.

    APPCA Sections 25-7-112 and 25-7-113 provide APCD with general emergency authority comparable to that in section 303 of the Act. APPCA section 25-7-112(1) provides the Division of Administration in the CDPHE with the authority to maintain civil actions over the sources of air pollution discharges that constitute “a clear, present, and immediate danger to the environment or to the health of the public.” Specifically, the Division can seek a “temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction as provided for in the Colorado rules of civil procedure” (C.R.S. section 25-7-112(1)(b)). This authority extends to discharges that constitute “an immediate danger to the welfare of the public because such pollutants make habitation of residences or the conduct of businesses subjected to the pollutants extremely unhealthy or disruptive.” (C.R.S. Section 25-7-113(1)).

    These civil actions may be maintained “in any district court of this state for the district in which the said activity or discharge is occurring.” (C.R.S. Sections 25-7-112(1)(b); 25-7-113(1)(b)). Additionally, the action “shall be given precedence over all other matters pending in such district court.” (Id). As such, Colorado law provides statutory authority over sources of air pollution discharges that cause an “immediate danger” to public health, welfare, or the environment. This authority allows for the pursuit of immediate relief and provides precedence for such matters. Therefore, Colorado has comparable judicial authority to that provided to the Administrator in Section 303.

    Similarly, APPCA section 25-7-112(1)(a) provides the Division of Administration in the CDPHE with the authority to issue “cease-and-desist orders. . .requiring immediate discontinuance of such activity or the discharge of such pollutant into the atmosphere” when the activity or discharge “constitutes a clear, present, and immediate danger to the environment or to the health of the public.” (C.R.S. Section 25-7-112(1)(a)). Further, “upon receipt of such order, such person shall immediately discontinue such activity or discharge.” (Id). This authority extends to discharges that constitute “an immediate danger to the welfare of the public because such pollutants make habitation of residences or the conduct of businesses subjected to the pollutants extremely unhealthy or disruptive.” (C.R.S. Section 25-7-113(1)).

    These provisions also allow the Division to “both issue such a cease-and-desist order and apply for any such restraining order or injunction” (C.R.S. Sections 25-7-112(1)(c); 25-7-113(c)). Colorado law provides administrative authority over sources of air pollution discharges that cause an “immediate danger” to public health, welfare, or the environment. Furthermore, C.R.S. Sections 25-7-112(2)(b) allows the Governor to declare a state of air pollution emergency and take any and all actions necessary to protect the health of the public. This authority is comparable to that provided to the Administrator in Section 303.

    States must also have adequate contingency plans adopted into their SIP to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority (as discussed above). This can be met can by submitting a plan that meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS if the NAAQS is covered by those regulations. The Denver Emergency Episode Plan, applicable to the Denver metropolitan area, satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (See 74 FR 47888). The SIP therefore meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G). Based on the above analysis, we propose approval of Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of such plan: (i) From time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under this [Act].

    Colorado's statutory provision at Colorado APPCA Sections 25-7-105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC sufficient authority to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H).

    10. Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each SIP “meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title (relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of air quality and visibility protection).”

    The State has demonstrated it has the authority and rules in place through its certifications (contained within this docket) to provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having authority over federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 121. Furthermore, EPA previously addressed the requirements of CAA section 127 for the Colorado SIP and determined public notification requirements are appropriate (45 FR 53147, Aug. 11, 1980).

    As discussed above, the State has a SIP-approved PSD program that incorporates by reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has further evaluated Colorado's SIP approved PSD program in this proposed action under element (C) and determined the State has satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as noted above. Therefore, the State has also satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(J).

    Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, EPA recognizes states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there are no applicable visibility requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.

    Based on the above analysis, we propose to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    11. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP provide for: (i) The performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a NAAQS, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.

    Colorado's Regulation 3 Part A.VIII (Technical Modeling and Monitoring Requirements) requires estimates of ambient air concentrations be based on applicable air quality models approved by EPA. Final approval for Regulation 3 Part A.VIII became effective February 20, 1997 (62 FR 2910). Additionally, Regulation 3 Part D, Section VI.C. requires the Division to transmit to the Administrator of the U.S. EPA a copy of each permit application relating to a major stationary source or major modification subject to this regulation, and provide notice of every action related to the consideration of such permit.

    Colorado has broad authority to develop and implement an air quality control program that includes conducting air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated and provide that modeling data to the EPA. This broad authority can be found in 25-7-102, C.R.S., which requires that emission control measures be evaluated against economic, environmental, energy and other impacts, and indirectly authorizes modeling activities.17 Colorado also has broad authority to conduct modeling and submit supporting data to EPA to satisfy federal non-attainment area requirements (25-7-105, 25-7-205.1, 25-7-301, and 25-7-302, C.R.S.). In addition to statutory authority, all state implementation plans and revisions of such plans must be submitted to Colorado's Legislature for review providing another layer of review and authorization for submittal to EPA (25-7-133(1), C.R.S.). The State also has the authority to submit any modeling data to EPA upon request under the Colorado Open Records Act (24-72-201 to 24-72-309, C.R.S.).

    17See Email from Robert True “Response Requested for Element K on CO's iSIP” April 6, 2015, available within docket.

    As a result, the SIP provides for such air quality modeling as the Administrator has prescribed. Therefore, we propose to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    12. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to: Require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this act, a fee sufficient to cover; (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit; and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V.

    The State of Colorado requires the owner or operator of a major stationary source to pay the Division any fee necessary to cover the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any permit application. The collection of fees is described in AQCC Regulation 3, Part A.

    We also note that the State has an EPA approved title V permit program (60 FR 4563, Jan. 24, 1995) which provides for collection of permitting fees. Final approval of the title V operating permit program became effective October 16, 2000 (65 FR 49919). Interim approval of Colorado's title V operating permit program became effective February 23, 1995 (60 FR 4563). As discussed in the proposed interim approval of the title V program (59 FR 52123, October 14, 1994), the State demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to administer the program.

    Therefore, based on the State's experience in relying on the collection of fees as described in AQCC Regulation 3, and the use of title V fees to implement and enforce PSD permits once they are incorporated into title V permits, we propose to approve the submissions as supplemented by the State for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    13. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

    The statutory provisions cited in Colorado's SIP submittals (contained within this docket) meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting these requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    VII. What action is EPA taking?

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the following infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS: (A), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD requirements, (D)(i)(II) elements 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is proposing to approve element (B) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS and proposing to conditionally approve element (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Finally, EPA proposes approval of D(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA will act separately on infrastructure element (D)(i)(I), interstate transport elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this proposed action 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, Oct. 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, Aug. 10, 1999);

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13123 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0304; FRL-9928-51-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana; Correction AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Montana on March 17, 2010, August 1, 2011, November 22, 2011, and September 19, 2014. The revisions are to the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) and include minor editorial and grammatical changes, updates to citations and references to federal and state laws and regulations, revisions to open burning rules, changes to the process for appealing air quality permits, and providing a process for revocation of air quality permits when owners cannot be found by mail. Also in this action, EPA is proposing to correct final rules pertaining to Montana's SIP. On January 29, 2010, EPA took direct final action to approve SIP revisions as submitted by the State of Montana on January 16, 2009 and May 4, 2009. EPA subsequently discovered an error in our January 29, 2010 direct final action related to “incorporation by reference” (IBR) materials and the associated regulatory text numbering. EPA is proposing to correct this error with today's action. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0304, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).

    Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.

    Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0304. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I, General Information, of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6563, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

    (ii) The initials ARM mean or refer to the Administrative Rules of Montana.

    (iii) The initials BACT mean or refer to Best Available Control Technology.

    (iv) The word or initials Board or BER mean or refer to the Montana Board of Environmental Review.

    (v) The initials CAMR mean or refer to the Environmental Protection Agency's Clear Air Mercury Rule.

    (vi) The initials CBI mean or refer to confidential business information.

    (vii) The initials CFR mean or refer to the United States Code of Federal Regulations.

    (viii) The initials DEQ mean or refer to the Department of Environmental Quality.

    (ix) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

    (x) The initials IBR mean or refer to Incorporate by Reference.

    (xi) The initials MCA mean or refer to the Montana Code Annotated.

    (xii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to national ambient air quality standards.

    (xiii) The initials NESHAP mean or refer to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

    (xiv) The initials NSPS mean or refer to New Source Performance Standards.

    (xv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

    (xvi) The word State means or refers to the State of Montana.

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

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI 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 on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register, date, and page number);

    • Follow directions and organize your comments;

    • 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; and

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. Background

    A. On March 17, 2010 the State of Montana submitted a SIP revision containing amendments to IBR current federal regulations and other material into air quality rules at ARM 17.8.102, 17.8.302, 17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.822, 17.8.902, and 17.8.1002. The amendments update IBR dates, make minor editorial and grammatical changes, and delete references to EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) which was vacated in February 2008. The Montana Board of Environmental Review (BER) adopted the amendments on October 2, 2009.

    B. On August 1, 2011 the State submitted a SIP revision containing amendments to IBR current federal regulations and other material into air quality rules at ARM 17.8.102. The revisions update IBR dates and associated references, make minor editorial and grammatical changes, and delete the exclusion from IBR of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60, subpart DDDD—Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units. The BER adopted the amendments on January 28, 2011.

    C. On November 22, 2011 Montana submitted a SIP revision containing amendments to ARM 17.8.604, 17.8.610, 17.8.612, 17.8.613, 17.8.614, 17.8.615, and 17.8.763. The amendments allow certain open burning to occur in areas other than where waste was generated, revise the process for appealing air quality permits, provide a process for revocation of air quality permits when owners cannot be found by mail, and make minor editorial and grammatical changes. The Board adopted the amendments on March 25, 2011.

    D. On September 19, 2014 the State of Montana submitted a SIP revision containing amendments to IBR current federal regulations and other material into air quality rules at ARM 17.8.102. The amendments update IBR dates, make minor editorial and grammatical changes, and delete references to certain subparts of 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. The Montana BER adopted the amendments on May 30, 2014.

    E. On January 26, 2010, EPA took direct final action (75 FR 3993) to approve revisions to ARM 17.8.102—Incorporation by Reference—Publication Dates, with a State effective date of October 26, 2007. In a subsequent action, EPA took final action on July 8, 2011 (76 FR 40237) and inadvertently approved revisions to ARM 17.8.102 with a state effective date of June 17, 2005. This action provides notice that language in ARM 17.8.102 with a State effective date of October 26, 2007 was in effect between January 26, 2010 and publication of this notice. A copy of ARM 17.8.102 effective October 26, 2007 is available within this docket.

    F. On January 29, 2010, EPA published a direct final rule in the Federal Register approving Montana SIP revisions to the ARM. This action proposes to correct an error in the regulatory language in 40 CFR 52.1370(c) of EPA's January 29, 2010 direct final rule (75 FR 4698).

    The State was delegated the authority for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) through a Federal Register notice on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25143) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) by letter on January 9, 2004 (69 FR 43371, July 20, 2004). When a delegation of authority is granted, EPA authorizes a state to implement and enforce a federal regulation. Prior to receiving delegation, NESHAPs and NSPS were enforced through Montana's SIP.1 Through this process, the State IBR'd the Federal NESHAPs and NSPS in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 into its SIP-approved regulations. However, since receiving program delegation, many of the parts of the IBR referencing NESHAPs and NSPS in parts 60, 61, and 63 no longer need to be approved into Montana's SIP. EPA is working with the State to remove unnecessary parts of NESHAPs and NSPS from its SIP. These amendments will be reflected in a future Federal Register action. In the interim, we are proposing no action on any SIP revisions referencing 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63.

    1See Douglas M. Ski, Chief of the Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 8, Memorandum to Jeffery T. Chaffe, Chief of the Montana Air Quality Bureau (October 9, 1991).

    III. EPA's Review of the State of Montana's March 17, 2010; August 1, 2011; November 22, 2011; and September 19, 2014 Submittals, and CFR Correction A. March 17, 2010 SIP Submittal

    The State's March 17, 2010 SIP submittal contained amendments adopted by the State on October 2, 2009 (effective October 16, 2009) and includes the following types of amendments to the State's air quality rules: Revisions to its IBR of documents and other statutory references; and updated references to the July 1, 2008 edition of the CFR and the December 31, 2008 edition of the ARM. The revisions also make minor editorial and grammatical changes, and delete certain references to rules which have been vacated.

    We are not acting on several of the State's amendments in the March 17, 2010 submittal that delete certain provisions from the State's rules because we did not approve those provisions into the SIP when they were part of a prior submittal from the State and they reference an NSPS in 40 CFR part 60. On November 1, 2006, the State submitted revisions to its SIP, including amendments to ARM 17.8.302, 17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.902, and 17.8.1002. In our January 26, 2010 action (75 FR 3993), EPA did not act on revisions to ARM 17.8.302, 17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.902, or 17.8.1002 because the revisions referenced CAMR which was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 8, 2008 (see New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F. 3d 574).

    In its March 17, 2010 submission, the State revisions delete references to CAMR in ARM 17.8.302(1)(a)(ii), 17.8.767(1)(c), 17.8.802(1)(d), 17.8.902(1)(a), 17.8.1002(1)(a). Since EPA did not act on revisions to these sections of the ARM in our January 26, 2010 action, references to CAMR were never approved into Montana's SIP. Furthermore, as explained in the “Background” section of this notice, we are proposing no action on revisions referencing 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. Therefore, EPA is proposing no action on the 2010 revisions to ARM 17.8.302(1)(a)(ii), 17.8.767(1)(c), 17.8.802(1)(d), 17.8.902(1)(a), and 17.8.1002(1)(a).

    The March 17, 2010 revisions to ARM 17.8.102(1), 17.8.102(1)(a), and 17.8.102(1)(c) make minor grammatical changes and update the citations and references to federal law and State rules. In subsequent SIP submittals dated August 1, 2011 and September 19, 2014, the State again updates IBR publication dates. We therefore propose to act on revisions to ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), and 17.8.102(1)(c) from the September 19, 2014 submittal, as discussed below, and to approve the grammatical changes to ARM 17.8.102(1) from the March 17, 2010 submittal. Since the March 17, 2010 publication date revisions to these three rules were superseded by the August 1, 2011 and September 19, 2014 submittals, we are not acting on the publication date revisions in the March 17, 2010 submittal.

    The March 2010 submittal also makes minor editorial and grammatical changes to ARM 17.8.102(2), 17.8.102(2)(a), and 17.8.102(3). ARM 17.8.102(2) and (3) list subparts of NSPS at 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAPs at 40 CFR part 63 which are excluded from IBR. We therefore propose no action on the revisions to ARM 17.8.102(2), 17.8.102(2)(a), and 17.8.102(3) from the August 1, 2011 submittal.

    Finally, the submittal deletes ARM 17.8.802(1)(c) and 17.8.822(9), which require compliance with the ambient monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix B. EPA proposes to approve revisions to ARM 17.8.802(1)(c) and 17.8.822(9) because that appendix no longer exists.

    B. August 1, 2011 SIP Submittal

    The State's August 1, 2011 SIP submittal contained amendments adopted by the State on January 28, 2011 (effective February 11, 2011) and includes the following types of amendments to the State's air quality rules: Revisions to its IBR of documents and other statutory references contained in the State's air quality rules; an updated reference to the July 1, 2009 edition of the CFR; and updated references to the 2006 edition of the United States Code and Supplement II (2009), and the December 31, 2009 edition of the ARM. The revisions also make minor editorial and grammatical changes, and delete references to a rule which has been vacated.

    The August 1, 2011 revisions to ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), 17.8.102(1)(b), and 17.8.102(1)(c) update the citations and references to federal law and State rules. In a subsequent SIP submittal dated September 19, 2014, the State again updates IBR publication dates. We therefore propose to act on revisions to ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), 17.8.102(1)(b), and 17.8.102(1)(c) from the September 19, 2014 submittal, as discussed below. Since the August 1, 2011 publication date revisions to these three rules were superseded by the September 19, 2014 submittals, we are not acting on the publication date revisions in the August 1, 2011 submittal.

    Additionally, the August 1, 2011 revisions makes a minor editorial change to ARM 17.8.102(3)(b) which excludes 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKKK, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing from IBR and deletes ARM 17.8.102(3)(d) which references portions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD—NESHAP for Plywood and Composite Wood Products. As previously discussed, we are not acting on revisions referencing 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, and therefore propose no action on ARM 17.8.102(3)(b) and 17.8.103(d).

    C. November 22, 2011 SIP Submittal

    The State's November 22, 2011 SIP submittal contained amendments adopted by the State on March 25, 2011 (effective April 15, 2011) and includes the following types of amendments to the State's air quality rules: Revisions to open burning rules regarding burning locations, permit appeal processes, grammatical changes, and revisions to the notification process of intent to revoke Montana Air Quality Permits.

    Revisions to open burning rules in ARM section 17.8.604 specify the circumstances under which moving wood waste from the location where it was generated and burning it elsewhere may occur. The purpose of the revisions are to provide an exception to the general prohibition to allow wood waste generated in areas where burning would be unwise (e.g., where burning wood waste on the premises where it is generated would produce unacceptable amounts of smoke that could cause or contribute to a violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)) to be moved to areas where the burning could take place under conditions protective of the NAAQS and other conditions applicable to open burning.

    In our August 24, 2006 final rule (71 FR 49999), we took no action on revisions to ARM 17.8.604(1)(a) that were submitted by the State on April 18, 2003 because language used in the rule revision was considered a department discretion. However, the State's November 22, 2011 submittal removes previous discretionary language of “or unless approval is granted by the department on a case by case basis” from its April 18, 2003 submittal and replaces it with criteria that the department applies when determining whether to issue a permit that allows for burning of any wood waste at a location other than where the wood waste was generated. The revisions ensure waste that is moved from the premises where it is generated is still prohibited material and may not be burned unless it is conducted pursuant to a landfill or conditional open burning permit issued by the department. For conditional air quality open burning, the State's rules require that the department only issue a permit under its rules if the open burning will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS and that the open burn conform to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) (ARM 17.8.612). Among other things, BACT also requires that these additional categories only burn during the time periods specified by the department (ARM 17.8.601(1)). The revisions also ensure the movement and burning is only an option for wood that is not already described as prohibited and ensure other methods of disposal are considered.

    In our July 20, 2004 proposed notice (69 FR 43373) we explained that the proposed changes would not impact the stringency of the rule. In a letter to EPA dated August 19, 2004, the State clarified the intent of proposed changes to ARM 17.8.604(1)(a) stating that the purpose is to “. . . allow open burning of material moved to an alternative site for purposes of better attaining and maintaining the NAAQS.” ARM 17.8.604(1)(a) further allows “. . . movement of material for open burning to locations that minimize health effects caused by exposure to smoke emissions. For example, when municipalities experience massive tree damage, disposal of material by open burning within city limits would expose populations to smoke emissions. However, if material is relocated to an alternate site, populations are better protected from adverse health effects caused by exposure to smoke emissions” (comment letter from Jan Sensibaugh, Director, Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to EPA Air & Radiation Program Director Richard Long, contained within this docket).

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirements of the Act. The proposed revisions to ARM 17.8.604(1) do not interfere with the maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The November 22, 2011 submittal revises the open burning rules; however, as discussed earlier, we do not believe the changes will impact the NAAQS. Therefore, section 110(l) requirements are satisfied and we consequently propose to approve revisions to ARM 17.8.604(1)(a).

    We propose to approve the revision to ARM 17.8.610(2) which corrects a grammatical error.

    Revisions to ARM 17.8.612, 17.8.613, 17.8.614, and 17.8.615 reflect the Montana Legislature's revision of the process for appealing air quality permits pursuant to 75-2-211, Montana Code Annotated (MCA). The 2003 Legislature amended 75-2-211, MCA, to eliminate an automatic stay of the department's decision to issue a permit upon a permit appeal. Instead, during a 15-day delay before the department decision on the permit application becomes final, a permit decision may be stayed only following a petition and a finding that the person requesting the stay is entitled to the relief demanded in the request for hearing or that continuation of the permit would cause the petitioner great or irreparable injury. After 15 days, the department's decision cannot be appealed. If a stay is granted, but the appeal ultimately fails, the petitioner is liable for costs and damages to the permit applicant.

    On March 11, 2003, EPA mailed a memorandum to the Director of the Montana DEQ 2 which expressed potential concern with legislation (including revisions to 75-2-211, MCA) pending in the Montana Legislature. As outlined in the memo, EPA was concerned that the proposed legislation had the potential to create major impediments to the public's ability to challenge air permits in state court as required by the CAA. An important consideration before EPA approves programs under the CAA is that the state must provide the same opportunity for judicial review of the air permitting actions in state court as would be available in federal court. The proposed bill (HB No. 700, available within this docket) contained provisions which would have required citizens and organizations to file for a preliminary injunction and then post a bond if such injunction was granted. The appealing party's bond required coverage of the permittee's costs of delay. Another provision required the person challenging the permit to indemnify the permittee for the same items covered in the bond. However, this language (see HB No. 700, Section 1. 75-2-211.(11)(d) and (e) contained within this docket) was struck from the legislation prior to approval.

    2See Stephen S. Tuber, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator for the Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, Memorandum to Jan Sensibaugh, Director of Montana Department of Environmental Quality (March 11, 2003).

    We therefore conclude that the 2003 revisions made to 75-2-211, MCA (contained within this docket) do not conflict with the CAA requirements for judicial review of air permitting actions (see 42 U.S.C. 7607(b) 3 and 7607(d) 4 ) and consequently propose to approve revisions to 17.8.612(10) and (11), 17.8.613(8) and (9), 17.8.614(8) and (9), and 17.8.615(6) and (7). Finally, revision to ARM 17.8.763 provides a process for notice by publication of the department's intent to revoke a Montana Air Quality Permit issued under Title 17, chapter 8, subchapter 7 when an owner or operator cannot be found for service by certified mail. We propose to approve the revision to ARM 17.8.763(3).

    3 The Environmental Appeals Board Practice Manual, EPA, (September 2010) http://www.epa.gov/eab/pmanual.pdf.

    4 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) states: “Only 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 Administrator refuses to convene such a proceeding, such person may seek review of such refusal in the United States court of appeals for the appropriate circuit (as provided in subsection (b) of this section). Such reconsideration shall not postpone the effectiveness of the rule. The effectiveness of the rule may be stayed during such reconsideration, however, by the Administrator or the court for a period not to exceed three months.”

    D. September 19, 2014 SIP Submittal

    The State's September 19, 2014 SIP submittal contained amendments adopted by the State on May 30, 2014 (effective June 12, 2014) and includes the following types of amendments to the State's air quality rules: Revisions to its IBR of documents and other statutory references contained in the State's air quality rules; an updated reference to the July 1, 2013 edition of the CFR; and an updated reference to the 2012 edition of the United States Code as it existed on December 31, 2013. The revisions also make minor editorial and grammatical changes; delete references to NSPS and NESHAPs which are excluded from IBR; delete references to a rule which has been vacated; and add information on how to obtain IBR materials referenced in the ARM.

    The September 19, 2014 revisions to ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), 17.8.102(1)(b), and 17.8.102(1)(c) update the citations and references to federal law and State rules. We propose to approve these revisions.

    The September 19, 2014 revisions delete ARM 17.8.102(2), 17.8.102(2)(a), and 17.8.102(2)(b) which reference subparts of 40 CFR part 60 (NSPS) that are excluded from IBR. The revisions also make a minor editorial change to ARM 17.8.102(3); delete certain language in ARM 17.8.102(3)(a) and ARM 17.8.102(3)(b) which references 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and subpart KKKK, NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, respectively; and delete ARM 17.8.102(3)(c) which references 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. We propose no action on these revisions since they are in reference to 40 CFR parts 60 and 63.

    Finally, the September 19, 2014 revisions add ARM 17.8.102(3) and 17.8.102(4)(a) through (d) which includes information on how to obtain a copy of materials incorporated by reference in this chapter of the ARM and copies of federal materials. We propose to approve language added to ARM 17.8.102(3) and 17.8.102(4)(a) through (d).

    Proposed Correction

    In the direct final rule published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2010 (75 FR 4698), on page 4700, third column, we propose to correct the amendatory instruction 2, in the second line, “. . . adding paragraph (c) (68) . . .” to read: “. . . Adding paragraph (c) (69) . . ..”; and also propose the conforming change in the regulatory text, changing paragraph (c)(68) to (c)(69). This proposed change is necessary because of the inadvertent error made to this regulatory language in our action at 75 FR 4698.

    IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve grammatical changes made to ARM 17.8.102(1), and all revisions of 17.8.802(1)(c) and 17.8.822(9) from the March 17, 2010 submittal. We propose to approve November 22, 2011 revisions to ARM 17.8.604(1)(a),17.8.610(2), 17.8.612(10) and (11), 17.8.613(8) and (9), 17.8.614(8) and (9), 17.8.615(6) and (7), and 17.8.763(3). We propose to approve the September 19, 2014 submittal's citations and references to federal law and State rules superseding and replacing all previous versions of ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), 17.8.102(1)(b), and 17.8.102(1)(c). Previous submittals were received on March 17, 2010 and August 1, 2011. We also propose to approve language added to ARM 17.8.102(3) and 17.8.102(4)(a) through (d) from the September 19, 2014 submittal. Our action also provides notice that language in ARM 17.8.102 was in effect between January 16, 2010 and publication of this notice. Finally, EPA proposes to correct erroneous amendatory instructions published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2010 (75 FR 4698).

    V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Administrative Rules of Montana regarding citations and references to federal and State laws and regulations; open burning rules; air quality permits appeal process; and revocation of air quality permits discussed in section III, EPA's Review of the State of Montana's March 17, 2010; August 1, 2011; November 22, 2011; and September 19, 2014 Submittals, and CFR Correction, of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this proposed action 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 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 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 13, 2015. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13129 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 97 [FRL-9928-49-OAR] Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance Year AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of data availability (NODA).

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of preliminary calculations of emission allowance allocations to certain units under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Under the CSAPR federal implementation plans (FIPs), portions of each covered state's annual emissions budgets for each of the four CSAPR emissions trading programs are reserved for allocation to electricity generating units that commenced commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010 (new units) and certain other units not otherwise obtaining allowance allocations under the FIPs. The quantities of allowances allocated to eligible units from each new unit set-aside (NUSA) under the FIPs are calculated in an annual one- or two-round allocation process. EPA has completed preliminary calculations for the first round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2015 compliance year and has posted spreadsheets containing the calculations on EPA's Web site. EPA will consider timely objections to the preliminary calculations (including objections concerning the identification of units eligible for allocations) and will promulgate a notice responding to any such objections no later than August 1, 2015, the deadline for recording the first-round allocations in sources' Allowance Management System accounts. This notice may concern CSAPR-affected units in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

    DATES:

    Objections to the information referenced in this notice must be received on or before July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your objections via email to [email protected] Include “2015 NUSA allocations” in the email subject line and include your name, title, affiliation, address, phone number, and email address in the body of the email.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 343-9077 or [email protected] or Kenon Smith at (202) 343-9164 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the CSAPR FIPs, the mechanisms by which initial allocations of emission allowances are determined differ for “existing” and “new” units. For “existing” units—that is, units commencing commercial operation before January 1, 2010—the specific amounts of CSAPR FIP allowance allocations for all compliance years have been established through rulemaking. EPA has announced the availability of spreadsheets showing the CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units in previous notices.1

    1 The latest spreadsheet of CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units, updated in 2014 to reflect changes to CSAPR's implementation schedule but with allocation amounts unchanged since June 2012, is available at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html. See Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances to Existing Electricity Generating Units, 79 FR 71674 (December 3, 2014).

    “New” units—that is, units commencing commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010—as well as certain older units that would not otherwise obtain FIP allowance allocations do not have pre-established allowance allocations. Instead, the CSAPR FIPs reserve a portion of each state's total annual emissions budget for each CSAPR emissions trading program as a new unit set-aside (NUSA) 2 and establish an annual process for allocating NUSA allowances to eligible units. States with Indian country within their borders have separate Indian country NUSAs. The annual process for allocating allowances from the NUSAs and Indian country NUSAs to eligible units is set forth in the CSAPR regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b) and 97.412 (NOX Annual Trading Program), 97.511(b) and 97.512 (NOX Ozone Season Trading Program), 97.611(b) and 97.612 (SO2 Group 1 Trading Program), and 97.711(b) and 97.712 (SO2 Group 2 Trading Program). Each NUSA allowance allocation process involves up to two rounds of allocations to new units followed by the allocation to existing units of any allowances not allocated to new units. EPA provides public notice at certain points in the process. This notice concerns preliminary calculations for the first round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2015 compliance year.3

    2 The NUSA amounts range from two percent to eight percent of the respective state budgets. The variation in percentages reflects differences among states in the quantities of emission allowances projected to be required by known new units at the time the budgets were set or amended.

    3 At this time, EPA is not aware of any unit eligible for a first-round allocation from any Indian country NUSA.

    The units eligible to receive first-round NUSA allocations are defined in §§ 97.412(a)(1), 97.512(a)(1), 97.612(a)(1), and 97.712(a)(1). Generally, eligible units include any CSAPR-affected unit that has not been allocated allowances as an existing unit as well as certain units that have been allocated allowances as existing units but whose allocations have been deducted or not recorded because of corrections or multi-year breaks in operations. EPA notes that a valid allowance allocation may consist of zero allowances; thus, an existing unit specifically allocated zero allowances in the spreadsheet of CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units is generally ineligible to receive a NUSA allowance allocation.

    The quantity of allowances to be allocated through the 2015 NUSA allowance allocation process for each state and emissions trading program is generally the state's 2015 emissions budget less the sum of (1) the total of the 2015 CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units and (2) the amount of the 2015 Indian country NUSA, if any.4 The amounts of NUSA allowances may be increased in certain circumstances as set forth in §§ 97.412(a)(2), 97.512(a)(2), 97.612(a)(2), and 97.712(a)(2).

    4 The quantities of allowances to be allocated through the NUSA allowance allocation process may differ slightly from the NUSA amounts set forth in §§ 97.410(a), 97.510(a), 97.610(a), and 97.710(a) because of rounding in the spreadsheet of CSAPR FIP allowance allocations to existing units.

    The amounts of first-round allocations to eligible units from each NUSA are calculated according to the procedures set forth in §§ 97.412(a)(3)-(7) and (12), 97.512(a)(3)-(7) and (12), 97.612(a)(3)-(7) and (12), and 97.712(a)(3)-(7) and (12). Generally, the procedures call for each eligible unit to receive a first-round 2015 NUSA allocation equal to its 2014 emissions as reported under 40 CFR part 75 unless the total of such allocations to all eligible units would exceed the amount of allowances in the NUSA, in which case the allocations are reduced on a pro-rata basis.5

    5 Subsequent allocations of any allowances remaining in any 2015 NUSA after first-round allocations will be addressed in future notices. Any such allocations will be made according to the procedures set forth in §§ 97.412(a)(9)-(10) and (12), 97.512(a)(9)-(10) and (12), 97.612(a)(9)-(10) and (12), and 97.712(a)(9)-(10) and (12). Generally, new units that commenced commercial operations in 2014 or 2015 will receive second-round 2015 NUSA allocations sufficient to bring the totals of their first- and second-round allocations up to their 2015 emissions as reported under 40 CFR part 75 unless the total of such second-round allocations for all eligible units would exceed the remaining amount of allowances in the NUSA, in which case the second-round allocations will be reduced on a pro-rata basis. Any allowances remaining in any NUSA after second-round allocations to new units—along with any allowances remaining in any corresponding Indian country NUSA—will be allocated to the state's existing units in proportion to their respective 2015 CSAPR FIP allocations of non-NUSA allowances.

    EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given EGU does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the EGU. EPA also notes that allocations are subject to potential correction.

    The detailed unit-by-unit data and preliminary allowance allocation calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_NOX_Annual_1st_Round_Prelim_Data”, “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_NOX_OS_1st_Round_Prelim_Data”, and “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_SO2_1st_Round_Prelim_Data,” available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html. The three spreadsheets show EPA's initial determinations of 2015 NUSA allocations for new units subject to the CSAPR NOX Annual, NOX Ozone Season, and SO2 (Group 1 and Group 2) trading programs, respectively. Each of the spreadsheets contains a separate worksheet for each state covered by that program showing, for each unit identified as eligible for a first-round NUSA allocation, (1) the unit's emissions in the 2014 control period (annual or ozone season as applicable), (2) the maximum first-round 2015 NUSA allowance allocation for which the unit is eligible (typically the unit's emissions in the 2014 control period), (3) various adjustments to the unit's maximum allocation, many of which are necessary only if the NUSA pool is oversubscribed, and (4) the preliminary calculation of the unit's first-round 2015 NUSA allowance allocation.

    Each state worksheet also contains a summary showing (1) the quantity of allowances initially available in that state's 2015 NUSA, (2) the sum of the first-round 2015 NUSA allowance allocations that will be made to new units in that state, assuming there are no corrections to the data, and (3) the quantity of allowances that would remain in the 2015 NUSA for use in second-round allocations to new units (or ultimately for allocation to existing units), again assuming there are no corrections to the data.

    Objections should be strictly limited to the data and calculations upon which the NUSA allowance allocations are based and should be emailed to the address identified in ADDRESSES. Objections must include: (1) Precise identification of the specific data and/or calculations the commenter believes are inaccurate, (2) new proposed data and/or calculations upon which the commenter believes EPA should rely instead to determine allowance allocations, and (3) the reasons why EPA should rely on the commenter's proposed data and/or calculations and not the data referenced in this notice.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 97.411(b), 97.511(b), 97.611(b), and 97.711(b).

    Dated: May 22, 2015. Reid P. Harvey, Director, Clean Air Markets Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13031 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0030; FF09E42000 156 FXES11130900000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Remove the Bone Cave Harvestman (Texella reyesi) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of 90-day petition finding.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Bone Cave harvestman or its habitat at any time.

    DATES:

    The finding announced in this document was made on June 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the petition are available in the docket associated with this notice at http://www.regulations.gov and at http://fws.gov/southwest/es/austintexas/ or upon request from the Field Supervisor of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; by telephone at 512-490-0057; or by facsimile at 512-490-0974. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.

    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently summarize in a 12-month finding.

    Petition History

    On June 2, 2014, we received a petition from John Yearwood, Kathryn Heidemann, Charles and Cheryl Shell, the Walter Sidney Shell Management Trust, the American Stewards of Liberty, and Steven W. Carothers requesting that we remove the endangered Bone Cave harvestman from the Federal lists of endangered and threatened species. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

    Previous Federal Actions

    The Bone Cave harvestman was originally listed as endangered on September 16, 1988 (53 FR 36029). In an August 18, 1993, Federal Register document (58 FR 43818), the Service gave the Bone Cave harvestman protection under the Act as a separate species. It had previously been listed as endangered as a part of the Bee Creek Cave harvestman (Texella reddelli), which was subsequently re-classified into two species, and this final rule set forth technical corrections to ensure that the species continued to receive protection under the Act. On March 14, 1994, we published a 90-day finding (59 FR 11755) on a petition to delist the Bone Cave harvestman in which we found that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may have been warranted. A draft recovery plan was available for public review and comment on June 7, 1993, and a final recovery plan was published on August 25, 1994 (Service 1994). On December 4, 2009, we completed a 5-year review of the Bone Cave harvestman, which recommended that the species remain listed as endangered (Service 2009).

    Species Information

    For information on the biology and life history of the Bone Cave harvestman, see the final rule listing this species (53 FR 36029), the Endangered Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan for Travis and Williamson Counties (Service 1994), and the 5-year Status Review for the Bone Cave Harvestman (Service 2009), all posted at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=J009. For information on preserve design and management for karst invertebrate species conservation, see the Karst Preserve Design Recommendations (Service 2012) and the Karst Preserve Management and Monitoring Recommendations (Service 2014) posted at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ESA_Sp_KarstInverts.html.

    Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Under section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any species, including subspecies, of fish, or wildlife, or plants, and any distinct population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Such entities are listed under the Act if we determine that they meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species.

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the lists of endangered and threatened species. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:

    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

    (C) Disease or predation;

    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

    We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons:

    (1) The species is extinct;

    (2) the species is recovered; or

    (3) the original data for classification were in error. According to 50 CFR 424.11(d)(3), a species may be delisted when subsequent investigations “show that the best scientific and commercial data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error.”

    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether the petition presented substantial information indicating that the petitioned action (delisting) may be warranted.

    The petition did not assert that the Bone Cave harvestman is extinct, nor do we have information in our files indicating that the species is extinct.

    The petition asserted that new information indicates that the original data, or our interpretation of the data, used in the listing of this species were in error. The petition also states that significant conservation has been put in place since the species was listed, such that the species is recovered.

    In 2009, we conducted a 5-year status review of the Bone Cave harvestman (Service 2009). The purpose of a 5-year status review is to evaluate whether or not the species' status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on a 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the lists of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. As part of the 2009 Bone Cave harvestman review, we evaluated whether the species had met the recovery criteria laid out in the species' recovery plan (Service 1994, pp. 86-89).

    Our recovery handbook (Service 2010) points out that recovery criteria should address the biodiversity principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Schaffer and Stein 2000).

    Resiliency is defined as the ability of a species to persist through severe hardships or stochastic events (Tear et al. 2005, p. 841). A variety of factors contribute to a species' resiliency. These can include how sensitive the species is to disturbances or stressors in its environment, how often they reproduce and how many young they have, and their specific habitat needs. A species' resiliency can also be affected by the resiliency of individual populations and the number of populations and their distribution across the landscape. Protecting multiple populations and variation of a species across its range may contribute to its resiliency, especially if some populations or habitats are more susceptible or better adapted to certain threats than others (Service and NOAA 2011, p. 76994). The ability of individuals from populations to disperse and recolonize an area that has been extirpated may also influence the species' resiliency. As population size and habitat quality increase, the population's ability to persist through periodic hardships also increases. Healthy populations are more resilient and better able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in birth rates (demographic stochasticity), and variation in rainfall and/or temperatures (environmental stochasticity).

    Redundancy is defined as ensuring a sufficient number of populations to provide a margin of safety to reduce the risk of losing a species or certain representation (variation) within a species due to catastrophic events or other threats. Redundancy is essential for long-term viability (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 307, 309-310; Groves et al. 2002, p. 506). This provides a margin of safety for a species to withstand catastrophic events (Service and NOAA 2011, p. 76994) by decreasing the chance of any one event affecting the entire species. Redundancy is about spreading risk and can be measured through the duplication and distribution of resilient populations across the range of the species.

    Representation is defined as conserving “some of everything” with regard to genetic and ecological diversity to allow for future adaptation and maintenance of evolutionary potential. Representation and the adaptive capabilities (Service and NOAA 2011, p. 76994) of the Bone Cave harvestman are also important for long-term viability. Because a species' genetic makeup is shaped through natural selection by the environments it has experienced (Shaffer and Stein 2000, p. 308), populations should be protected in the array of different environments in which the invertebrate species occur as a strategy to ensure genetic representation, adaptive capability, and conservation of the species. Generally, the more representation, or diversity, the species has, the more it is capable of adapting to changes (natural or human caused) in its environment.

    The recovery plan for the Bone Cave harvestman (Service 1994, pp. 86-88) identifies criteria for reclassification (from endangered to threatened), but does not include delisting criteria because we were uncertain about prospects for recovery and delisting of the species. These recovery criteria are a way of measuring our progress toward recovery. The recovery plan identifies two criteria for reclassifying the species from endangered to threatened:

    (1) Three karst fauna areas (if at least three exist) within each karst fauna region in its range are protected in perpetuity. If fewer than three karst fauna areas exist within a given karst fauna region, then all karst fauna areas within that region should be protected.

    (2) Criterion (1) has been maintained for at least 5 consecutive years with assurances that these areas will remain protected in perpetuity.

    There are six karst fauna regions in Travis and Williamson Counties that are known to contain the Bone Cave harvestman (Service 1994, p. 33): North Williamson, Georgetown, McNeil/Round Rock, Cedar Park, Jollyville Plateau, and Central Austin. These regions are used as a way to facilitate conservation of representation and redundancy (as defined above) throughout the species' range.

    For the purposes of the recovery plan, a karst fauna area “is an area known to support one or more locations of a listed species and is distinct in that it acts as a system that is separated from other karst fauna areas by geologic and hydrologic features and/or processes that create barriers to the movement of water, contaminants, and troglobitic fauna” that live their entire lives underground (Service 1994, p. 76). Karst fauna areas should be far enough apart so that if a catastrophic event (for example, contamination of the water supply, flooding, disease) were to destroy one of the areas, that event would not likely destroy any other area occupied by that species (Service 1994, p. 76).

    To be considered “protected,” a karst fauna area must be sufficiently large to maintain the integrity of the karst ecosystem on which the species depends (Service 1994, p. 87). In addition, these areas must also provide protection from threats such as red imported fire ants, habitat destruction, and contaminants.

    The overall recovery strategy for the Bone Cave harvestman includes the perpetual protection and management of an adequate quantity and quality of habitat (three karst fauna areas in each karst fauna regions) that spans the species' geographic range and provides a high probability of the species' recovery and survival over the long term. Adequate quality (as discussed below) and quantity of habitat refers to both size and number of preserved karst fauna areas that are sufficient for supporting the karst invertebrates and the ecosystems upon which they depend (Service 2011, p. 16). The recovery plan criteria call for three karst fauna areas (preserves) in each karst fauna region. The size of karst fauna area preserves should be large enough to ensure resiliency as discussed above and to protect the environmental integrity of the karst ecosystems upon which the species depends. The number of karst fauna area preserves called for in the recovery criteria provides redundancy for the species. A minimal level of redundancy is essential to provide a margin of safety for the species to reduce the risk of losing the species or representation (variation) within the species from catastrophic events or other threats (Shaffer and Stein 2000 pp. 307, 309-310, Groves et al. 2002, p. 506). The Bone Cave harvestman has significant geographic variability across its range, and loss of a significant number of locations in part of its range could result in loss of genetic and ecological diversity. The conservation of multiple karst fauna area preserves across the Bone Cave harvestman's range should provide representation of the breadth of its genetic and ecological diversity to conserve its adaptive capabilities (Schaffer and Stein 2000, p. 308).

    Adequate quality of habitat refers to (1) the condition and configuration of preserved lands with respect to the known localities for the species and (2) the ability of the species' needs to be met to sustain viable populations. Due to the uncertainty in determining population viability of the Bone Cave harvestman, the design of preserves for its protection should be based on estimates and assumptions that favor a high probability for recovery of this species and the ecosystems upon which it depends as discussed below.

    The Endangered Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan for Travis and Williamson Counties (Service 1994) calls for protecting karst fauna areas sufficiently large to maintain the integrity of the karst ecosystem on which the species depends. This focus on the ecosystem is consistent with the purpose of the Act, which includes “to provide a means whereby the ecosystem upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” Therefore, we recommend designing karst fauna area preserves to protect occupied karst feature(s) and associated mesocaverns (humanly impassable voids). For further guidance on how to provide for adequate quantity and quality of habitat at specific invertebrate locations, we have developed and refer to our Karst Preserve Design Recommendations (Service 2012).

    According to our preserve design guidelines (Service 2012, p. 3-5), karst fauna area preserves should include the following: (1) Surface and subsurface drainage basins of at least one occupied cave or karst feature; (2) a minimum of 16 to 40 hectares (ha) (40 to 100 acres (ac)) of contiguous, unfragmented, undisturbed land to maintain native plant and animal communities around the feature and protect the subsurface karst community; (3) 105-meter (m) (345-feet (ft)) radius undisturbed area from each cave footprint for cave cricket foraging (cave crickets are an important source of nutrient input to the karst ecosystem) and to minimize deleterious edge effects; and (4) preserves should be free of pipelines, storage tanks, or other facilities (for example, water retention ponds) that could cause contamination.

    In addition, due to the uncertainty in determining population viability and habitat requirements of the Bone Cave harvestman, the design of preserves for its protection should be based on estimates and assumptions that favor a high probability for recovery of the species and the ecosystems upon which it depends. This method follows a precautionary approach, which provides guidance to avert irreversible risk when facing uncertainty (Service 2012, p. A-1). The best available scientific information indicates that this species cannot be reintroduced into existing habitat. Life-history characteristics of this species indicate that it requires stable temperature and humidity (Barr 1968, p. 47, Mitchell 1971, p. 250) and suggest that this species cannot be reintroduced because it cannot withstand surface climatic conditions.

    According to anecdotal reports provided to our field office, limited efforts to maintain karst invertebrates in a lab setting have been unsuccessful. Additionally, captive propagation techniques have not been developed for karst invertebrates and may be challenging to develop because of their specific adaptations to subterranean environment. Further, the sample size that would likely be needed to reintroduce a population into a new location cannot be obtained from existing populations due to the cryptic nature of this species and the fact that often only a few individuals are observed per cave survey. Therefore, an attempt to re-establish a population after it has been extirpated is not feasible at this time. In addition, if a preserve is later found to be insufficient to support the species due to surrounding developments being either too close or too dense, the potential for adequately conserving the site is lost.

    Because the Bone Cave harvestman has a relatively long life span and low requirements for food, a decline in population size or even the complete extirpation of the population due to the influence of development or other threats may take years or even decades. Observations of this species over several years on a preserve that is too small for perpetual species preservation may not allow detection of declines that are actually occurring. If these observations are used as evidence that a preserve size was adequate, then the potential for long-term preservation of the species may be lost due to irreversible development surrounding the preserve. Therefore, preserve sizes should be established with caution and be large enough to account for the uncertainty in area requirements for a population.

    According to the petition there are now more known occupied locations identified; there were 6 confirmed caves at listing, 60 confirmed caves at the time the recovery plan was drafted, and 168 confirmed caves in 2009 when the 5-year status review was completed (53 FR 36029, Service 1994, 2009). The petition also states that more locations are likely to be found. We acknowledge there are more known locations since the time those documents were completed and the increase is likely an increase in our knowledge, not a true increase in the number of populations or range; however, species are listed under the Act based on threats and not just the number of sites or size of the range.

    In addition, the petition states that 94 karst preserve areas are currently providing significant conservation. However, many of the existing protected areas referenced in the petition are too small to meet our preserve design recommendations. As part of the 2009 5-year status review of the Bone Cave harvestman, we reviewed the status of all of the known locations of the harvestman (including 83 of the 94 mentioned in the petition) to assess whether the criteria from the recovery plan to reclassify the species from endangered to threatened had been met for the Bone Cave harvestman. We considered the habitat size and condition to evaluate whether the locations could meet the preserve design recommendations (a reflection of the potential to support a resilient population) and then also looked at whether legally binding mechanisms were in place to provide protection of these sites over the long term (in perpetuity).

    Of the locations known at the time of the 5-year review, 21 areas appeared to have the ability to meet the preserve design criteria. Our status review refers to 21 areas, while the petition indicates that the status review considered 28 sites. This discrepancy is because the petition considers each individual cave location, while our status review considered closely located caves to be part of the same karst fauna area. Of these 21 areas, 1 is no longer confirmed to have the species (Barker Ranch Cave No. 1), and 5 are now protected karst fauna areas (Priscilla's Well, Twin Springs, Cobbs Cavern, Karankawa, and Tooth Cave).

    In addition, at most of the remaining locations (of the 21 areas) we are lacking information to confirm that they meet the preserve design criteria (such as surface and subsurface drainage basins, tract acreage, exact locations of the cave, and management activities to protect against threats, such as red imported fire ants). Also, many of these areas do not have a legally binding mechanism that ensures perpetual protection and management. Hence, we are unsure whether those areas have adequate undeveloped acreage, management, or protection mechanisms to ensure the long-term protection and survival of the Bone Cave harvestman.

    Of the five protected karst fauna areas that meet preserve design criteria, four occur in the North Williamson County Karst Fauna Region and one occurs in the Jollyville Plateau Karst Fauna Region. However, this species occurs in six karst fauna regions, and four of these have no protected karst fauna areas that are confirmed to meet preserve design recommendations. Therefore, the best available information indicates that the criteria for reclassification from endangered to threatened for this species have not been met, nor has adequate representation and redundancy (three karst fauna areas in each karst fauna region) been protected throughout the species' range, leaving the species vulnerable to existing threats including habitat destruction.

    The petition asserts that four additional locations are known since the time of the 5-year review. However, the petition does not provide adequate information that would support whether these four additional locations are in a condition to meet preserve design recommendations. Based on information in our files, we are aware of one additional cave since the 5-year review that may meet preserve design recommendations in the North Williamson Karst Fauna Region; however, it is privately owned, and we are unsure about the property acreage and if the site receives any type of protection or management. Regardless, the amount of protected karst fauna area still falls short of the criteria for reclassification from endangered to threatened.

    Further, we reviewed 83 of the 94 caves identified in the petition as receiving some level of protection in the 5-year review. Two of the caves that we did not review (Cobbs Cavern and Whitney West Cave) are now in confirmed karst fauna areas mentioned above (Cobbs Cavern and Twin Springs), one (Pond Party Pit) is in the Beard Ranch Cave area discussed in the 5-year review, and we have no locality information or taxonomic verifications for the remaining caves and this information was not provided in the petition.

    The petition also asserts that threats to the species are not as severe as originally thought. We evaluate that information, below, in respect to the five listing factors.

    Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range. In the 1988 listing rule (53 FR 36029), we stated that the primary threat to the Bone Cave harvestman was the potential loss of habitat due to development activities, which could result in filling in or collapsing of caves; alteration of drainage patterns; increase in flow of sediment, pesticides, fertilizers, and urban run-off into caves; and increase in human visitation and vandalism.

    We also considered additional information on threats to the species when we developed the recovery plan for the species (Service 1994, pp. 59-65) and when we conducted the 5-year status review of the species (Service 2009, p. 2), in which we concluded that no change in the species' status (that is, reclassification to threatened or delisting) was warranted. We also reviewed available threat information in our files and in a 1993 petition when we made our negative 90-day finding on that petition to de-list (59 FR 11755).

    The current petition asserts that “Development activities on the surface may not result in the significant loss or degradation of habitat for T. reyesi as originally thought” and suggests that evidence of this is the species persistence in caves surrounded by developed areas. Examples given in the petition are Inner Space Caverns, Sun City caves, Weldon Cave, Three-Mile Cave, and Four-Mile Cave. However, the observation of the species in these locations does not mean their populations at these locations are thriving or can withstand the long-term impacts from development activities that are expected to occur to karst invertebrate populations in developed areas as discussed in the listing rule, recovery plan, and 5-year status review for the Bone Cave harvestman.

    Bone Cave harvestman populations may be declining or threatened even though they are still observed at a specific site. Information adequate to detect population trends for this species is not readily available and was not provided in the petition. This species has life-history strategies that include characteristics such as low metabolic and reproductive rates, long life spans, and inherently low sample sizes, which make it difficult to detect population response to possible impacts (Poulson and White 1969, p. 977, Howarth 1983, p. 374). We indicated in the 1994 90-day petition finding (59 FR 11755) that more time was needed to detect if the species was declining; however, while more time has passed, we are still lacking adequate data to conduct a trend analysis at most locations, given that it can take decades to detect population trends due to small sample sizes, the difficulty surveying for the species, and their long life spans.

    In addition, some of the threats from development are due to the increased probability of chance events occurring in the future, such as a contaminant event like a pipeline leak, which exists because more contamination sources are in the vicinity of species' locations due to development.

    The petition states that several Sun City caves are examples of areas where the species can persist in developed areas. However, the petition failed to provide data adequate to assess trends in the karst invertebrate populations since the development occurred. In addition, we worked with the Sun City developers when they designed the project to develop strategies that we believed at the time would avoid or minimize the possibility of “take” to listed karst species. While we now believe that most of the Sun City cave preserves are too small to meet our preserve design recommendations for recovery and long-term survival (Service 2012), we expect that the strategies and measures put in place likely have reduced the rate of impacts to the species.

    The commercial cave known as Inner Space Caverns is another example the petition provided where the Bone Cave harvestman continues to persist in a developed area. Although the Bone Cave harvestman may be present at Inner Space Caverns, this does not ensure their populations are robust and secure; they may still be declining, and are at risk due to competition with surface-dwelling invertebrates and other threats associated with development such as the potential for contamination. This cave has an overgrowth of blue-green algae growing near cave lights where the petition states that this species has been observed. This type of algae is known as “lampenflora” and favors surface-dwelling invertebrate species that can out-compete karst invertebrate species (Mulec and Kosi 2009, p. 109, Culver 1986, p. 438), such as the Bone Cave harvestman. The petition failed to provide any data adequate to assess trends in the karst invertebrate population in relation to the time (duration and frequency) that they have been exposed to the artificial lighting. Additionally, part of the cave footprint occurs under a major interstate highway and train tracks, which both present a threat of a contaminant spill that could impact the species in the future.

    Weldon Cave was another example in the petition of a cave occupied by the Bone Cave harvestman within a developed area. Based on the best available information in our files this cave is surrounded by undeveloped open space. Other than a small portion of the subsurface drainage basin potentially being impacted by a school campus, this cave appears to meet our preserve design recommendations but is not within a developed area, as asserted in the petition. Three-Mile Cave and Four-Mile Cave were also provided in the petition as examples of developed caves wherein the Bone Cave harvestman is known to occur. According to the petition, surveys conducted by SWCA in 2008 and 2009 documented the Bone Cave harvestman at these locations. However, detailed survey data were not provided by the petitioners and were not in the SWCA 2009 “Annual Report of Activities Involving Endangered Karst Invertebrates under Threatened and Endangered Species Permit TE800611-2.”

    The petition also states that, since the Bone Cave harvestman uses mesocaverns, it is protected from surface development activities because mesocaverns are “geologically protected.” We are unclear why the petition contends that mesocaverns are protected because mesocaverns are subject to rapid permeation of surface water (Cowan et al. 2007, p. 160), and karst landscapes (including mesocaverns) are particularly susceptible to groundwater contamination because water penetrates rapidly through bedrock conduits providing little or no filtration (White 1988, p. 149).

    One of the major threats to the Bone Cave harvestman is habitat loss due to increasing urbanization. The Bone Cave harvestman is a troglobite, meaning it lives its entire life underground. Karst ecosystems are heavily reliant on surface plant and animal communities for nutrient input.

    Caves in central Texas that are occupied by federally listed karst invertebrates, such as the Bone Cave harvestman, receive energy (or nutrients) primarily from (1) detritus (decomposing organic matter) that falls or is washed into the caves and (2) energy brought into the caves by cave crickets (Ceuthophilus spp.) (Barr 1968, p. 48; Reddell 1993, p. 2; Lavoie et al. 2007, p. 114; Taylor 2003, p. 3, 2004, p. 2, 2005, p. 97), which are found in most Texas caves (Reddell 1966, p. 33). Cave crickets forage widely in the surface habitat surrounding the cave. Karst invertebrates feed on the cave cricket eggs (Mitchell 1971, p. 251), feces (Barr 1968, pp. 51-53, Poulson et al. 1995, p. 226), and directly on the crickets themselves (Elliott 1994, p. 15).

    Development within urbanized areas can destroy or alter the surface plant and animal communities on which karst invertebrates depend. As development increases within the cave crickets' foraging area, there may be dramatic shifts in the available food supply within the cave (Taylor et al. 2007, p. 7). The leaf litter and other decomposing material that make up most of the detritus from the surface plant and animal community may also be reduced or altered, resulting in a reduction of nutrient and energy flow into the cave. A study by Taylor et al. (2007) compared caves in urbanized areas that were impacted by development to those in natural areas and found that, even though a small area within a largely urbanized ecosystem may support a cave community where karst invertebrates are occasionally seen, these populations are significantly lower than those found in caves in more natural, less developed ecosystems, most likely as a result of reduced nutrient input. Another study at Lakeline Cave in Travis County, Texas, was conducted in association with the issuance of a habitat conservation plan and accompanying section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issued for Lakeline Mall. That study is based on data collected from 1992 through 2011, and it documented a significant decline during that 20-year timeframe in another endangered karst invertebrate, Rhadine persephone, and cave crickets as development increased (ZARA 2012, pp. 8, 10, 12). Further, at Lakeline Mall Cave, no more than three Bone Cave harvestmen have been observed during any single survey (ZARA 2012, p. 11). Also, no Bone Cave harvestmen were seen during 6 years (1993, 1999, 2001, 2006, 2009, and 2010) and 12 surveys in Lakeline Mall Cave (ZARA 2012, p. 11).

    Available information in our files supports our projection in the 1988 listing rule that development and human population would continue to increase within the range of the species. The population of the City of Austin grew from 251,808 people in 1970 to 735,088 people in 2007 (City of Austin 2007). This represents a 192-percent increase over the 37-year period. Population projections from the Texas State Data Center (2012, pp. 496-497), estimate that Travis County will increase 94 percent in population from 1,024,266 in 2010, to 1,990,820 in 2050. The Texas State Data Center also estimates an increase in human population in Williamson County from 422,679 in 2010, to 2,015,294 in 2050 representing a 377-percent increase over a 40-year timeframe. All human population projections from the Texas State Data Center presented here are under a high-growth scenario, which assumes that migration rates from 2000 to 2010 will continue through 2050 (Texas State Data Center and the Office of the State Demographer 2012, p. 9). Urbanization and human population growth and development were identified as a threat in the original 1988 listing rule and continue to represent a threat to the species.

    Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. In the 1988 listing rule for the Bone Cave harvestman, we did not identify any threats under this factor. Likewise, the petition and our review of the information in our files did not identify any threats under this factor.

    Factor C: Disease or predation. In the 1988 listing rule, we stated that increased human population increases the threat of predation by and competition with exotic (non-native) and native surface-dwelling species, such as sow bugs, cockroaches, and red imported fire ants. The petition states that “Recent studies suggest that fire ants may not present as significant or as lasting of a threat to the species as originally believed.” The information cited regarding red imported fire ants is identified in the petition as an article by Porter and Savignano (1990), which we previously considered in our finding on the 1993 petition, and another study by Morrison (2002). The petition states that “a subsequent study by Morrison in 2002 revisited the Porter and Savignano (1990) study area 12 years later and replicated their study.

    Morrison (2002, pp. 2341, 2343-2344) found that arthropod communities had rebounded to pre-RIFA [red imported fire ant]-invasion levels and that all measures of native ant and other arthropod species' diversity had returned to pre-invasion levels. Red imported fire ants were still the most abundant ant species, but not nearly as abundant as during the initial red imported fire ants infestation. He concluded that the impacts to arthropod communities by red imported fire ants might be greatest during and shortly after the initial invasion, but long-term impacts are likely not as significant as once believed. However, we note that Morrison (2002, p. 2342) also states that “it is quite likely that red imported fire ants did contribute directly or indirectly to the disappearance or reduction in numbers of species” and that their study “should not be interpreted as an indication that detrimental effects of invasive ants will simply disappear with time.” In addition, this is not “new information” as we have already reviewed these articles and considered the information they provided in the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan (Service 2011, p. 12) and in our Karst Preserve Management and Monitoring Recommendations (Service 2014, p. 3), which is applicable here as all central Texas endangered karst invertebrates have similar life-history characteristics, and one of the Bexar County invertebrates is in the same genus (Texella) as the Bone Cave harvestman. In addition, red imported fire ants have been found within and near many caves in central Texas and have been observed feeding on dead troglobites, cave crickets, and other species within caves (Elliott 1992, p. 13, 1994, p. 15, 2000, pp. 668, 768; Reddell 1993, p. 10; Taylor et al. 2003, p. 3).

    Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The 1988 listing rule states that “there are currently no laws that protect any of these species or that indirectly address protection of their habitat.”

    While the petition did discuss some new ordinances that appear to have been put in place since the time of listing, we do not have enough information to indicate whether or not these State and local ordinances provide enough protection from all threats to the Bone Cave harvestman.

    The petition states that “the regulatory landscape includes a number of measures contributing to the conservation of the species outside of the protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.” For example, they say that protections offered though the City of Austin are adequate to protect the species in Austin, Texas. In the course of our work, we have reviewed these regulations and understand that most caves that are defined by the City of Austin's Environmental Criteria Manual as a cave are provided a 46- to 91-m (150- to 300-ft) set-back area (City of Austin 2014, p. 13-3). However, a 46-m (150-ft) or 91-m (300-ft) set-back is not adequate to meet our preserve design criteria, does not protect the cave cricket foraging area, and potentially does not include the surface and subsurface drainage basins. Further, it is not applicable across the range of the Bone Cave harvestman because the species occurs in Travis and Williamson Counties and the City of Austin does not cover all of those counties.

    The petition states that the City of Georgetown Water Quality Management Plan for the Georgetown salamander will offer protection to the Bone Cave harvestman. They state that this plan encourages the use of best management practices to protect water quality at Georgetown salamander locations. However, there are few Bone Cave harvestman locations that occur near Georgetown salamander locations, so any protection offered to the harvestman would be limited. Further, it is not clear from the petition whether this mechanism is voluntary or if it is regulatory or if it is currently in effect. In addition, the petition did not provide enough detail for us to evaluate all benefits this plan would provide to the Bone Cave harvestman, and it appears that participation in this plan is at least in part voluntary.

    The petition states that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Edwards Rules provide protection to recharge features on the Edwards Plateau and that this provides protection from pollution to the Bone Cave harvestman. In a discussion of Factor D in the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan (Service 2011, p. 13), we state that “the TCEQ water quality regulations do not provide much protection to the species' habitat (see 65 FR 81419-81433 for more information). For example, while some TCEQ practices provide protection from water quality impacts, others, such as sealing cave entrances for water quality reasons, can harm karst invertebrates.” Sealing cave entrances can be harmful by blocking off water (leading to drying) and nutrient input to the karst invertebrate habitat. In addition, not all of the caves and mesocaverns that the Bone Cave harvestman occurs in are considered recharge features and, therefore, would not receive some of the water quality protection measures. Also, not all locations of the Bone Cave harvestman are under the jurisdiction of the Edwards Rules.

    Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the species. In the 1988 listing rule, we stated that this species is extremely vulnerable to losses because of its severely limited range and because of its naturally limited ability to colonize new habitats. We also stated that the very small size of the species habitat units and the fragile nature of cave ecosystems make them vulnerable to even isolated acts of vandalism. The petition states, “Inner Space Cavern demonstrates that the species can persist in caves with frequent human visitation and may be more tolerant of related habitat modification than originally believed.” They also provide Three-Mile Cave and Four-Mile Cave as examples of caves that have experienced human use yet the species persists. The petition contends that, since the Bone Cave harvestman exists in Inner Space Caverns, human visitation is not a threat. The petition also states that Three-mile and Four-mile Cave had graffiti from the 1890s, 1920s, and 1950s. Yet, no detailed information was provided to demonstrate if these caves experienced continued human use. The petition also indicates that Four-Mile Cave was inaccessible to humans prior to 2009 due to boulders blocking the entrance. In addition, the petition provided no trend analysis for these caves. As stated earlier, the observation of the species in these locations does not mean the populations at these locations have not been impacted (in a way that is short of extirpation) or can withstand the long-term impacts that are expected to occur to karst invertebrate populations in developed areas or from human visitation.

    In the species 5-year status review (Service 2009, p. 18) we said, “Although climate change was not identified as a threat to T. reyesi in the original listing document or in the recovery plan, the species' dependence on stable temperatures and humidity levels opens the possibility of climatic change impacting this species. Therefore, while it appears reasonable to assume that T. reyesi may be affected, we lack sufficient certainty to know how climate change will affect this species.”

    The petitioners state that “the use of small voids or `mesocaverns' within the geologic formations known to support occupied caves mitigates the potential threat of climate change.” We acknowledge that mesocaverns may provide some protection from fluctuations in temperature and humidity that may be induced by climate change. However, the presence of mesocaverns alone will likely not be sufficient to ameliorate all of the effects that climate change may pose to this species. Karst invertebrates depend on stable temperatures and high humidity (Barr 1968, p. 47, Mitchell 1971, p. 250). The temperatures in caves are typically the average annual temperature of the surface habitat and vary much less than the surface environment (Howarth 1983, p. 372, Dunlap 1995, p. 76). If average surface temperatures increase, this could result in increased in-cave temperatures, which could affect the Bone Cave harvestman.

    Increased and/or more severe storms as well as prolonged periods of high temperatures and drought between rainfall events associated with predicted climate change effects may also impact the cave environment. Changes in rainfall regimes may affect the harvestman in several ways, including directly either through flooding or indirectly by modifying their habitat or nutrient availability. Changes in rainfall regimes could (1) alter the moisture levels within the caves leaving them drier between floods, which could lead to desiccation of the Bone Cave harvestman and (2) affect the amount and timing of nutrients washed into a cave, potentially resulting in longer periods between nutrient input. These changes to drier and less suitable conditions in the caves will likely cause the Bone Cave harvestman to retreat farther into mesocaverns and away from nutrients that are thought to be located in larger cave passages (Howarth 1987, pp. 5-7), causing individuals to spend more energy trying to acquire nutrients in an already stressed environment. In addition, caves in arid regions have been shown to have smaller invertebrate populations and diversity due to less moisture and nutrient availability (George Veni, National Cave and Karst Research Institute, pers. comm. 2010). Since the Bone Cave harvestman is also sensitive to these habitat parameters, it is reasonable to predict that climate change could affect its populations in a similar manner despite the presence of mesocaverns.

    Further, stochastic (random) events from either environmental factors (for example, severe weather) or demographic factors (which come from the chance events of birth and death of individuals) exacerbate threats to the species because of its small population size (Melbourne and Hastings 2008, p. 100). The risk of extinction for any species is known to be highly inversely correlated with population size (Pimm et al. 1988, pp. 774-775, O'Grady et al. 2004, pp. 516, 518). In other words, the smaller the population the greater the overall risk of extinction. Therefore, threats to the Bone Cave harvestman are exacerbated by its small population size, which makes it more vulnerable to existing threats.

    Finding

    We have reviewed the petition and also evaluated readily available, related information in our files. The petitioners have based their assessment that the species can thrive in developed areas on information that we have already reviewed (except in 4 caves discovered since the 5-year status review and 7 for which we lack locality information or taxonomic verifications) while working on previous documents (Service 2009, 2012) or on observations that lack a large enough sample size to produce population trend information for the Bone Cave harvestman. The petition provided no trend analysis to indicate that this species can withstand the threats associated with development or climate change over the long term. Based on our review and evaluation, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting of the Bone Cave harvestman may be warranted due to recovery, extinction, or error in the original scientific data at the time the species was classified or in our interpretation of the data. However, much progress has been made toward recovery in the North Williamson and Jollyville Plateau Karst Fauna Regions. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data and implement conservation actions across the range of the Bone Cave harvestman that will further assist with the conservation of this species. If you wish to provide information regarding the Bone Cave harvestman, you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) at any time.

    References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Austin Ecological Services Office.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: May 21, 2015. Gary Frazer, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13136 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    80 104 Monday, June 1, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0007] Monsanto Co.; Availability of Preliminary Plant Pest Risk Assessment and Draft Environmental Assessment of Maize Genetically Engineered for Protection Against Corn Rootworm and Resistance to Glyphosate AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is making available for public comment a preliminary plant pest risk assessment and draft environmental assessment for maize designated as event MON 87411, which has been genetically engineered for protection against corn rootworm and resistance to the herbicide glyphosate.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0007.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0007, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents for this petition and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0007 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    Supporting documents for this petition are also available on the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.shtml under APHIS Petition Number 13-290-01p.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email: [email protected] To obtain copies of the petition, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 851-3892, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered (GE) organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

    The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 13-290-01p) from the Monsanto Company (Monsanto) of St. Louis, MO, seeking a determination of nonregulated status of maize (Zea mays) designated as event MON 87411, which has been genetically engineered for protection against corn rootworm and resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. The Monsanto petition states that information collected during field trials and laboratory analyses indicates that MON 87411 maize is not likely to be a plant pest and therefore should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

    According to our process 1 for soliciting public comment when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status of GE organisms, APHIS accepts written comments regarding a petition once APHIS deems it complete. In a notice 2 published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2014 (79 FR 13035-13036, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0007), APHIS announced the availability of the Monsanto petition for public comment. APHIS solicited comments on the petition for 60 days ending on May 6, 2014, in order to help identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that APHIS may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition. APHIS received 423 comments on the petition. Issues raised during the comment period include the contamination of conventional crop production, the potential for disruption of trade due to the presence of unwanted genetically engineered commodities in exports, the potential for negative impacts to plant fitness and the environment, and health concerns. APHIS has evaluated the issues raised during the comment period and, where appropriate, has provided a discussion of these issues in our draft environmental assessment (EA).

    1 On March 6, 2012, APHIS published in the Federal Register (77 FR 13258-13260, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0129) a notice describing our public review process for soliciting public comments and information when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status for GE organisms. To view the notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0129.

    2 To view the notice, the petition, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0007.

    After public comments are received on a completed petition, APHIS evaluates those comments and then provides a second opportunity for public involvement in our decisionmaking process. According to our public review process (see footnote 1), the second opportunity for public involvement follows one of two approaches, as described below.

    If APHIS decides, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises no substantive new issues, APHIS will follow Approach 1 for public involvement. Under Approach 1, APHIS announces in the Federal Register the availability of APHIS' preliminary regulatory determination along with its EA, preliminary finding of no significant impact (FONSI), and its plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) for a 30-day public review period. APHIS will evaluate any information received related to the petition and its supporting documents during the 30-day public review period.

    If APHIS decides, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises substantive new issues, APHIS will follow Approach 2. Under Approach 2, APHIS first solicits written comments from the public on a draft EA and preliminary PPRA for a 30-day comment period through the publication of a Federal Register notice. Then, after reviewing and evaluating the comments on the draft EA and preliminary PPRA and other information, APHIS will revise the PPRA as necessary and prepare a final EA and, based on the final EA, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision document (either a FONSI or a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement). For this petition, we are using Approach 2.

    As part of our decisionmaking process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepares a PPRA to assess the plant pest risk of the article. APHIS also prepares the appropriate environmental documentation—either an EA or an environmental impact statement—in accordance with NEPA, to provide the Agency and the public with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts that may result if the petition request is approved.

    APHIS has prepared a preliminary PPRA and has concluded that maize designated as event MON 87411, which has been genetically engineered for protection against corn rootworm and resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. In section 403 of the Plant Protection Act, “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing.

    APHIS has also prepared a draft EA in which we present two alternatives based on our analysis of data submitted by Monsanto, a review of other scientific data, field tests conducted under APHIS oversight, and comments received on the petition. APHIS is considering the following alternatives: (1) Take no action, i.e., APHIS would not change the regulatory status of maize designated as event MON 87411, or (2) make a determination of nonregulated status of maize designated as event MON 87411.

    The EA was prepared in accordance with (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    In accordance with our process for soliciting public input when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status for GE organisms, we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments on our draft EA and our preliminary PPRA regarding the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested or affected persons for a period of 30 days from the date of this notice. Copies of the draft EA and the preliminary PPRA, as well as the previously published petition, are available as indicated under ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above.

    After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. After reviewing and evaluating the comments on the draft EA and the preliminary PPRA and other information, APHIS will revise the PPRA as necessary and prepare a final EA. Based on the final EA, APHIS will prepare a NEPA decision document (either a FONSI or a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement). If a FONSI is reached, APHIS will furnish a response to the petitioner, either approving or denying the petition. APHIS will also publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the regulatory status of the GE organism and the availability of APHIS' final EA, PPRA, FONSI, and our regulatory determination.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of May 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13164 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Forms FNS 543 and FNS 543-A AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection for the purpose of collecting information from organizations fighting hunger and poverty.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    Comments may be sent to: Tony Craddock, Jr., Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 941, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via email to Tony Craddock, Jr. at [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All written comments will be available for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service located at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 941, Alexandria, Virginia 22302 during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday).

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Tony Craddock, Jr. at 703-605-0037.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Forms.

    Form Number: FNS-543 and FNS 543-A.

    OMB Number: 0584-0474.

    Expiration Date: 09/30/2015.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Section 26 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S. C. 1769g) (the Act), which was added to the Act by section 123 of Public Law 103-448 on November 2, 1994, mandated that FNS enter into a contract with a non-governmental organization to establish and maintain an information clearinghouse (named “USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse” or “Clearinghouse”) for groups that assist low-income individuals or communities regarding nutrition assistance programs or other assistance. Section 26(d) of this Act was amended again by Public Law 113-79 on February 7, 2014, to extend funding for the Clearinghouse through fiscal year 2015 for $250,000. FNS awarded this contract to the hunger advocacy organization New York City Coalition Against Hunger (NYCCAH) on October 1, 2014.

    The Clearinghouse includes a database of non-governmental, grassroots organizations in the areas of hunger and nutrition, along with a mailing list to communicate with these organizations. These organizations enter their information into the database, and Clearinghouse staff use that information to provide the public with information about where they can get food assistance. The database form (FNS-543) will be completed online at www.nhc.fns.usda.gov and physical versions of the form can still be completed and emailed to [email protected] State agencies use the FNS-543A form to voluntarily collect information about summer meal sites. The FNS-543A collects site name, location and operating details such as dates and times of the day that the site is in operation. FNS-543A is part of the information collection because summer meal site information is part of the National Hunger Clearinghouse.

    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profits, and Not For Profit (FNS 543) and State Agencies (FNS 543-A). Respondent group types for FNS-543 are identified as Food banks. Most of these groups are organizations providing nutrition assistance services to the public. Respondent groups identified for FNS-543A include all 55 State Agencies.

    As of February 2015, there were 6,011 registered organizations in the National Hunger Clearinghouse. FNS estimates approximately 600 new business registrants annually. Each respondent is expected to only participate in one survey per registration.

    Reporting Burden for FNS-543

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 600.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes (0.0833 hours).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 49.98 hours rounded up to 50 hours.

    Reporting Burden for FNS-543-A.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 55.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 55.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1.05 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 57.75 hours rounded up to 58 hours.

    The total reporting burden for this information collection is 108 total annual burden hours and 655 total annual responses.

    See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent and each FNS form.

    FNS-543 Respondent Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Responses
  • annually per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • average
  • number of
  • hours per
  • response
  • Estimated
  • total hours
  • Business Reporting Burden Food Banks 300 1 300 0.0833 24.99 Business and Other For Profit 100 1 100 0.0833 8.33 Not For Profit 200 1 200 0.0833 16.66 Total Reporting Burden 600 600 49.98
    FNS-543A Respondent Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Responses
  • annually per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • average
  • number of
  • hours per
  • response
  • Estimated
  • total hours
  • State Agencies Reporting Burden State agencies 55 1 55 1.05 57.75 Total Reporting Burden 55 55 57.75
    Dated: May 19, 2015. Jeffrey J. Tribiano, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. Attached: Appendix A: USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Form FNS543 (paper) Appendix B: USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Form FNS543 (online) Appendix C: USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Form FNS543-A BILLING CODE 3410-30-P EN01JN15.041 EN01JN15.042 EN01JN15.043 EN01JN15.044 EN01JN15.045 EN01JN15.046 EN01JN15.047 EN01JN15.048
    [FR Doc. 2015-13062 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-C
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Rural Housing Service Rural Utilities Service Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for the Strategic Economic and Community Development Programs for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, and Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 6025 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) enables the Secretary of Agriculture to provide priority to projects that support Strategic Economic and Community Development plans. This Notice invites applicants who have submitted or will be submitting applications for the programs (referred to as “underlying programs”) in Fiscal Year 2015.

    For FY 2015, projects eligible for Section 6025 priority points will compete one time with all other projects eligible for the applicable underlying program's year-end pool of funds. These priority points are not eligible to projects competing for FY 2015 funding prior to the program's year-end pool of funds competition.

    All applicants are responsible for any additional expenses incurred in preparing and submitting Form RD 1980-88.

    DATES:

    To apply for Section 6025 priority points, applicants must submit Form RD 1980-88, “Strategic Economic and Community Development (section 6025) Priority,” by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit Form RD 1980-88 to the USDA Rural Development Area Office servicing the area where the project is located. A list of the USDA Rural Development Area Offices can be found listed by state at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please contact the USDA Rural Development Area Office servicing the area where the project will be located.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview

    Solicitation Title: Strategic Economic and Community Development.

    Announcement Type: Notice.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 10.351, 10.760, 10.766 and 10.768.

    All active CFDA programs can be found at www.cfda.gov.

    Dates: For the list of dates please refer back to the summary section above.

    Availability of Notice: This Notice is available through the USDA Rural Development Web site at http://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/offices/community-economic-development.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Purpose

    The purpose of Section 6025 of the 2014 Farm Bill is to give priority to projects that support strategic economic development or community development plans when applying for funds through the underlying programs. This Notice provides applicants with eligible projects the opportunity to receive additional priority when competing for one of the underlying program's year-end pool of funds for Fiscal Year 2015.

    B. Statutory Authority

    This priority is authorized under Section 6025 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

    C. Programs

    Based on Section 6025 of the 2014 Farm Bill, the Agency is making available additional priority points for projects that support strategic economic or community development plans to the following Rural Development programs:

    • Community Facility Loans • Fire and Rescue and Other Small Community Facilities Projects • Community Facilities Grants • Community Programs Guaranteed Loans • Water and Waste Disposal Programs Guaranteed Loans • Water and Waste Loans and Grants • Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans • Rural Business Development Grants II. Award Information

    Type of Awards: Guaranteed loans, direct loans and Grants.

    Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2015; year-end pools of funds only.

    Available Funds: The amount of funds available will depend on the amount of funds available at the time of year-end pooling and will vary among the underlying programs.

    Award Amounts: Guaranteed loans, direct loans and grants will be awarded in amounts consistent with each applicable underlying program.

    Award Dates: Awards will be made on or before September 30, 2015.

    III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Requirements

    In order to be considered for Section 6025 priority points, both the applicant and project must meet the eligibility requirements of the underlying program. These requirements vary among the underlying programs and the applicant is referred to the regulations for those programs.

    The regulation implementing the Section 6025 priority does not make any changes to any of the applicant eligibility requirements of the underlying programs. However, the Section 6025 regulation does include three criteria that a project must meet in order to be considered for Section 6025 priority points (see 7 CFR 1980.1010).

    The first criterion, as noted above, is that the project meets the applicable eligibility requirements of the underlying program for which the applicant is applying.

    The second criterion is that the project is “carried out solely in a rural area” as defined in 7 CFR 1980.1005. As defined, this means either the entire project is physically located in a rural area or all of the beneficiaries of the service(s) provided through the project must either reside in or be located in a rural area. Note that the definition of “rural” varies among the underlying programs and the Section 6025 regulation does not change those definitions.

    The third criterion is that the project support the implementation of a strategic economic development or community development plan on a multi-jurisdictional basis as defined in 7 CFR 1980.1005.

    B. Cost Sharing or Matching

    Any and all cost sharing, matching, and cost participation requirements of the applicable underlying program apply to projects seeking Section 6025 priority points. The Section 6025 regulation does not change such requirements.

    C. Other Eligibility Requirements

    Any and all other eligibility requirements (beyond those identified in III.A of this Notice) found in the underlying programs apply to applicants, their projects, and the beneficiaries of those projects are unchanged by either this Notice or the Section 6025 regulation.

    IV. Form RD 1980-88 A. Address To Request Form RD 1980-88

    Applicants responding to this Notice should contact the Rural Development Area Office identified in the ADDRESSES portion of this Notice to obtain copies of Form RD 1980-88 and any supplemental information.

    B. Content

    To be considered for Section 6025 priority points, applicants must submit a complete Form RD 1980-88. This form requests such information as (see 7 CFR 1980.1015):

    • Identification of whether the applicant includes a State, county, municipal, or tribal government;

    • Identification by name of the plan being supported by the project, the date the plan became effective and is to remain in effect, and a detailed description of how the project directly supports one or more of the plan's objectives;

    • Sufficient information to show that the project will be carried out solely in a rural area; and

    • Identification of any current or previous applications the applicant has submitted for funds from the underlying programs.

    C. Submission of Form RD 1980-88

    If an applicant has already submitted an application for one of the underlying programs and the applicant wishes to be considered for Section 6025 priority points, that applicant must submit Form RD 1980-88 by close of business on the date listed in the DATES section of this Notice for that program.

    If an applicant has not submitted an application for one of the underlying programs and that program is still accepting applications for FY 2015 funding, the applicant must submit Form RD 1980-88 at the same time the applicant submits the application material for the underlying program. However, in no case will Section 6025 priority points be considered for projects whose applications are received after close of business on the date listed in the DATES section of this Notice for the applicable program.

    D. Completeness Eligibility

    Failure to submit a complete Form RD 1980-88 may result in not receiving Section 6025 priority points.

    V. Application Evaluation and Selection for Year-End Pool of Funds

    All FY 2015 applications for underlying programs will be reviewed, evaluated, and scored based on the underlying program's scoring criteria. This Notice does not affect that process. This Notice only affects the scoring of applications being competed for an underlying program's year-end pool of funds.

    A. Scoring of Applications

    All eligible and complete applications competing for an underlying program's year-end pool of funds will be evaluated and scored based on the criteria of the applicable underlying program, whether or not the applicant seeks Section 6025 priority points by submitting Form RD 1980-88 in accordance with this Notice.

    For applicants wishing to be considered for Section 6025 priority points as described in this Notice, the Agency will review, evaluate, and score each Form RD 1980-88 based on the criteria specified in 7 CFR 1980.1020. These criteria address:

    • The proposed project's direct support of the objectives found in the strategic economic development or community development plan that it supports (7 CFR 1980.1020(b)(1)) and

    • Certain characteristics (as specified in the authorizing statute) of strategic economic development or community plan that the proposed project support (7 CFR 1980.1020(b)(2)).

    The scores from these two areas will be summed with the score derived from the underlying programs' criteria. Applications for the underlying programs that do not submit Form 1980-88 for Section 6025 priority will be scored based only on the applicable underlying program's scoring criteria. Thus, applications supplemented with Form RD 1980-88 will be eligible for a higher total score than applications without Form RD 1980-88 and will, in general, receive higher priority for funding.

    B. Selection Process

    The Agency will select the highest scoring applications competing for an underlying program's year-end pool of funds based on the award process for the underlying program to determine which projects receive funds except that:

    • An application's total score will be determined in accordance with section V.A. of this Notice and

    • To the extent provided by the underlying programs in this Notice, the Agency will encourage awarding “Section 6025 priority” applications in as many States and for as many of the underlying programs as possible by awarding discretionary points provided for diversification or other permissible purposes.

    VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices

    The Agency will notify applicants who receive funding from the year-end pool of funds in a manner consistent with award notifications for the underlying program.

    B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Any and all additional requirements of the applicable underlying programs apply to projects receiving funding in response to this Notice. Please see the regulations for the applicable underlying program.

    C. Reporting Requirements

    Any and all post-award reporting requirements contained in the underlying program apply to all projects receiving funding in response to this Notice.

    Applicants who are selected for funding in response to this Notice (i.e., those applicants who submit Form RD 1980-88 and receive funding from the underlying program's year-end pool of funds) are required to submit information in accordance with 7 CFR 1980.1026. This information is on the project's measures, metrics, and outcomes that the awardee would already be submitting to the appropriate entity(ies) monitoring the implementation of the plan.

    VII. Agency Contacts

    For general questions about this announcement, please contact your USDA Rural Development Area Office provided in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    VIII. Additional Information Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements contained in 7 CFR part 1980, subpart K, have been approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 0570-0068 via emergency approval.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    This Notice of Solicitation of Applications has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” The issuance of regulations and instructions, as well as amendments to them, describing administrative and financial procedures for the Agency's financial programs is categorically excluded in the Agency's NEPA regulation. Thus, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the Agency has determined that this notice does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act

    All applicants, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, must have a DUNS number, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at 1-866-705-5711 or online at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webor. Similarly, all grant applicants must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application. Applicants may register for the SAM at http://www.sam.gov. All recipients of Federal financial grant assistance are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive total compensation in accordance with 2 CFR part 170.

    Nondiscrimination Statement

    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 wish to file either an EEO or program complaint may 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).

    Dated: May 22, 2015. Lisa Mensah, Under Secretary, Rural Development.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13100 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [5/21/2015 through 5/26/2015] Firm name Firm address Date accepted
  • for investigation
  • Product(s)
    Watch Enterprises, LLC dba Watch Technologies, LLC 2185 Northeast Spalding #10, Grants Pass, OR 97526 5/26/2015 The firm manufactures water/irrigation door/sluice gates and control actuators. A Packaging Systems, LLC 1500 Lake Street, La Porte, IN 46350 5/26/2015 The firm manufactures liquid filling, capping and labeling machinery.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Michael S. DeVillo, Eligibility Examiner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13093 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee: Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will meet on June 18-19, 2015, 8:30 a.m., Room 3884, at the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on emerging technology and research activities, including those related to deemed exports.

    Agenda Thursday, June 18 Open Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.

    2. Opening Remarks by the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.

    3. New Deemed Exports report.

    4. Report on the June Conference by the Association of University Export Control Officials Review and discussion of new Export Control Reform Initiative Activities.

    5. Comments from the Public.

    6. Reports from ETRAC Committee members of their assigned Categories in reviewing the Export Administration Regulations.

    7. Report on Air Force Office of Scientific Research-recent international technologies exchange meeting & Emerging Technologies under consideration.

    Friday, June 19 Closed Session

    8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open sessions will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than, June 11, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 25, 2015, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13130 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating the five-year review (“Sunset Review”) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) orders listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Review which covers the same orders.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: (June 1, 2015).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205-3193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    Initiation of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders:

    DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact A-570-962 731-TA-1173 PRC Potassium Phosphate Salts (1st Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. C-570-963 701-TA-473 PRC Potassium Phosphate Salts (1st Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-570-947 731-TA-1161 PRC Steel Grating (1st Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. C-570-948 701-TA-465 PRC Steel Grating (1st Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. A-570-894 731-TA-1070B PRC Tissue Paper Products (2nd Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. Filing Information

    As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: “http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

    1See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all AD/CVD investigations or proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013.3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

    2See section 782(b) of the Act.

    3See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”) (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)).

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: the definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation at 19 CFR 351.302(c) concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under part 351 of the Department's regulations expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

    Information Required From Interested Parties

    Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.4

    4See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

    If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

    This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

    Dated: May 18, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13111 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee Public Meeting AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, DOC.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC).

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 30, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in Room 4830 at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert Clark Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Maureen Hinman, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-0627; Fax: 202-482-5665; email: [email protected]) This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to OEEI at (202) 482-5225 no less than one week prior to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will take place from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT. The general meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment from 3:00-3:30 p.m. EDT. Those interested in attending must provide notification by Friday, June 12, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. EDT, via the contact information provided above. Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.

    Topics to be considered: The agenda for the Tuesday, June 30, 2015 ETTAC meeting is as follows:

    8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m. 1. Discussion of priorities and objectives for the committee 2. Status updates on ongoing trade negotiations related to environmental technologies 3. Subcommittee working meetings

    Background: The ETTAC is mandated by Public Law 103-392. It was created to advise the U.S. government on environmental trade policies and programs, and to help it to focus its resources on increasing the exports of the U.S. environmental industry. ETTAC operates as an advisory committee to the Secretary of Commerce and the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC). ETTAC was originally chartered in May of 1994. It was most recently re-chartered until August 2016.

    Edward A. O'Malley, Office Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13158 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    Based on a request from Olollo, Inc., (“Olollo”) the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is initiating a changed circumstances review to consider the possible revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) with respect to certain bed bases.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Howard Smith or Valerie Ellis, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5193 or (202) 482-4551, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 4, 2005, the Department published the Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005). On April 10, 2015, Olollo, an importer of the subject merchandise, requested revocation, in part, of the AD order pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.216(b), with respect to bed bases consisting of: (1) A wooden box frame, (2) three wooden cross beams and one perpendicular center wooden support beam, and (3) wooden slats over the beams. These bed bases are constructed without inner springs and/or coils and do not include a headboard, footboard, side rails, or mattress. The bed bases are imported unassembled. On April 27, 2015, the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) stated that they agree with the scope exclusion language proposed by Olollo for certain bed bases.1

    1See April 27, 2015 letter from Petitioners Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From The People's Republic of China/Petitioners' Response to Olollo's Letter of April 10, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.

    The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests,2 highboys,3 lowboys,4 chests of drawers,5 chests,6 door chests,7 chiffoniers,8 hutches,9 and armoires; 10 (6) desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and (7) other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.

    2 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy.

    3 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).

    4 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more than four feet high, normally set on short legs.

    5 A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers for storing clothing.

    6 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be designed as a large box incorporating a lid.

    7 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics.

    8 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached.

    9 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides storage for clothes.

    10 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment systems.

    The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate; 11 (9) jewelry armories; 12 (10) cheval mirrors; 13 (11) certain metal parts; 14 (12) mirrors that do not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set; (13) upholstered beds; 15 (14) toy boxes; 16 (15) enclosable wall bed units; 17 and (16) shoe cabinets.18 Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheadings 9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “wooden . . . beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other . . . wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood.” Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, or 9403.20.0018, or 9403.90.8041. Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors . . . framed.” The order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

    11 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by cooling or drying. See CBP's Headquarters Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976.

    12 Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24 inches in width, 18 inches in depth, and 49 inches in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset mirror. See Issues and Decision Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, concerning “Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China,” dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden Bedroom Furniture F rom the People' s Republic of China: Final Changed Circumstances Review, and Determination To Revo ke Order in Part, 71 FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).

    13 Cheval mirrors are any framed, tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches that is mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, i.e., a framed tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet line with fabric, having necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least 50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People' s Republic of China: Final Changed Circumstances Review and Determination T o Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).

    14 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise specifically named in this scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under HTSUS subheadings 9403.90.7005, 9403.90.7010, or 9403.90.7080.

    15 Upholstered beds that are completely upholstered, i.e., containing filling material and completely covered in sewn genuine leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal, or any other material and which are no more than nine inches in height from the floor. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People' s Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).

    16 To be excluded the toy box must: (1) Be wider than it is tall; (2) have dimensions within 16 inches to 27 inches in height, 15 inches to 18 inches in depth, and 21 inches to 30 inches in width; (3) have a hinged lid that encompasses the entire top of the box; (4) not incorporate any doors or drawers; (5) have slow-closing safety hinges; (6) have air vents; (7) have no locking mechanism; and (8) comply with American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) standard F963-03. Toy boxes are boxes generally designed for the purpose of storing children's items such as toys, books, and playthings. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 8506 (February 25, 2009). Further, as determined in the scope ruling memorandum “Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Scope Ruling on a White Toy Box,” dated July 6, 2009, the dimensional ranges used to identify the toy boxes that are excluded from the wooden bedroom furniture order apply to the box itself rather than the lid.

    17 Enclosable wall bed units, also referred to as murphy beds, are composed of the following three major sections: (1) A metal wall frame, which attaches to the wall and uses coils or pistons to support the metal mattress frame; (2) a metal frame, which has euro slats for supporting a mattress and two legs that pivot; and (3) wood panels, which attach to the metal wall frame and/or the metal mattress frame to form a cabinet to enclose the wall bed when not in use. Excluded enclosable wall bed units are imported in ready-to-assemble format with all parts necessary for assembly. Enclosable wall bed units do not include a mattress. Wood panels of enclosable wall bed units, when imported separately, remain subject to the order. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, in Part, 79 FR 64569 (October 30, 2014).

    18 Excluded shoe cabinets are 31.5-33.5 inches wide by 15.5-17.5 inches deep by 34.5-36.5 inches high. They are designed strictly to store shoes, which are intended to be aligned in rows perpendicular to the wall along which the cabinet is positioned. Shoe cabinets do not have drawers, rods, or other indicia for the storage of clothing other than shoes. The cabinets are not designed, manufactured, or offered for sale in coordinated groups or sets and are made substantially of wood, have two to four shelves inside them, and are covered by doors. The doors often have blinds that are designed to allow air circulation and release of bad odors. The doors themselves may be made of wood or glass. The depth of the shelves does not exceed 14 inches. Each shoe cabinet has doors, adjustable shelving, and ventilation holes. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, in Part, 80 FR 18383 (April 6, 2015).

    Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, and Consideration of Revocation of the Order in Part

    Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from an interested party 19 which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of an order.20 Based on the information provided by Olollo, the Department has determined that there exist changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a changed circumstances review of the AD order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC.21

    19 Olollo stated in its April 29, 2015 entry of appearance that it is an importer of subject merchandise and as such is an interested party pursuant to 19 CFR 351.102(a)(29)(ii).

    20See 19 CFR 351.216.

    21See section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d).

    Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order, in whole or in part. In addition, in the event the Department determines that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results. In its administrative practice, the Department has interpreted “substantially all” to mean producers accounting for at least 85 percent of the total U.S. production of the domestic like product covered by the order.22 Petitioners state that they agree with the exclusion request, however, because Petitioners did not indicate whether they account for substantially all of the domestic production of wooden bedroom furniture, we are providing interested parties with the opportunity to address the issue of domestic industry support with respect to this proposed partial revocation of the order, and we are not combining this notice of initiation with a preliminary determination pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). As explained below, this notice of initiation will afford all interested parties an opportunity to address the proposed partial revocation.

    22See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent To Revoke Order in Part, 77 FR 42276 (July 18, 2012) (Pencils), unchanged in Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Determination To Revoke Order, in Part, 77 FR 53176 (August 31, 2012).

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to provide comments and/or factual information regarding this changed circumstances review, including comments concerning industry support. Comments and factual information may be submitted to the Department no later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments and rebuttal factual information may be filed with the Department no later than 10 days after the comments and/or factual information are filed.23 All submissions must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).24 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due dates set forth in this notice.

    23See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2)

    24See, generally, 19 CFR 351.303.

    The Department will issue the preliminary results of this changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which the preliminary results are based, and a description of any action proposed because of those results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of the review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will issue the final results of its AD changed circumstance review within 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated.

    This initiation is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).

    Dated: May 22, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13107 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY:

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

    Background

    Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

    Upcoming Sunset Reviews for July 2015

    The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in July 2015 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review (“Sunset Review”).

    Antidumping Duty Proceedings

    Woven Electric Blankets from China (A-570-951) (1st Review)

    Department Contact

    Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312.

    Countervailing Duty Proceedings

    No Sunset Review of countervailing duty orders is scheduled for initiation in July 2015.

    Suspended Investigations

    No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in July 2015.

    The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: May 18, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13122 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-602-807, A-351-842, A-570-022, A-560-828, A-471-807] Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eve Wang at (202) 482-6231 (Australia); Julia Hancock at (202) 482-1394 (Brazil); Stephanie Moore at (202) 482-3692 (the People's Republic of China (PRC)); Blaine Wiltse at (202) 482-6345 (Indonesia); and Kabir Archuletta at (202) 482-2593 (Portugal), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 10, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated antidumping duty (AD) investigations of imports of certain uncoated paper (uncoated paper) from Australia, Brazil, the PRC, Indonesia, and Portugal.1 The notice of initiation stated that, in accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), we would issue our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of initiation, unless postponed. Currently, the preliminary determinations in these investigations are due no later than June 30, 2015.

    1See Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 8608 (February 18, 2015).

    Postponement of Preliminary Determinations

    Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), require the Department to issue the preliminary determination in an AD investigation within 140 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension in accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.

    On May 15, 2015 and May 18, 2015, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW); Domtar Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H. Glatfelter Company; and Packaging Corporation of America (collectively, the “petitioners”) made timely requests, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e), for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determinations in the investigations.2 The petitioners stated that a postponement of the preliminary determinations in all five of the uncoated paper AD investigations is necessary because it may not be feasible for the Department to analyze questionnaire responses, identify issues, and develop the respective case records of the aforementioned investigations as necessary within the current schedule.3 With respect to the AD investigation of uncoated paper from the PRC, the petitioners indicated that a postponement is warranted because it is not feasible to resolve the necessary surrogate country selection and valuation issues within the current schedule.4

    2See petitioners' letters to the Department dated May 15, 2015 and May 18, 2015.

    3Id.

    4See petitioners' letter to the Department dated May 18, 2015 at 1.

    Under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, if a petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the preliminary determination must be made under subsection (b)(1), then the Department may postpone making the preliminary determination under subsection (b)(1) until not later than the 190th day after the date on which the administering authority initiated the investigation. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, and because we find there are no compelling reasons to deny the petitioners' requests, the Department is postponing the preliminary determinations in these investigations until August 19, 2015, which is 190 days from the date on which the Department initiated these investigations.

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless this deadline is extended.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: May 21, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13044 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after June 2015, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

    Opportunity To Request a Review: Not later than the last day of June 2015,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in June for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings JAPAN: Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe, A-588-850 (Over 41/2 Inches) 6/1/14-5/31/15 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe, A-588-851 (Under 41/2 Inches) 6/1/14-5/31/15 MEXICO: Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire, A-201-843 12/12/13-5/31/15 SPAIN: Chlorinated Isocyanurates, A-469-814 6/1/14-5/31/15 TAIWAN: Helical Spring Lock Washers, A-583-820 6/1/14-5/31/15 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Artist Canvas, A-570-899 6/1/14-5/31/15 Chlorinated Isocyanurates, A-570-898 6/1/14-5/31/15 Furfuryl Alcohol, A-570-835 6/1/14-5/31/15 High Pressure Steel Cylinders, A-570-977 6/1/14-5/31/15 Polyester Staple Fiber, A-570-905 6/1/14-5/31/15 Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire, A-570-990 12/12/13-5/31/15 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand, A-570-945 6/1/14-5/31/15 Silicon Metal, A-570-806 6/1/14-5/31/15 Tapered Roller Bearings, A-570-601 6/1/14-5/31/15 Countervailing Duty Proceedings THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: High Pressure Steel Cylinders, C-570-978 1/1/14-12/31/14 Suspension Agreements None

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    Further, as explained in Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013), the Department clarified its practice with regard to the conditional review of the non-market economy (NME) entity in administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders. The Department will no longer consider the NME entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.3 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity).

    3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov. 4 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    4See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of June 2015. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of June 2015, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: May 18, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13106 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a three-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, starting at 8:30 a.m. on each of the meeting days.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hotel Viking, 1 Bellevue Ave., Newport, RI 02840. The telephone number is (401) 847-3300. Check www.hotelviking.com/ for online information.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Tuesday, June 16, 2015

    The Council meeting will begin with introductions followed by brief reports from the NEFMC Chairman and Executive Director, the NOAA Fisheries Regional Administrator (Greater Atlantic Region), the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel and Office of Law Enforcement, and representatives of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and U.S Coast Guard. The public will then have an opportunity to bring forward brief comments on items that are relevant to Council business but otherwise not listed on the published agenda. The NEFMC also will finalize its comments on a proposed rule to revise the guidelines for National Standards 1, 3, and 7 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Prior to a lunch break, Council members will receive a report from its Habitat Committee. The intent is to finalize the management measures that remain outstanding from the April 2015 Council meeting by approving them for inclusion in Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2. Specifically, the Council will select Georges Bank habitat management areas and mortality alternatives, as well as spawning alternatives for Georges Bank/Southern New England and the Gulf of Maine, and then approve the entire amendment for submission to NMFS. Discussion about this agenda item will continue after the lunch break and until the meeting adjourns at the end of this meeting day.

    Wednesday, June 17, 2015

    The Wednesday session will begin with a report on the April 2015 Atlantic herring operational stock assessment. This will be followed by a review of topics and issues related to the development of Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP). They include consideration of the following: (1) A report from the Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management (EBFM) Plan Development Team about the development of alternatives for a herring acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule that includes consideration of the role of herring as a forage species in the ecosystem; (2) a report from the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) on the development of an ecosystem-based ABC control rule for Atlantic herring; (3) recommendations from the Joint Herring/EBFM Committee; and (4) the Amendment 8 scoping comments. The Council will then provide guidance to the Herring Committee on the development of goals and objectives for Amendment 8 and ABC control rule alternatives. The SSC will report on any comments it may have on the herring stock assessment and present its recommendation for an Atlantic herring ABC to the Council.

    After a noon lunch break, the Council will begin work on the Atlantic herring fishery specifications for 2016-18. They will: (1) Possibly select a preferred alternative for the 2016-18 herring ABC and take action on other elements of the herring specifications; and (2) provide guidance to the Herring Committee on developing options for Atlantic herring sub-annual catch limits; and (3) address provisions for research set-asides and river herring/shad catch caps to be included in the specifications package. The day will conclude after the Council reviews and discusses a number of reports that are scheduled to be finalized at the June meeting of the FMCs Coordination Committee. These are Integrating NEPA Compliance into a Reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act, Criteria for Initiating Fisheries Allocation Reviews, and a NOAA white paper on Cooperative Research and Cooperative Management.

    Thursday, June 18, 2015

    The Thursday session will begin with a briefing on the summary report of the March 2015 peer review of the sea scallop survey methodologies used in the Northeast. Next, the Sea Scallop Committee will discuss development of two actions associated with the Council's Sea Scallop FMP. They are Amendment 19, to address issues associated with the late implementation of fishery specifications; and Amendment 27 to the FMP, in which 2016-17 fishery specifications will be set. The Council also will approve research priorities for the 2016-17 scallop research set-aside program and discuss a draft white paper and possibly a workshop that would focus on concerns raised about scallop fishing patterns in nearshore areas. The Monkfish Committee will recommend final Council approval of Framework Adjustment 9 to the Monkfish FMP, an action that primarily involves adjustments to fishing days-at-sea in order to promote greater operational flexibility in the fishery. Following a lunch break, there will be reports from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. The first will outline the process used to form stock assessment working groups and the second will concern the establishment of a Northeast Trawl Survey Advisory Panel. The Council's Electronic Working Group will then provide a brief update on its recent activities, followed by a Groundfish Committee report. During this last report the Council will initiate action on specifications for all groundfish stocks for fishing years 2016-18, including the three U.S./Canada stocks, for fishing year2016. It also will receive an analysis of industry costs for at-sea monitoring (ASM) and potentially discuss changes to the Northeast Multispecies FMP to address industry concerns around the feasibility of the existing requirement that sectors assume some of the costs of the ASM program.

    Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13108 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RIN 0648-XD965] Administrative Officers Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) will host a meeting concurrently consisting of eight Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) Administrative Officers (AO) at the Council Coordination Committee (CCC) meeting in June 2015. The intent of this meeting is for the AO to discuss issues of relevance to the Councils, including: Performance evaluation processes and travel procedures, human resources services and Worker's Compensation process, insurance, cost principles and audit requirements.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held June 22-25, 2015. Registration for the meeting will begin at 2 p.m. on Monday June 22, 2015. The AO meeting will begin at 3:45 p.m. Tuesday, June 23, 2015 following the CCC Opening Remarks and updates on Budgets and the MSA Reauthorization, and recess at 5 p.m. or when business is complete. The AO meeting will reconvene at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 and recess at 5 p.m. or when business is complete. The AO meeting will reconvene on the final day at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 25, 2015 and adjourn by 12 noon or when business is complete.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Marriott Beachside Hotel, 3841 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, FL 33040; telephone: (305) 296-8100.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Readinger, Administrative Officer, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630; fax: (813) 348-1711; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation (MSA) and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) established the CCC by amending section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1852) of the MSA. The committee consists of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of each of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils authorized by the MSA or other Council members or staff. GMFMC will host this meeting and provide reports to the CCC for its information and discussion. All sessions are open to the public. NMFS or other Council items of discussion for each individual management committee agenda are as follows:

    Agenda Tuesday, June 23, 2015; 9:30 a.m.-3:45 p.m.; CCC Opening Session • Welcome and Introductions • Budget: 2016 Budget/Saltonstall-Kennedy Grants, National Observer Funding Allocation, Joint Enforcement Agreements • MSA Reauthorization: Legislative Updates, CCC Discussion on working group report and actions Tuesday, June 23, 2015; 3:45 p.m.-5 p.m. • Performance Evaluation Processes • Travel Procedures • Webinars In Lieu of Physical Meetings • FLSA Updates by Each Council • Human Resource Services • Worker's Compensation Process —Adjourn for the day Wednesday, June 24, 2015; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. • Statement of Financial Interest Process • Affordable Care Act and the Councils • Post-Retirement Medical Insurance • Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements • Multi-Year Budget Exercise • Federal Student Loan Forgiveness Program • Contracting —Adjourn for the day Thursday, June 25, 2015; 8:30 a.m.-12 Noon • Actuarial Reports on Council Benefits • Council Pay Scales • Update of Council Benefits • DOC/NOAA Legal Assistance —Meeting Adjourns

    The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issues. The AO will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13086 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RIN 0648-XD964] Council Coordination Committee Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) will host a meeting of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC) consisting of eight Regional Fishery Management Council (RFMC) chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors and its subcommittees in June 2015. The intent of this meeting is to discuss issues of relevance to the Councils, including: Budget issues, MSA reauthorization, National Standard 1, Bycatch Strategy, Presidential Task Force on Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) catches, NEPA, allocation working group report, Council Operational Guidelines, recreational fishery issues, habitat working group report, enforcement activities, other topics of concern to the RFMC, and decisions and follow-up activities.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held June 22-25, 2015. Registration for the meeting will begin at 2 p.m. on Monday June 22, 2015. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 and recess at 5:15 p.m. or when business is complete. The meeting will reconvene at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 and recess at 5:30 p.m. or when business is complete. The meeting will reconvene on the final day at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 25, 2015 and adjourn by 12 noon or when business is complete.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Marriott Beachside Hotel, 3841 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, FL 33040; telephone: (305) 296-8100.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630; fax: (813) 348-1711; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation (MSA) and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) established the CCC by amending section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1852) of the MSA. The committee consists of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of each of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils authorized by the MSA or other Council members or staff. GMFMC will host this meeting and provide reports to the CCC for its information and discussion. All sessions are open to the public. NMFS or other Council items of discussion for each individual management committee agenda are as follows:

    Agenda Tuesday, June 23, 2015; 9:30 a.m.-5:15 p.m.

    • Welcome and Introductions

    • Budgets: 2016 Budget/Saltonstall-Kennedy Grants; National Observer Funding Allocation; Joint Enforcement Agreements

    • MSA Reauthorization: Legislative Updates; CCC Discussion on working group report and actions

    • National Standard 1: Individual Council Comments; Update & Approval of Draft Letter

    • Bycatch Strategy

    —Adjourn for the day Wednesday, June 24, 2015; 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

    • Presentations: Marine Resource Education Program; American Fisheries Society; Social Scientists in RFM Report

    • Presidential Task Force on IUU

    • NEPA Working Group Report: CCC White Paper; Revised MSA NEPA Procedures

    • Allocation Working Group Report: CCC Guidelines; NMFS Guidelines

    • Operational Guidelines

    • Cooperative Research & Management

    • Recreational Fishery Issues: Recreational Fishery Policy; Marine Recreational Information Program

    —Adjourn for the day Thursday, June 25, 2015; 8:30 a.m.-12 noon

    • Habitat Working Group Report: Proposed 2016 Habitat Summit

    • Assessment Prioritization Update

    • International Affairs/Seafood Inspection

    • SSC Issues: National SSC V Workshop Report; Next Meeting (location/year)

    • 2016 CCC Meetings

    • Other Business & Wrap-up

    —Meeting Adjourns

    The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issues. The CCC will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13087 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Monterey Bay Regional Water Project Desalination Facility; Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Scoping Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement; Scoping meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    An application for permit approval has been submitted by DeepWater Desal, LLC to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) and California State Lands Commission (CSLC) to construct and operate a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination facility and co-located seawater-cooled 150-megawatt computer data center campus project (Project) at Moss Landing, Monterey County, California. The permit review process will be conducted concurrently with a public process conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). NOAA is soliciting information and comments on the range and significance of issues related to the Project proposed within MBNMS boundaries.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 1, 2015. A public meeting will be held as detailed below:

    Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2015.

    Location: Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML), Main Building Conference Room.

    Address: 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, CA 95039.

    Times: sessions begin at 2:00 p.m. and at 6:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NOS-2015-0069, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: MBNMS Desalination Project Lead, 99 Pacific Ave, BLDG 455a, Monterey, CA 93940

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NOAA. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. ONMS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bridget Hoover at 99 Pacific Ave, BLDG 455a, Monterey, CA 93940 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background Information I. Background

    An application for permit approval has been submitted by DeepWater Desal, LLC to construct and operate a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination facility capable of producing 25,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water and a co-located seawater-cooled computer data center campus on a 110-acre site located approximately 1.5 miles east of Moss Landing. Seawater intake and brine discharge pipelines would extend west from Moss Landing Harbor to the upper reaches of the submarine Monterey Canyon and the north shelf, respectively, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS).

    II. Need for action

    This notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a draft environmental impact statement and conduct scoping is published in accordance with: the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); California Public Resources Code section 21080.4, subdivision (a); State CEQA Guidelines section 15082; section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; and the White House Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (CEQ NEPA Regulations).

    The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) and MBNMS, as CEQA and NEPA lead agencies respectively, will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) to identify and assess potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed DeepWater Desal, LLC Monterey Bay Regional Water Project (Project). Agencies would use the EIR/EIS to consider related permits or other approvals for the Project as proposed. Possible alternatives could include not approving the Project or approving the Project with additional modifications identified as part of the terms and conditions of a permit or other approval.

    Publication of this notice initiates the public scoping process to solicit public and agency comment, in writing or at the public meeting, regarding the full spectrum of environmental issues and concerns relating to the scope and content of the EIR/EIS, including:

    • Analyses of the human and marine resources that could be affected;

    • the nature and extent of the potential significant impacts on those resources;

    • a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action; and

    • mitigation measures.

    III. Process

    This NOI is published in conjunction with the CSLC NOI, as this is a joint process between NOAA/MBNMS, the lead federal agency, and the CSLC, the lead state agency. The two agencies will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), and will hold a joint public scoping meeting for the project on Tuesday, June 16, 2015; Sessions begin at 2:00 pm and 6:00 pm, at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories at 8272 Moss Landing Road, CA 95039.

    IV. Federal Consultations

    This notice also advises the public that NOAA will coordinate its consultation responsibilities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470), and Federal Consistency review under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), along with its ongoing NEPA process including the use of NEPA documents and public and stakeholder meetings to also meet the requirements of other federal laws.

    In fulfilling its consultation responsibility under the ESA, MSA, NHPA, CZMA and NEPA, NOAA intends to identify consulting parties and involve the public in accordance with NOAA's NEPA procedures, and develop in consultation with identified consulting parties alternatives and proposed measures that might avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on endangered species, essential fish habitat, historic properties, or coastal zone management issues, and describe them in any environmental assessment or draft environmental impact statement.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.

    Dated: May 21, 2015. John Armor, Acting Director for the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.
    [FR Doc. 2015-12877 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel (AP) will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday June 17, 2015 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Double Tree by Hilton Baltimore—BWI Airport, 890 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum, MD 21090; telephone: (410) 859-8400.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The MAFMC's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel (AP) will meet jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panels. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss recent performance of the commercial and recreational fisheries for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. Council staff will work with the AP to write 2015 Fishery Performance Reports. The MAFMC and the ASMFC will consider the Fishery Performance Reports in August when setting fishery specifications (i.e. catch and landings limits and management measures) for 2016-18.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13056 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Socioeconomics of Commercial Whale Watching Observation Operations in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (request for a new information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 21.

    Average Hours per Response: One hour and 30 minutes to compile information; one hour for interview.

    Burden Hours: 53.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for a new information collection.

    This is a survey of commercial whale watching operations that operate in and around the current Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS). Information will be obtained to assess the value of the whale watching industry to the local economy, as well as the potential socioeconomic costs or benefits from alternative management options proposed by the CINMS Marine Shipping Working Group to reduce negative encounters between vessels and whales.

    Affected Public: Business and other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: One time.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13095 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho National Laboratory AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. The opportunity for public comment is at 2:15 p.m. This time is subject to change; please contact the Federal Coordinator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    Hilton Garden Inn, 700 Lindsay Blvd., Idaho Falls, ID 83402.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Welcome and Opening Remarks

    • Agency Update Presentations

    • Public Comment

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

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

    Issued at Washington, DC on May 22, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13125 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-BC-0002] DOE Proposals for the 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; webinar and public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) participates in the public process administered by the International Code Council (ICC), which produces the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). DOE published a notice in the Federal Register on April 14, 2015 outlining the process by which the Department will participate in the development of the 2018 IECC. This notice builds upon the previous notice in identifying several events surrounding development of DOE proposals for the 2018 IECC, including the availability of draft proposals and supporting analysis, as well as upcoming stakeholder meetings.

    DATES:

    DOE will host the following events:

    • Webinar: Introduction of initial DOE Concepts under consideration for the 2018 IECC:

    Date: Thursday, May 28, 2015

    • Stakeholder Meeting: Public meeting for interested parties to present their concepts for the 2018 IECC, and to encourage an exchange of ideas amongst stakeholders:

    Date: June 15-16, 2015

    Location: Denver, Colorado

    ADDRESSES:

    Advanced registration is required for both the webinar and stakeholder meeting. For more information on registering, please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. The stakeholder meetings will be held at the Crowne Plaza Denver Downtown, 1450 Glenarm Place, Denver, Colorado 80202.

    Interested parties are invited to submit comments on DOE proposals for the IECC. Any comments submitted must reference the Notice for DOE Proposals for the 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), docket number EERE-2015-BT-BC-0002. Comments may be submitted by using either of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-BC-0002. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected] Include EERE-2015-BT-BC-0002 in the subject line of the message.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name (U.S. DOE), docket number (EERE-2015-BT-BC-0002), and applicable DOE proposal ID numbers (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice for additional instructions).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 287-1941; Email: [email protected]

    For legal issues: Kavita Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-0669; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) participates in the public process administered by the International Code Council (ICC) which produces the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). As a participant in this process, the Department considers and evaluates concepts it is considering submitting as proposed changes to the IECC. DOE published a notice in the Federal Register on April 14, 2015, outlining the process by which the Department will participate in the development of the 2018 IECC (80 FR 19972). DOE has published its initial concepts at the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site and has scheduled several events to discuss 2018 IECC development.

    Availability of DOE Proposals for the 2018 IECC

    The Department will continue to publish its proposals and supporting information as it becomes available over the coming months. As information will be updated continually, interested parties are urged to monitor the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site and associated stakeholder mailing lists:

    • DOE Proposal Web page: www.energycodes.gov/development/2018IECC.

    • Stakeholder Updates: http://www.energycodes.gov/news.

    Submitting Comments on DOE Proposals for the IECC

    Interested parties are invited to submit comments on DOE proposals by email or public docket, as outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Comments will be accepted beginning immediately upon publication of this notice, and ongoing through later this year. To allow adequate time to prepare and publish final proposals, the Department will specify a comment deadline on the DOE Proposal Web page. Further instructions for submitting comments on DOE proposals, including identifiers (e.g., DOE proposal numbers) and associated deadlines, are provided on the above DOE Proposal Web page. All DOE proposals and supporting information will be made available to the general public prior to submission to the ICC.

    Webinar and Stakeholder Meeting

    The Department will host a webinar to present its initial concepts for the 2018 IECC. During the webinar, DOE will present an overview of each concept under consideration for a potential code change proposal. In addition, the Department will convene a public meeting during which stakeholders can present their concepts for the 2018 IECC. As part of these meetings, DOE will also present its own concepts. The goal of the meetings will be to encourage communication amongst stakeholders. These events are scheduled as follows:

    Webinar: Introduction of initial DOE concepts under consideration for the 2018 IECC: Thursday, May 28, 2015.

    Commercial Session: 1:00-2:30 p.m. (EDT).

    Registration: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5677147236967231233.

    Residential Session: 3:30-5:00 p.m. (EDT).

    Registration: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3937419675150886145.

    Stakeholder Meeting: Public meeting for interested parties to present their concepts for the 2018 IECC.

    Location: Crowne Plaza Denver Downtown, 1450 Glenarm Place, Denver, CO 80202.

    Residential Session: Monday, June 15th from 1:00-5:00 p.m. (MDT).

    Commercial Session: Tuesday, June 16th from 8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. (MDT).

    (Note: If residential requests for presentation time exceed commercial requests, the residential session may continue on Tuesday morning at 8:00 a.m. MDT.)

    Advanced registration is required for the webinar and stakeholder meeting—please register early so that time may be allotted for stakeholder presentations. DOE will both moderate and participate in these events.

    More information on the Department's support for building energy codes, including participation in the development of model codes, is available on the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site, www.energycodes.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 21, 2015. Roland Risser, Director, Building Technologies Office, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13103 Filed 5-29-15; 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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-594-000.

    Applicants: KPC Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Additional information requested in paragraph 11 of April 21, 2015 Order of KPC Pipeline, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150501-5479.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-594-000.

    Applicants: KPC Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Supplement [Excel spreadsheet] to May 1, 2015 Additional information requested in paragraph 11 of April 21, 2015 Order of KPC Pipeline, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150505-5237.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    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 20, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13078 Filed 5-29-15; 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: EC15-145-000.

    Applicants: Lost Creek Wind, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization of Transaction Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Requests for Expedited Action, Waivers of Filing Requirements and Confidential Treatment of Transaction Documents of Lost Creek Wind, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5321.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1325-002; ER10-1946-002; ER14-2323-000; ER11-2080-002; ER10-1333-002; ER14-2319-000; ER12-1958-002; ER14-2321-000; ER10-1335-002.

    Applicants: CinCap V LLC, Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC, Duke Energy Commercial Asset Management, Inc., Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc., Duke Energy Piketon, LLC, Duke Energy Retail Sales, LLC.

    Description: Additional information related to June 30, 2014 Triennial Market Power Analysis Update for the Southeast Region of Duke Energy Corporation MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5250.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1222-002.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Amended GIA and Distrib Serv Agmt re Edom Hills Wind Park Project to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5009.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1365-001.

    Applicants: Morris Cogeneration, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Response to Deficiency Letter to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5006.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1406-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-22_SA 2766 Amendment to ATC-City of Elkhorn CFA to be effective 5/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5067.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1407-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-22_SA 2767 Amendment to ATC-Manitowoc Public Utilities CFA to be effective 5/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5068.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1409-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-22_SA 2769 Amendment to ATC-City of Reedsburg CFA to be effective 5/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5081.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1411-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-22_SA 2770 Amendment to ATC-City of Sun Prairie CFA to be effective 5/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5103.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1473-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-22_SA 2771 Amendment to ATC-Cloverland CFA to be effective 6/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5104.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1479-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-22_SA 2773 Amendment to ATC-Adams Columbia CFA to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1481-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-22_SA 2776 Amendment to ATC-Village of Prairie du Sac CFA to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1482-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-22_SA 2777 Amendment to ATC-City of Wisconsin Rapids CFA to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1483-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-22_SA 2775 Amendment to ATC-Marshfield Electric CFA to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1630-001.

    Applicants: US Borax, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Supplement to MBRA to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1767-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Request for One-Time Waiver of Certain Tariff Provisions of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5245.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1768-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Conforming Filing for Tariff Section III.10, Record ID No. 138 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1769-000.

    Applicants: DPL Energy Resources, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market Based Rate Tariff Rate Schedule No. 1 of DPL Energy Resources, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1770-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): PJM submits revisions to OA Schedule 12 to remove Intergrid Mideast Group, LLC to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5204.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1771-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-05-22 Mississippi LRZ Filing to be effective 7/22/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1772-000.

    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Interstate Power and Light Company Wholesale Power Supply Agreement to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5270.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1775-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Basin Electric Power Cooperative Formula Rate to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5358.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    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 22, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13076 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-993-000.

    Applicants: PGPipeline LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Order No. 801 Compliance Filing to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150519-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-994-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Oglethorpe 8482 to Sequent 44523) to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150519-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-995-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neogotiated Capacity Release Agreement—5/19/2015 to be effective 5/19/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150519-5113.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-210-001.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Cashout Report and Refund Plan 2013-2014—Revised Appendix C.

    Filed Date: 5/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150519-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 20, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13074 Filed 5-29-15; 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: EC15-146-000.

    Applicants: NRG Yield Operating LLC, Desert Sunlight 250, LLC, Desert Sunlight 300, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Approval under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Approval of NRG Yield Operating LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5471.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1484-010.

    Applicants: Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.

    Description: Supplement to December 29, 2014 Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southeast Region of Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1936-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance Filing per 1/23/15 Order in Docket No. ER13-1936 to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5181.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1456-001.

    Applicants: Beaver Falls, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Amended Notice of Succession to be effective 3/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1457-001.

    Applicants: Syracuse, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Amended Notice of Succession to be effective 3/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5164.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1543-001.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Revised Local Balancing Authority Area Agreement Between WPSC an to be effective 7/25/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1776-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-05-22 Pricing under Emergency to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5376.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1777-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Heartland Consumers Power District Formula Rate to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5377.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-30-000.

    Applicants: The United Illuminating Company.

    Description: Supplemental Exhibits to May 8, 2015 Application requesting authorization to issue short-term debt securities in an amount not to exceed $400 million of The United Illuminating Company.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5117.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    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 26, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13077 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR15-26-000] NuStar Logistics, L.P.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on May 22, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), NuStar Logistics, L.P. (“NuStar”) filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking a declaratory order concerning NuStar's supplemental open season held for its South Texas Crude Oil Pipeline System Expansion Project (“Expansion Project”). The Expansion Project involves an expansion of NuStar's existing pipeline system that transports crude oil from various points in the Eagle Ford shale region of South Texas to NuStar's Corpus Christi North Beach Terminal in Nueces County, Texas, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 22, 2015.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13090 Filed 5-29-15; 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: EC15-144-000.

    Applicants: Rising Tree Wind Farm III LLC, Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Rising Tree Wind Farm III LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5190.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-89-000.

    Applicants: Greenleaf Power Management LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification as an EWG of Greenleaf Power Management LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150520-5219.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1940-004.

    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Interregional Refile to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150520-5213.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1016-000.

    Applicants: Shafter Solar, LLC.

    Description: Second Amendment to February 9, 2015 and March 24, 2015 Shafter Solar, LLC tariff filings.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1222-001.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): SCE's Response to Deficiency re Unexecuted Edom Hills GIA & Distrib Serv Agmt to be effective 9/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1375-000.

    Applicants: McCoy Solar, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to March 25, 2015 McCoy Solar, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5103.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1392-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-21_Montezuma-Tipton Att O Amendment to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1418-000.

    Applicants: Adelanto Solar II, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to March 31, 2015 Adelanto Solar II, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1665-000.

    Applicants: Greenleaf Power Management LLC.

    Description: Supplement to May 4, 2015 Greenleaf Power Management LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 5/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150520-5266.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1757-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): NYISO 205 filing Executed Non-Conforming Interconnection Facilities Study Agrmnt to be effective 4/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150520-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1758-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Filing of LGIA for RE Garland Project to be effective 5/21/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1759-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-05-21_SA 2789 ATC-ITC Midwest Operating Agreement to be effective 7/21/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1760-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-5-21_SPS-RWSE-E&P-680-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 7/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1761-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-5-21_SPS-ChvCtySlr-E&P-681-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 7/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1762-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-5-21_SPS-OrWR-E&P-682-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 7/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1763-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule 53 of El Paso Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1764-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-05-21_SA 2789 Notice of Termination ATC-ITCM Operating Agreement to be effective 7/21/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5133.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1765-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-05-21 APS ABAOA and Termination of RS 17 to be effective 5/22/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1765-001.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-05-21 Amended APS ABAOA to be effective 7/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1766-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., The Dayton Power and Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): DP&L submits Original Service Agreement No. 4124 to be effective 5/22/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/15.

    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 21, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13075 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-984-000.

    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.

    Description: Annual Report of Fuel Gas Reimbursement Percentage for 2015 of White River Hub, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5094.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-985-000.

    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company.

    Description: Annual Report of Fuel Gas Reimbursement Percentage for 2015 of Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company.

    Filed Date: 5/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150512-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-996-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Atlanta Gas 8438 to various eff 5/1/15) to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5066.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-997-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Substitute Published Index Prices to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/21/15.

    Accession Number: 20150521-5224.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-998-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate—Chevron Jun2014 TEAM2014 Release to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-999-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rates Cleanup—Contract 789456 to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1000-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2015-05-15 E2W to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150522-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-956-001.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 154.205(b): Amendment to Filing in RP15-956-000 to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/20/15.

    Accession Number: 20150520-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13084 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0265; FRL-9928-64-OAR] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS Implementation Rule (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS Implementation Rule (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2258.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0611), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed renewal of a currently approved information collection which was originally approved in conjunction with the EPA's now-remanded 2007 final rule addressing implementation-related requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and renewed twice since then. On March 23, 2015, the EPA also proposed a new ICR associated with its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would replace the remanded 2007 PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule. Until that ICR is approved, the existing ICR will remain in effect, subject to approval of this proposed renewal.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0265, online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Cecil (Butch) Stackhouse, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by phone at (919) 541-5208 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Abstract: The final implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule) was promulgated on April 25, 2007 (79 FR 20586). This rule provided the framework of Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for air agencies to meet in attainment plans to achieve the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in designated nonattainment areas. States also applied this framework to develop attainment plans for areas designated nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS revised by the agency in 2006 (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009; 76 FR 6056; February 3, 2011).

    The ICR originally finalized with the 2007 PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule had estimated, for the 3 years following the ICR approval date, the burden to air agencies to develop and submit, and the burden to the EPA to review and to approve or disapprove, attainment plans to meet the requirements prescribed in CAA sections 110 and part D, subpart 1 of title I. A PM2.5 attainment plan contains rules and other measures designed to improve air quality and achieve the NAAQS by the deadlines established under the CAA. It also must address several additional CAA requirements related to demonstrating timely attainment, and must contain contingency measures in the event the nonattainment area does not achieve reasonable further progress throughout the attainment period or in the event the area does not attain the NAAQS by its attainment date. After a state submits an attainment plan, the CAA requires the EPA to approve or disapprove the plan. Tribes may develop or submit attainment plans, but are not required to do so.

    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) remanded the 2007 PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule, concluding that the agency had erred in implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS according to only the general nonattainment area planning provisions of subpart 1, part D, title I of the CAA, rather than in accordance with the PM-specific planning requirements of subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA and certain general planning provisions in subpart 1. On March 23, 2015, the EPA proposed a new implementation rule (80 FR 15340) consistent with the attainment planning requirements under CAA subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I, that would apply to ongoing implementation efforts by air agencies in areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as to new efforts in areas recently designated nonattainment for the most recent 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As part of its proposed implementation rule, the EPA also proposed a new ICR to cover the 3-year period after the ICR is approved by OMB, which would account for both the burden associated with plan revisions related to ongoing implementation efforts for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as well as the additional cost burden to air agencies developing attainment plans for areas designated nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Once final, the new ICR will supersede the existing ICR—for which the EPA is proposing renewal in this action—for purposes of PM2.5 NAAQS implementation. In the meantime, while the EPA completes its current rulemaking and finalizes the new ICR, the agency is hereby proposing a renewal of the existing ICR that would continue to apply during this interim period.

    Respondents/affected entities: State and local governments.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.

    Currently approved estimated number of respondents: 95 (total).

    Frequency of response: Once per triggering event [i.e., each air agency with a newly-designated nonattainment area or an area reclassified to a higher classification is required to revise its State Implementation Plan (SIP)].

    Currently approved total estimated burden: 175,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: The EPA expects there to be a reduction in excess of 50 percent in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the information collection that is currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to the fact that the EPA estimates that only six areas may be candidates for reclassification triggering new submittal requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as compared to 31 nonattainment areas initially designated for that NAAQS. In addition, one of the six areas (San Joaquin Valley, CA) remains nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The burden estimate, detailed in the supporting statement located in the docket for this proposed renewal, accounts for new SIP revisions from states with nonattainment areas potentially subject to reclassification.

    Dated: May 21, 2015. Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13131 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9928-46-OGC] Proposed Settlement Agreement AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement to address a lawsuit filed by National Parks Conservation Association, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Friends of the Boundary Waters, Voyageurs National Park Association, Fresh Energy, and the Sierra Club (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Intervenor Defendant Northern States Power Company Minnesota, d/b/a Xcel Energy in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota: National Parks Conservation Association, et al. v. EPA, Civ. No. 12-3043 (D. Minn.). On December 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) had failed to perform a mandatory duty to respond to a 2009 letter by the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) certifying that visibility impairment in Minnesota's Voyageurs National Park and Michigan's Isle Royale National Park is reasonably attributable to emissions from Xcel Energy's coal-fired Sherburne County Generating Station (“Sherco”) in Minnesota. The proposed settlement agreement addresses Plaintiffs' claims and establishes a deadline for EPA to take final action to revise the Minnesota Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (“RAVI”) Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”).

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be received by July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0347, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by email to [email protected]; by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew C. Marks, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-3276; fax number (202) 564-5603; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    On October 21, 2009, DOI provided a letter to EPA in which DOI stated “that there exists reasonably attributable impairment of visibility at Voyageurs and Isle Royale due to emissions from the Sherco facility.” On December 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this litigation alleging that, since receiving DOI's letter, the Administrator had failed to perform a mandatory duty pursuant to 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)(iii) and (iv) to promulgate a federal RAVI best available retrofit technology (“BART”) determination for Sherco. In response to the lawsuit, EPA filed an answer on February 1, 2013, denying that the Administrator has a mandatory duty to promulgate RAVI BART for Sherco because EPA has not determined that visibility impairment at one or more Class I areas is reasonably attributable to emissions from Sherco. On March 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, alleging that the Administrator had failed to perform a mandatory duty “to identify and analyze for BART each existing stationary facility which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area where the impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area is reasonably attributable to that existing stationary facility.”

    The proposed settlement agreement would resolve the lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs by establishing that EPA will propose to revise the Minnesota RAVI FIP to include specific sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) emission limitations for Sherco Units 1, 2, and 3, and take final action on the proposal within seven months of the effective date of the settlement agreement. The proposed settlement agreement also provides that nothing in the agreement shall be construed to limit or modify any discretion afforded EPA by the Act or by general principles of administrative law in taking those actions. See the proposed settlement agreement and attachment for specific details.

    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement Agreement A. How can I get a copy of the settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0347) contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: May 20, 2015. Lorie J. Schmidt, Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13127 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to all Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10274, NorthWest Bank and Trust, Acworth, Georgia

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for NorthWest Bank and Trust, Acworth, Georgia (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of NorthWest Bank and Trust on July 30, 2010. 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 32.1, 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 27, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13121 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 16, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Ronald J. and Elizabeth A. Schowalter Living Trust, with Ronald J. Schowalter and Elizabeth A. Schowalter as co-trustees, all of Port Washington, Wisconsin; and the Ronald J. and Elizabeth A. Schowalter Living Trust, together as a group acting in concert with Mark D. Schowalter, Port Washington, Wisconsin, individually; the Mark D. Schowalter Family Endowment Trust and Mark D. Schowalter as trustee; the Schowalter Trusts f/b/o Steven R. Schowalter, Mark D. Schowalter, and Sally R. Savatski, with Steven R. Schowalter, Mark D. Schowalter, and Sally A. Savatski as co-trustees; Steven R. Schowalter, Port Washington, Wisconsin, individually; the Steven R. Schowalter Family Endowment Trust and Steven R. Schowalter as trustee; Sally A. Savatski, Port Washington, Wisconsin, individually; the Sally A. Savatski Family Endowment Trust and Sally A. Savatski as trustee; Wendy P. Schowalter, Port Washington, Wisconsin, individually; Catherine J. Schowalter, Port Washington, Wisconsin, individually; Robert A. Savatski, Port Washington, Wisconsin, individually; James S. Schowalter, Port Washington, Wisconsin, individually; Jennifer M. Schowalter, Port Washington, Wisconsin, individually; Mark D. Schowalter, Catherine J. Schowalter, Sally A. Savatski, Robert A. Savatski, James S. Schowalter, and Jennifer M. Schowalter, each as custodians under UGMA for certain Schowalter grandchildren, all of Port Washington, Wisconsin; Tracy N. Schowalter-Braun and Justin P. Braun, individually and as custodians under UGMA for certain Schowalter great-grandchildren, all of Cedarburg, Wisconsin; and the Schowalter Grandchildren's Trust, with Legacy Private Trust Company, as trustee, all of Neenah, Wisconsin; to retain voting shares of Port Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Port Washington State Bank, both in Port Washington, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 27, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13091 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Meeting of the Community Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force) AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the next meeting of the Community Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force is an independent, nonpartisan, nonfederal, and unpaid panel. Its members represent a broad range of research, practice, and policy expertise in prevention, wellness, health promotion, and public health, and are appointed by the CDC Director. The Task Force was convened in 1996 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to identify community preventive programs, services, and policies that increase healthy longevity, save lives and dollars and improve Americans' quality of life. CDC is mandated to provide ongoing administrative, research, and technical support for the operations of the Task Force. During its meetings, the Task Force considers the findings of systematic reviews on existing research, and issues recommendations. Task Force recommendations are not mandates for compliance or spending. Instead, they provide information about evidence-based options that decision makers and stakeholders can consider when determining what best meets the specific needs, preferences, available resources, and constraints of their jurisdictions and constituents. The Task Force's recommendations, along with the systematic reviews of the scientific evidence on which they are based, are compiled in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EDT and Thursday, June 18, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Task Force Meeting will be held at CDC Edward R. Roybal Campus, Tom Harkin Global Communications Center (Building 19), and 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, GA 30333. You should be aware that the meeting location is in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. For additional information, please see Roybal Campus Security Guidelines under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Information regarding meeting logistics will be available on the Community Guide Web site (www.thecommunityguide.org).

    Meeting Accessibility: This meeting is open to the public, limited only by space availability. All meeting attendees must RSVP to ensure the required security procedures are completed to gain access to the CDC's Global Communications Center.

    U.S. citizens must RSVP by 6/4/2015.

    Non U.S. citizens must RSVP by 6/2/2015 due to additional security steps that must be completed. Failure to RSVP by the dates identified could result in the inability to attend the Task Force meeting due to the strict security regulations on federal facilities.

    Meeting Accessibility: This meeting is available to the public via Webcast and Conference Call. Individuals may view presentations via Webcast on the Internet. The audio will be presented via conference call. There are only 100 lines available with the Conference Call. The Conference Call numbers and the Webcast URL will be sent to you upon receipt of your RSVP. There are no limitations on the Webcast. All meeting attendees must RSVP to receive the webcast information which will be emailed to you on June 15th.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Onslow Smith, The Community Guide Branch; Division of Public Health Information Dissemination; Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services; Office of Public Health Scientific Services; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-E-69, Atlanta, GA 30333, phone: (404) 498-6778, email: [email protected] (also contact to RSVP).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose

    The purpose of the meeting is for the Task Force to consider the findings of systematic reviews and issue findings and recommendations. Task Force recommendations provide information about evidence-based options that decision makers and stakeholders can consider when determining what best meets the specific needs, preferences, available resources, and constraints of their jurisdictions and constituents.

    Matters To Be Discussed

    Task Force Prioritization and Communication of Community Preventive Services Task Force Insufficient Evidence (IE) Findings.

    Roybal Campus Security Guidelines

    The Edward R. Roybal Campus is the headquarters of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is located at 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, Georgia. The meeting is being held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. All meeting attendees must RSVP by the dates outlined under Meeting Accessibility.

    In planning your arrival time, please take into account the need to park and clear security. All visitors must enter the Edward R. Roybal Campus through the front entrance on Clifton Road. Your car may be searched, and the guard force will then direct visitors to the designated parking area. Upon arrival at the facility, visitors must present government issued photo identification (e.g., a valid federal identification badge, state driver's license, state non-driver's identification card, or passport). Non-United States citizens must complete the required security paperwork prior to the meeting date and must present a valid passport, visa, Permanent Resident Card, or other type of work authorization document upon arrival at the facility. All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector. Visitors will be issued a visitor's ID badge at the entrance to Building 19 and may be escorted to the meeting room. All items brought to HHS/CDC are subject to inspection.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Ron A. Otten, Acting Deputy Associate Director for Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13080 Filed 5-27-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-2395-N] RIN 0938Z Medicaid Program; State Allotments for Payment of Medicare Part B Premiums for Qualifying Individuals (QIs): Federal Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014 AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the states' final allotments available to pay the Medicare Part B premiums for Qualifying Individuals (QIs) for the federal fiscal year (FY) 2013 and the preliminary QI allotments for FY 2014. The amounts of these QI allotments were determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in regulations and reflect funding for the QI program made available under recent legislation.

    DATES:

    The final QI allotments for payment of Medicare Part B premiums for FY 2013 are effective October 1, 2012. The preliminary QI allotments for FY 2014 are effective October 1, 2013.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Kuhn, (410) 786-1914 or Toni Cincibus at (410) 786-2997.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. QI Allotments for FY 2013

    Section 3101 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, enacted on February 22, 2012) (MCTRJCA) extended the authority and funding for the QI program by providing $280 million, available for the period October 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, the first quarter of FY 2013. Section 621 of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-240, enacted on January 2, 2013) (ATRA), extended the authority for the QI program for all of FY 2013 and provided $485 million in additional funding for the program for the period January 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013. Therefore the total funding available for the QI program for FY 2013 is $765 million ($280 million plus $485 million).

    B. QI Allotments for FY 2014 and Thereafter

    As amended by section 621 of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA, Pub. L. 112-240, enacted on January 2, 2013), section 1933(g)(2) of the Social Security Act provided $300 million in funding for the period October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, the first quarter of FY 2014. Section 1201 of Division B of the legislation “Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013” (Pub. L. 113-67 enacted on December 26, 2013) provided an additional $200 million and authority for the QI program for the period January 1, 2014 through March 31, 2014 (second quarter of FY 2014). In addition, section 201 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93 enacted on April 1, 2014) revised the $200 to $485 million and extended the period for which such funds were available to the end of September 2014. Therefore, a total of $785 million is now available for all of FY 2014 ($300 million for the first quarter of FY 2014, and $485 million for the second through fourth quarters of FY 2014). Finally, section 201 of PAMA further extended the authority and funding for the QI program for FY 2015 as follows: $300 million for the period October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (first quarter of FY 2015); and, $250 million for the period January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015 (second quarter FY 2015). Therefore, a total of $550 million is available for the QI program for FY 2015.

    C. Methodology for Calculating the Fiscal Year QI Allotments

    The amounts of the states' final FY 2013 and preliminary FY 2014 QI allotments, contained in this notice, were determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in existing regulations at 42 CFR 433.10(c)(5) and reflect funding for the QI program made available under the legislation discussed above.

    II. Tables

    The final QI allotments for FY 2013 and the preliminary QI allotments for FY 2014 are shown by state in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively:

    Table 1—Final Qualifying Individuals Allotments for October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013.

    Table 2—Preliminary Qualifying Individuals Allotments for October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.

    Table 1—Final Qualifying Individuals Allotments for October 1, 2012 Through September 30, 2013 State Initial QI allotments for FY 2013 Number of
  • individuals 3
  • (000s)
  • Percentage
  • of total
  • Col B/
  • Tot. Col B
  • Initial QI
  • allotment
  • Col C ×
  • $765,000,000
  • FY 2013
  • estimated QI
  • expenditures 1
  • Need
  • (difference)
  • If E > D,
  • E − D
  • Percentage of total
  • need
  • states
  • F/(tot. of F)
  • Reduction
  • pool for
  • non-need
  • states
  • If D >= E,
  • D − E
  • Percentage of total
  • non-need
  • states H/
  • (tot. of H)
  • Reduction
  • adj. for
  • non-need
  • states
  • Col. I ×
  • $105,466,335
  • Increase
  • adj. for
  • need states
  • Col. G ×
  • $105,466,335
  • Final
  • FY 2013
  • QI
  • allotment 2
  • A B C D E F G H I J K L Alabama 38 2.64 $20,159,501 $22,544,081 $2,384,580 2.2610 Need Need Need $2,384,580 $22,544,081 Alaska 2 0.14 1,061,026 326,300 NA NA $734,726 0.4320 $455,613 NA 605,414 Arizona 21 1.46 11,140,777 19,563,390 8,422,614 7.9861 Need Need Need 8,422,614 19,563,390 Arkansas 27 1.87 14,323,856 13,956,348 NA NA 367,508 0.2161 227,896 NA 14,095,960 California 107 7.42 56,764,910 28,189,619 NA NA 28,575,291 16.8015 17,719,883 NA 39,045,026 Colorado 16 1.11 8,488,211 6,005,621 NA NA 2,482,589 1.4597 1,539,484 NA 6,948,727 Connecticut 15 1.04 7,957,698 3,902,339 NA NA 4,055,359 2.3844 2,514,777 NA 5,442,921 Delaware 4 0.28 2,122,053 3,211,361 1,089,308 1.0328 Need Need Need 1,089,308 3,211,361 District of Columbia 2 0.14 1,061,026 0 NA NA 1,061,026 0.6239 657,955 NA 403,071 Florida 96 6.66 50,929,265 72,316,568 21,387,303 20.2788 Need Need Need 21,387,303 72,316,568 Georgia 45 3.12 23,873,093 34,507,397 10,634,304 10.0831 Need Need Need 10,634,304 34,507,397 Hawaii 6 0.42 3,183,079 1,409,689 NA NA 1,773,390 1.0427 1,099,701 NA 2,083,378 Idaho 7 0.49 3,713,592 2,677,626 NA NA 1,035,967 0.6091 642,415 NA 3,071,177 Illinois 68 4.72 36,074,896 24,744,637 NA NA 11,330,259 6.6619 7,026,031 NA 29,048,864 Indiana 43 2.98 22,812,067 5,829,210 NA NA 16,982,857 9.9854 10,531,275 NA 12,280,791 Iowa 16 1.11 8,488,211 4,584,319 NA NA 3,903,892 2.2954 2,420,851 NA 6,067,360 Kansas 18 1.25 9,549,237 5,023,657 NA NA 4,525,580 2.6609 2,806,367 NA 6,742,870 Kentucky 34 2.36 18,037,448 15,065,051 NA NA 2,972,397 1.7477 1,843,219 NA 16,194,229 Louisiana 29 2.01 15,384,882 20,831,932 5,447,049 5.1647 Need Need Need 5,447,049 20,831,932 Maine 7 0.49 3,713,592 6,075,634 2,362,042 2.2396 Need Need Need 2,362,042 6,075,634 Maryland 24 1.66 12,732,316 8,959,072 NA NA 3,773,244 2.2186 2,339,834 NA 10,392,482 Massachusetts 28 1.94 14,854,369 9,694,545 NA NA 5,159,824 3.0338 3,199,669 NA 11,654,700 Michigan 38 2.64 20,159,501 14,816,534 NA NA 5,342,966 3.1415 3,313,238 NA 16,846,263 Minnesota 22 1.53 11,671,290 6,389,653 NA NA 5,281,637 3.1055 3,275,207 NA 8,396,083 Mississippi 18 1.25 9,549,237 15,212,658 5,663,421 5.3699 Need Need Need 5,663,421 15,212,658 Missouri 39 2.70 20,690,014 4,395,160 NA NA 16,294,854 9.5809 10,104,636 NA 10,585,377 Montana 6 0.42 3,183,079 1,543,785 NA NA 1,639,294 0.9639 1,016,546 NA 2,166,533 Nebraska 6 0.42 3,183,079 2,283,431 NA NA 899,648 0.5290 557,882 NA 2,625,197 Nevada 10 0.69 5,305,132 5,391,707 86,575 0.0821 Need Need Need 86,575 5,391,707 New Hampshire 6 0.42 3,183,079 2,269,086 NA NA 913,993 0.5374 566,778 NA 2,616,301 New Jersey 40 2.77 21,220,527 7,810,549 NA NA 13,409,979 7.8847 8,315,690 NA 12,904,836 New Mexico 9 0.62 4,774,619 4,117,952 NA NA 656,667 0.3861 407,207 NA 4,367,412 New York 85 5.89 45,093,620 46,198,147 1,104,527 1.0473 Need Need Need 1,104,527 46,198,147 North Carolina 38 2.64 20,159,501 29,670,994 9,511,493 9.0185 Need Need Need 9,511,493 29,670,994 North Dakota 3 0.21 1,591,540 670,202 NA NA 921,338 0.5417 571,333 NA 1,020,207 Ohio 54 3.74 28,647,712 26,381,913 NA NA 2,265,799 1.3322 1,405,049 NA 27,242,662 Oklahoma 27 1.87 14,323,856 10,320,039 NA NA 4,003,816 2.3541 2,482,815 NA 11,841,041 Oregon 17 1.18 9,018,724 14,297,554 5,278,830 5.0052 Need Need Need 5,278,830 14,297,554 Pennsylvania 78 5.41 41,380,028 33,265,180 NA NA 8,114,848 4.7713 5,032,115 NA 36,347,913 Rhode Island 6 0.42 3,183,079 2,439,790 NA NA 743,289 0.4370 460,923 NA 2,722,156 South Carolina 33 2.29 17,506,935 14,903,998 NA NA 2,602,937 1.5305 1,614,113 NA 15,892,822 South Dakota 4 0.28 2,122,053 1,623,719 NA NA 498,334 0.2930 309,023 NA 1,813,030 Tennessee 48 3.33 25,464,632 31,271,663 5,807,030 5.5061 Need Need Need 5,807,030 31,271,663 Texas 106 7.35 56,234,397 78,081,412 21,847,015 20.7147 Need Need Need 21,847,015 78,081,412 Utah 6 0.42 3,183,079 2,018,266 NA NA 1,164,813 0.6849 722,315 NA 2,460,765 Vermont 2 0.14 1,061,026 3,574,197 2,513,171 2.3829 Need Need Need 2,513,171 3,574,197 Virginia 23 1.60 12,201,803 14,128,876 1,927,073 1.8272 Need Need Need 1,927,073 14,128,876 Washington 23 1.60 12,201,803 5,963,337 NA NA 6,238,466 3.6680 3,868,548 NA 8,333,255 West Virginia 17 1.18 9,018,724 6,218,910 NA NA 2,799,814 1.6462 1,736,199 NA 7,282,525 Wisconsin 22 1.53 11,671,290 4,839,536 NA NA 6,831,754 4.0169 4,236,453 NA 7,434,837 Wyoming 3 0.21 1,591,540 873,450 NA NA 718,090 0.4222 445,296 NA 1,146,244 Total 1,442 100.00 765,000,000 700,390,091 105,466,335 100.0000 170,076,244 100.0000 105,466,335 105,466,335 765,000,000 Footnotes: 1 FY 2013 Estimates from July 2013 CMS Survey of States; Estimates Are For Months October 2012 Through September 2013. 2 For Need States, Final FY 2013 QI Allotment is equal to Initial QI Allotment in Column D increased by amount in Column K; For Non-Need States, Final FY 2013 QI Allotment is equal to Initial QI Allotment in Column D reduced by amount in Column J. 3 Three-year average (2009-2011) of number (000) of Medicare beneficiaries in State who are not enrolled in Medicaid but whose incomes are at least 120% but less than 135% of Federal poverty level. Source: Census Bureau Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the 2012 Current Population Survey (CPS).
    Table 2—Preliminary Qualifying Individuals Allotments for October 1, 2013 Through September 30, 2014 State Initial QI allotments for FY 2014 Number of individuals 3
  • (000s)
  • Percentage of total
  • Col B/tot. Col B
  • Initial QI
  • allotment
  • Col C × $785,000,000
  • FY 2014
  • estimated QI
  • expenditures 1
  • Need
  • (difference)
  • if E > D,
  • E−D
  • Percentage of total need states
  • F/(tot. of F)
  • Reduction pool for non-need states
  • if D >= E,
  • D − E
  • Percent of total non-need states
  • H/(tot. of H)
  • Reduction adj. for non-need states
  • Col. I × $116,087,180
  • Increase adj. for need states
  • Col. G × $116,087,180
  • Preliminary FY 2014 QI allotment 2
    A B C D E F G H I J K L Alabama 33 2.13 $16,756,145 $24,304,910 $7,548,766 6.5027 Need Need Need $7,548,766 $24,304,910 Alaska 2 0.13 1,015,524 374,073 NA NA $641,451 0.4288 $497,751 NA 517,772 Arizona 29 1.88 14,725,097 21,719,024 6,993,927 6.0247 Need Need Need 6,993,927 21,719,024 Arkansas 25 1.62 12,694,049 14,283,289 1,589,240 1.3690 Need Need Need 1,589,240 14,283,289 California 130 8.41 66,009,056 29,497,236 NA NA 36,511,819 24.4061 28,332,367 NA 37,676,689 Colorado 12 0.78 6,093,144 6,744,021 650,877 0.5607 Need Need Need 650,877 6,744,021 Connecticut 15 0.97 7,616,429 5,030,002 NA NA 2,586,428 1.7289 2,007,011 NA 5,609,418 Delaware 5 0.32 2,538,810 3,208,262 669,452 0.5767 Need Need Need 669,452 3,208,262 District of Columbia 2 0.13 1,015,524 0 NA NA 1,015,524 0.6788 788,024 NA 227,500 Florida 133 8.60 67,532,342 78,905,990 11,373,648 9.7975 Need Need Need 11,373,648 78,905,990 Georgia 46 2.98 23,357,050 37,475,498 14,118,447 12.1619 Need Need Need 14,118,447 37,475,499 Hawaii 6 0.39 3,046,572 1,472,570 NA NA 1,574,002 1.0521 1,221,391 NA 1,825,181 Idaho 8 0.52 4,062,096 2,684,609 NA NA 1,377,487 0.9208 1,068,899 NA 2,993,196 Illinois 63 4.08 31,989,004 28,168,168 NA NA 3,820,836 2.5540 2,964,885 NA 29,024,119 Indiana 41 2.65 20,818,241 6,077,393 NA NA 14,740,848 9.8534 11,438,573 NA 9,379,668 Iowa 17 1.10 8,631,953 4,924,019 NA NA 3,707,935 2.4785 2,877,276 NA 5,754,678 Kansas 18 1.16 9,139,715 5,698,955 NA NA 3,440,760 2.3000 2,669,954 NA 6,469,761 Kentucky 35 2.26 17,771,669 17,488,089 NA NA 283,580 0.1896 220,052 NA 17,551,617 Louisiana 29 1.88 14,725,097 22,748,614 8,023,517 6.9116 Need Need Need 8,023,517 22,748,614 Maine 7 0.45 3,554,334 7,632,104 4,077,771 3.5127 Need Need Need 4,077,771 7,632,104 Maryland 22 1.42 11,170,763 10,821,904 NA NA 348,860 0.2332 270,707 NA 10,900,056 Massachusetts 27 1.75 13,709,573 10,070,400 NA NA 3,639,173 2.4326 2,823,918 NA 10,885,655 Michigan 37 2.39 18,787,193 18,446,036 NA NA 341,157 0.2280 264,730 NA 18,522,462 Minnesota 18 1.16 9,139,715 6,901,960 NA NA 2,237,755 1.4958 1,736,449 NA 7,403,266 Mississippi 20 1.29 10,155,239 16,214,118 6,058,879 5.2192 Need Need Need 6,058,879 16,214,118 Missouri 44 2.85 22,341,527 6,154,273 NA NA 16,187,253 10.8203 12,560,952 NA 9,780,575 Montana 6 0.39 3,046,572 1,617,663 NA NA 1,428,909 0.9551 1,108,802 NA 1,937,770 Nebraska 7 0.45 3,554,334 2,347,662 NA NA 1,206,672 0.8066 936,351 NA 2,617,983 Nevada 7 0.45 3,554,334 6,220,570 2,666,236 2.2968 Need Need Need 2,666,236 6,220,570 New Hampshire 6 0.39 3,046,572 2,755,828 NA NA 290,744 0.1943 225,611 NA 2,820,961 New Jersey 45 2.91 22,849,288 8,686,979 NA NA 14,162,310 9.4667 10,989,640 NA 11,859,648 New Mexico 9 0.58 4,569,858 4,491,904 NA NA 77,953 0.0521 60,490 NA 4,509,368 New York 102 6.60 51,791,721 47,248,495 NA NA 4,543,226 3.0369 3,525,443 NA 48,266,278 North Carolina 48 3.10 24,372,574 31,199,358 6,826,784 5.8807 Need Need Need 6,826,784 31,199,358 North Dakota 4 0.26 2,031,048 708,704 NA NA 1,322,343 0.8839 1,026,109 NA 1,004,938 Ohio 59 3.82 29,957,956 27,260,048 NA NA 2,697,908 1.8034 2,093,517 NA 27,864,439 Oklahoma 23 1.49 11,678,525 11,187,585 NA NA 490,940 0.3282 380,959 NA 11,297,566 Oregon 16 1.03 8,124,191 16,228,030 8,103,839 6.9808 Need Need Need 8,103,839 16,228,030 Pennsylvania 83 5.37 42,144,243 33,836,544 NA NA 8,307,699 5.5532 6,446,591 NA 35,697,652 Rhode Island 5 0.32 2,538,810 2,519,698 NA NA 19,112 0.0128 14,830 NA 2,523,979 South Carolina 33 2.13 16,756,145 15,105,600 NA NA 1,650,545 1.1033 1,280,786 NA 15,475,358 South Dakota 3 0.19 1,523,286 2,110,798 587,512 0.5061 Need Need Need 587,512 2,110,798 Tennessee 43 2.78 21,833,765 32,496,447 10,662,682 9.1851 Need Need Need 10,662,682 32,496,447 Texas 108 6.99 54,838,292 78,683,812 23,845,519 20.5410 Need Need Need 23,845,519 78,683,813 Utah 7 0.45 3,554,334 2,394,138 NA NA 1,160,196 0.7755 900,286 NA 2,654,047 Vermont 3 0.19 1,523,286 3,813,371 2,290,085 1.9727 Need Need Need 2,290,085 3,813,371 Virginia 33 2.13 16,756,145 14,627,256 NA NA 2,128,889 1.4230 1,651,971 NA 15,104,174 Washington 26 1.68 13,201,811 6,660,311 NA NA 6,541,500 4.3726 5,076,060 NA 8,125,751 West Virginia 20 1.29 10,155,239 6,415,789 NA NA 3,739,450 2.4996 2,901,731 NA 7,253,508 Wisconsin 22 1.42 11,170,763 4,908,586 NA NA 6,262,178 4.1859 4,859,312 NA 6,311,452 Wyoming 4 0.26 2,031,048 915,357 NA NA 1,115,690 0.7458 865,751 NA 1,165,297 Total 1,546 100.00 785,000,000 751,486,048 116,087,180 100.0000 149,601,132 100.0000 116,087,180 116,087,180 785,000,000 Footnotes: 1 FY 2014 Estimates in Column E are from July 2013 CMS Survey of States; Estimates are for months October 2013 through September 2014. 2 For Need States, Preliminary FY 2014 QI Allotment is equal to Initial QI Allotment in Column D increased by amount in Column K; For Non-Need States, Preliminary FY 2014 QI Allotment is equal to Initial QI Allotment in Column D reduced by amount in Column J. 3 Three-year average (2010-2012) of number (000) of Medicare beneficiaries in State who are not enrolled in Medicaid but whose incomes are at least 120% but less than 135% of Federal poverty level. Source: Census Bureau Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the 2012 Current Population Survey (CPS).

    The following describes the information contained in the columns of Table 1 and Table 2:

    Column A—State. Column A shows the name of each state. Columns B through D show the determination of an Initial QI Allotment for FY 2013 (Table 1) or FY 2014 (Table 2) for each state, based only on the indicated Census Bureau data.

    Column B—Number of Individuals. Column B contains the estimated average number of Medicare beneficiaries for each state that are not covered by Medicaid whose family income is at least 120 but less than 135 percent of the federal poverty level. With respect to the final FY 2013 QI allotment (Table1), Column B contains the number of such individuals for the years 2009 through 2011, as obtained from the Census Bureau's Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the 2012 Current Population Survey. With respect to the preliminary FY 2014 QI allotment (Table 2), Column B contains the number of such individuals for the years 2010 through 2012, as obtained from the Census Bureau's Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey.

    Column C—Percentage of Total. Column C provides the percentage of the total number of individuals for each state, that is, the Number of Individuals for the state in Column B divided by the sum total of the Number of Individuals for all States in Column B.

    Column D—Initial QI Allotment. Column D contains each state's Initial QI Allotment for FY 2013 (Table 1) or FY 2014 (Chart 2), calculated as the state's Percentage of Total in Column C multiplied by the total amount available nationally for QI allotments for the fiscal year. The total amount available nationally for QI allotments each fiscal year is $765,000,000 for FY 2013 (Table 1) and $785,000,000 for FY 2014 (Table 2).

    Columns E through L show the determination of the States' Final QI Allotments for FY 2013 (Table 1) or Preliminary QI Allotments for FY 2014 (Table 2).

    Column E—FY 2013 or FY 2014 Estimated QI Expenditures. Column E contains the states' estimates of their total QI expenditures for FY 2013 (Table 1) or FY 2014 (Table 2) based on information obtained from states in the summer of 2013 and as updated.

    Column F—Need (Difference). Column F contains the additional amount of QI allotment needed for those states whose estimated expenditures in Column E exceeded their Initial QI allotments in Column D for FY 2013 (Table 1) or for FY 2014 (Table 2) for such states, Column F shows the amount in Column E minus the amount in Column D. For other “Non-Need” states, Column F shows “NA.”

    Column G—Percent of Total Need States. For states whose projected QI expenditures in Column E are greater than their Initial QI allotment in Column D for FY 2013 (Table 1) or FY 2014 (Table 2), respectively, Column G shows the percentage of total need, determined as the amount for each Need State in Column F divided by the sum of the amounts for all states in Column F. For Non-Need states, the entry in Column G is “NA.”

    Column H—Reduction Pool for Non-Need States. Column H shows the amount of the pool of surplus QI allotments for FY 2013 (Table 1) or FY 2014 (Table 2), respectively, for those states that project QI expenditures for the fiscal year that are less than the Initial QI allotment for the fiscal year (referred to as Non-Need states). For states for which the estimates in Column E of QI expenditures for FY 2013 or FY 2014, respectively, are equal to or less than their Initial QI allotments in Column D for FY 2013 or FY 2014, respectively, Column H shows the amount in Column D minus the amount in Column E. For the states with a need, Column H shows “Need.” The reduction pool of excess QI allotments is equal to the sum of the amounts in Column H.

    Column I—Percent of Total Non-Need States. For states whose projected QI expenditures in Column E are less than their Initial QI allotment in Column D for FY 2013 (Table 1) or FY 2014 (Table 2), Column I shows the percentage of the total reduction pool in Column H, determined as the amount for each Non-Need state in Column H divided by the sum of the amounts for all states in Column H. For Need states, the entry in Column I is “Need”.

    Column J—Reduction Adjustment for Non-Need States. Column J shows the amount of adjustment needed to reduce the Initial QI allotments in Column D for FY 2013 (Table 1) or FY 2014 (Table 2) for Non-Need States in order to address the total need shown in Column F. The amount in Column J is determined as the percentage in column I for Non-Need States multiplied by the lesser of the total need in Column F (equal to the sum of Needs in Column F) or the total Reduction Pool in Column H (equal to the sum of the Non-Need amounts in Column H). For Need States, the entry in Column J is “Need.”

    Column K—Increase Adjustment for Need States. Column K shows the amount of adjustment to increase the Initial QI Allotment in Column D for FY 2013 (Table 1) or FY 2014 (Table 2) for Need States in order to address the total need shown for the fiscal year in Column F. The amount in Column K is determined as the percentage in Column G for Need States multiplied by the lesser of the total need in Column F (equal to the sum of Needs in Column F) or the total Reduction Pool in Column H (equal to the sum of the Non-Need amounts in Column H). For Non-Need States, the entry in Column K is “NA.”

    Column L—Final FY 2013 QI Allotment (Chart 1) or Preliminary FY 2014 QI Allotment (Table 2). Column L contains the Final QI Allotment for each state for FY 2013 (Table 1) or the Preliminary QI Allotment for FY 2014 (Table 2). For states that need additional QI allotment amounts for the fiscal year based on Estimated QI Expenditures in Column E as compared to their Initial QI allotments in Column D for the fiscal year (states with a projected need amount are shown in Column F), Column L is equal to the Initial QI allotment in Column D for FY 2013 (Table 1) or FY 2014 (Table 2) plus the amount determined in Column K for Need States. For Non-Need States (states with a projected surplus in Column H), Column L is equal to the QI Allotment in Column D reduced by the Reduction Adjustment amount in Column J.

    III. Collection of Information Requirements

    This notice does not impose any information collection or recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it does not need Office of Management and Budget review under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: April 17, 2015. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dated: May 21, 2015. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13043 Filed 5-28-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-5513-N] Medicare Program; Announcement of Request for Applications for the Million Hearts® Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Model AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice informs interested parties of an opportunity to apply for participation in the Million Hearts® Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Model. The primary goal of this model is to test whether encouraging physician practices to calculate risk for all of the practice's eligible Medicare beneficiaries, using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) 10-year pooled cohort risk calculator will prevent the occurrence of first-time heart attacks and strokes.

    DATES:

    Applications will be considered timely if they are received on or before September 4, 2015 as outlined in the Request for Applications (RFA).

    Note:

    Interested applicants will be required to submit a non-binding Letter of Intent (LOI) to apply for the model.

    ADDRESSES:

    All LOIs must be submitted electronically through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Web site at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Million-Hearts-CVDRRM/. LOIs will be accepted throughout the entire application period, ending September 4, 2015. Applicants will need to use their LOI confirmation number to access the RFA. All applicants will receive a RFA submission confirmation number; it is the applicant's responsibility to retain a copy of the confirmation number for proof of submission.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nina Brown at (410) 786-6103 or email address: [email protected] The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Web site is at http://innovation.cms.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center), within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), was created to test innovative payment and service delivery models to reduce program expenditures while preserving or enhancing the quality of care for Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program beneficiaries.

    We are interested in models designed to improve care for specific populations. One population is Medicare fee-for service (FFS) beneficiaries 18 to 79 years of age who have never had a heart attack or stroke and who are not under hospice care. Current evidence suggests that preventive cardiovascular disease interventions can significantly reduce both adverse cardiovascular-related outcomes and death. The Million Hearts® Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Model (hereinafter referred to as “CVD Risk Reduction Model”) seeks to test whether providing incentives for physician practices to calculate absolute 10-year cardiovascular risk reduction, measured by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 10-year pooled cohort risk calculator, is effective in reducing heart attacks and strokes among Medicare FFS beneficiaries. Intervention group practices will engage in shared decision making, team-based care, and population health management to reduce beneficiaries' absolute risk. Intervention group practices will be required to submit quality data to CMS supported by a per-beneficiary-per-month payment.

    The Innovation Center is operating this model under the authority of section 1115A of the Social Security Act (the act) (42 U.S.C. 1315a) (as added by section 3021 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152), (collectively known as Affordable Care Act)). We will evaluate whether this model reduces the occurrence of heart attacks and strokes as well as Medicare expenditures and enhances the quality of care furnished to Medicare beneficiaries.

    II. Provisions of the Notice

    The RFA is directed to physician practices that include private practices, hospital-owned physician practices, large medical networks, hospital/physician organization, or independent practice associations. Up to 720 practices are expected to participate. Participating practices must meet the following requirements:

    • Practices must have at least one practitioner. Practitioners are defined as Medical Doctors, Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine, Physician Assistants, and Nurse Practitioners.

    • Practices must be using an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) certified electronic health record (EHR) system.

    • Participating physicians or other eligible professionals within the practice must have met the criteria for the Medicare EHR Incentive Programs in performance year 2015, also known as “meaningful use,” of an ONC certified electronic health record.

    Practices selected to participate will be randomized to the intervention group or the control group. Practices randomized to the control group will be required to submit data to CMS at the beginning of the first, second, third and fifth years of the model. Control group practices will receive a one-time payment of $20 per-beneficiary following the successful transmission of data to CMS on eligible beneficiaries within their practices. Practices randomized to the control group will receive no further funding beyond this one-time payment.

    Practices randomized to the intervention group will be paid a one-time upfront payment of $10 per-beneficiary to conduct initial risk stratification for eligible beneficiaries in addition to a $10 per-beneficiary-per-month fee for ongoing monitoring of high-risk FFS Medicare beneficiaries. Starting in the second year of the model, the $10 per-beneficiary-per-month ongoing fee is gradually placed at risk based on a practice's performance managing its “high-risk” beneficiaries.

    Intervention group practices in the CVD Risk Reduction Model will use the ACC/AHA Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) 10-year pooled cohort risk calculator to risk stratify Medicare FFS beneficiaries 18 to 79 years of age meeting the inclusion criteria. Practices will further identify whether beneficiaries are “high-risk” defined by their 10-year ASCVD risk score: A “high risk,” beneficiary is defined as a beneficiary with an ACC/AHA 10-year ASCVD risk score greater than or equal to 30 percent. Once the high risk beneficiaries have been identified, intervention group practices will engage in risk modification and report process and outcome measures of their results. Practices will be required to submit annual data to CMS through a certified Data Registry, which will be provided to participating practices by CMS.

    The CVD Risk Reduction Model period of performance is 5 years. Selected practices will enter into Model Participant Agreements with CMS. Applicants must present evidence that the applicant practices are capable of successfully identifying beneficiaries who meet the CVD Risk Reduction Model eligibility requirements. Applicants must also demonstrate their plans for engaging in shared decision making activities with their beneficiaries. Applicants are required to submit to CMS general beneficiary data, the clinical indicators needed to calculate the 10-year ASCVD risk score, and the cardiovascular Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) measures as outlined in the RFA. Eligible practices will be selected on a first come, first served basis until all 720 spots have been filled. Applications must be submitted timely in the standard format outlined in the CVD Risk Reduction Model RFA in order to be considered for review. Applications that are not received in this format will not be considered for review.

    For more specific details regarding the CVD Risk Reduction Model (including the RFA), we refer applicants to the informational materials on the Innovation Center Web site at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Million-Hearts-CVDRRM/. Applicants are responsible for monitoring the Web site to obtain the most current information available.

    III. Collection of Information Requirements

    Section 1115A(d)(3) of the Social Security Act states that chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), shall not apply to the testing and evaluation of models or expansion of the models under this section. Consequently, there is no need for this document to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).

    Dated: May 15, 2015. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13042 Filed 5-28-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-1804] International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products; Studies To Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach To Establish an Acute Reference Dose; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry (GFI) #232 entitled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose (ARfD)” (VICH GL54). This draft guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). This draft VICH guidance document is intended to address the nature and types of data that can be useful in determining an ARfD for residues of veterinary drugs, the studies that may generate such data, and how the ARfD may be calculated based on these data.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tong Zhou, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-153), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0826, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry #232 entitled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose (ARfD)” (VICH GL54). In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify, and then reduce, differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.

    FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) for several years to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.

    The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the European Commission; European Medicines Evaluation Agency; European Federation of Animal Health; Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products; FDA; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the Animal Health Institute; the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association; the Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics; and the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.

    Six observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the government of Canada, one representative from the industry of Canada, one representative from the government of South Africa, and one representative from the industry of South Africa. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH). An IFAH representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.

    II. Draft Guidance on Studies To Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach To Establish an Acute Reference Dose (ARfD)

    The VICH Steering Committee held a meeting in February 2015 and agreed that the draft guidance document entitled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose (ARfD)” (VICH GL54) should be made available for public comment. This draft VICH guidance document is intended to address the nature and types of data that can be useful in determining an ARfD for residues of veterinary drugs, the studies that may generate such data, and how the ARfD may be calculated based on these data.

    FDA and the VICH Expert Working Group will consider comments about the draft guidance document.

    III. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance, developed under the VICH process, has been revised to conform to FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose (ARfD). It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Action of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.

    V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    VI. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13105 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1960] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; MedWatch: The Food and Drug Administration Medical Products Reporting Program AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected]. All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0291. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    MedWatch: The FDA Medical Products Reporting Program OMB Control Number 0910-0291—Extension I. Background

    To ensure the marketing of safe and effective products, it is critical that postmarketing adverse outcomes and product problems are reported for all FDA-regulated human healthcare products, including drugs (prescription and nonprescription), biologics, medical devices, dietary supplements and other special nutritional products (e.g. infant formula and medical foods), and cosmetics. To facilitate reporting on human medical products (except vaccines) during their postapproval and marketed lifetimes, three forms (collectively known as the MedWatch forms) are available from the Agency. Form FDA 3500 is intended to be used for voluntary (i.e., not mandated by law or regulation) reporting by healthcare professionals. Form FDA 3500B is written in plain language and is intended to be used for voluntary reporting (i.e., not mandated by law or regulation) by consumers (i.e., patients and their caregivers). Form FDA 3500A is used for mandatory reporting (i.e., required by law or regulation). When FDA receives this information from healthcare professionals, patients, or consumers, the report becomes data that will be used to assess and evaluate the risk associated with the product. FDA will then take whatever action is necessary to reduce, mitigate, or eliminate the public's exposure to the risk through regulatory and public health interventions.

    Authorizing Statutes and Codified Regulations

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 353b, 355, 360i, 360l, and 393) and the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) represent the statutory authority for the FDA to collect mandatory adverse event reports from regulated industry on medical products once approved for marketing to monitor the safety of drugs, biologics, medical devices, and dietary supplements. There are no laws or regulations mandating the postmarket reporting for medical foods, infant formula, cosmetics, or tobacco products, and the reporting for these products is done voluntarily.

    Requirements regarding mandatory reporting of adverse events or product problems have been codified in parts 310, 314, 600, and 803 (21 CFR 310, 314, 600, and 803), specifically §§ 310.305, 314.80, 314.98, 600.80, 803.30, 803.50, 803.53, 803.56, and specified in sections 503B, 760, and 761 (21 U.S.C. 379aa and 379aa-1) of the FD&C Act. Mandatory reporting of adverse reactions for human cells, tissues, and cellular- and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) has been codified in 21 CFR 1271.350.

    II. Use of Form 3500 (Voluntary Reporting)

    This voluntary version of the form may be used by healthcare professionals to submit all reports not mandated by Federal law or regulation. Individual health professionals are not required by law or regulation to submit reports to the Agency or the manufacturer with the exception of certain adverse reactions following immunization with vaccines as mandated by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1). Reports for vaccines are not submitted via MedWatch or MedWatch forms, but are submitted to the Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System (see http://vaers.hhs.gov), which is jointly administered by FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Hospitals are not required by Federal law or regulation to submit reports associated with drug products, biological products, or special nutritional products. However, hospitals and other user facilities are required by Federal law to report medical device-related deaths and serious injuries.

    Under Federal law and regulation, section 761(b)(1) of the FD&C Act, a dietary supplement manufacturer, packer, or distributor whose name appears on the label of a dietary supplement marketed in the United States is required to submit to FDA any serious adverse event report it receives regarding use of the dietary supplement in the United States. However, FDA bears the burden to gather and review evidence that a dietary supplement may be adulterated under section 402 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342) after that product is marketed. Therefore, the Agency depends on the voluntary reporting by health professionals, and especially by consumers, of suspected serious adverse events and product quality problems associated with the use of dietary supplements. All dietary supplement reports were previously received by the Agency on paper versions of Form FDA 3500 (or Form FDA 3500B) (by mail or fax). Currently, electronic reports may be sent to the Agency via an online submission route called the Safety Reporting Portal (http://www.safetyreporting.hhs.gov/). In that case, Form FDA 3500 (or Form FDA 3500B) is not used.

    Form FDA 3500 may be used to report to the Agency serious adverse events, product problems, and product use errors and therapeutic failures. The form is provided in both paper and electronic formats. Reporters may mail or fax paper forms to the Agency (a fillable PDF version of the form is available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM163919.pdf) or reporters may electronically submit a report via the MedWatch Online Voluntary Reporting Form (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/). Reporting is supported for drugs, non-vaccine biologicals, medical devices, special nutritional products, cosmetics, and non-prescription (over the counter (OTC)) human drug products marketed without an approved application. The paper form may also be used to submit reports about tobacco products and dietary supplements. Electronic reports for tobacco products and dietary supplements may be submitted to the Agency via an online submission route called the Safety Reporting Portal (http://www.safetyreporting.hhs.gov/).

    III. Use of Form 3500B (Consumer Voluntary Reporting)

    This voluntary version of the form may be used by consumers (i.e. patients and their caregivers) to submit reports not mandated by Federal law or regulation. Individual patients or their caregivers are not required by law or regulation to submit reports to the Agency or the manufacturer.

    FDA supports and encourages direct reporting to the Agency by consumers of suspected serious adverse outcomes and other product problems associated with human medical products, (http://www.fda.gov/Safety/ReportaProblem/default.htm). Since the inception of the MedWatch program, launched in July 1993 by then FDA Commissioner David Kessler, the program has been promoting and facilitating voluntary reporting by both the general public and healthcare professionals. FDA has further encouraged voluntary reporting by requiring inclusion of the MedWatch toll-free phone number or the MedWatch Internet address on all outpatient drug prescriptions dispensed, as mandated by section 17 of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (Pub. L. 107-109).

    On March 25, 2008, section 906 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (Pub. L. 110-85) amended section 502(n) of the FD&C Act and mandated that published direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs include the following statement printed in conspicuous text (this includes vaccine products): “You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch, or call 1-800-FDA-1088.”

    Most private vendors of consumer medication information, the drug product-specific instructions dispensed to consumers at outpatient pharmacies, remind patients to report “side effects” to FDA and provide contact information to permit reporting via the MedWatch process.

    Since 2013, FDA has made available Form FDA 3500B. It was proposed during the previous authorization in 2012 and is a version of Form FDA 3500 that is tailored for consumers and written in plain language (in conformance with the Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ274/pdf/PLAW-111publ274.pdf).

    Form FDA 3500B evolved from several iterations of draft versions, with input from human factors experts, from other regulatory agencies, and with extensive input from consumer advocacy groups and the general public. Form FDA 3500B may be used to report to the Agency adverse events, product problems, and product use errors. The form is provided in both paper and electronic formats. Reporters may mail or fax paper forms to the Agency (a fillable PDF version of the form is available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM349464.pdf) or electronically submit a report via the MedWatch Online Voluntary Reporting Form (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/). Reporting is supported for drugs, non-vaccine biologicals, medical devices, special nutritional products, cosmetics, and non-prescription OTC human drug products marketed without an approved application. The paper form may also be used to submit reports about tobacco products and dietary supplements.

    Electronic reports for tobacco products and dietary supplements may be submitted to the Agency via an online submission route called the Safety Reporting Portal (http://www.safetyreporting.hhs.gov/).

    IV. Use of Form FDA 3500A (Mandatory Version) A. Drug and Biological Products

    In sections 505(b), 505(j) (21 U.S.C. 354(b) and (j)), 503B, and 704 (21 U.S.C. 374) of the FD&C Act, Congress has required that important safety information relating to all human drug products be made available to the FDA so that it can take appropriate action to protect the public health when necessary. Section 702 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 372) authorizes investigational powers to the FDA for enforcement of the FD&C Act. These statutory requirements regarding mandatory reporting have been codified by FDA under parts 310 and 314 (drugs) and 600 (biological products). Mandatory reporting of adverse reactions for HCT/Ps has been codified in § 1271.350.

    B. OTC Monograph Drug Products and Dietary Supplements

    Section 760 of the FD&C Act provides for mandatory safety reporting for non-prescription human drug products marketed without an approved application as described in the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 109-462), which became law on December 22, 2006. The law requires manufacturers, packers, and distributors of nonprescription, OTC human drug products marketed without an approved application (OTC monograph drug products) to submit reports of adverse experiences from domestic sources. The law also requires reports of serious adverse events to be submitted to FDA by manufacturers of dietary supplements.

    C. Postmarketing Safety Reports—Changes in Format Starting in June 2015

    Current requirements specify that postmarketing adverse experience reports must be submitted on paper on Form FDA 3500A (or the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences) I form for serious, unexpected adverse experiences from a foreign source). For the last several years the Agency has accepted electronic submissions in lieu of the paper Form FDA 3500A on the condition they are submitted in a manner that the Agency can process, review, and archive. On June 10, 2014, the Agency issued a final rule entitled “Postmarketing Safety Reports for Human Drug and Biological Products; Electronic Submission Requirements” (79 FR 33072) that requires electronic submission of all mandatory postmarketing safety reports, including individual case safety reports. Entities with mandatory reporting obligations under parts 310 and 314 (drugs) and 600 (biological products) and specified under section 760 of the FD&C Act must implement this rule within 1 year of the issuance date (by June 10, 2015). For more information, go to http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-10/pdf/2014-13480.pdf.

    D. Medical Device Products

    Section 519 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360i) requires manufacturers and importers of devices intended for human use to establish and maintain records, make reports, and provide information, as the Secretary of Health and Human Services may, by regulation, reasonably be required to provide assurance that such devices are not adulterated or misbranded and to otherwise assure its safety and effectiveness. The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), signed into law on November 28, 1990, amends section 519 of the FD&C Act. The amendment requires that user facilities such as hospitals, nursing homes, ambulatory surgical facilities, and outpatient treatment facilities report deaths related to medical devices to FDA and to the manufacturer, if known. Serious illnesses and injuries are to be reported to the manufacturer or to FDA if the manufacturer is not known. These statutory requirements regarding mandatory reporting have been codified by FDA under part 803. Part 803 mandates the use of Form FDA 3500A for reporting to FDA on medical devices. The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA) (Pub. L. 107-250), signed into law October 26, 2002, amended section 519 of the FD&C Act. The MDUFMA amendment (section 303) required FDA to revise the MedWatch forms to facilitate the reporting of information relating to reprocessed single-use devices, including the name of the re-processor and whether the device has been reused.

    V. Proposed Modifications to Existing Forms FDA 3500, 3500A, and 3500B A. General Changes

    The proposed modifications to Forms FDA 3500 and 3500A reflect changes that will bring the forms into conformation, since the previous authorization in 2012, with current regulations, rules, and guidances.

    B. Changes Proposed for Form FDA 3500

    Formatting modifications are proposed to several fields to enhance the clarity and utility of the information collected. In section A2, it is proposed that checkboxes for years, months, weeks, and days be added to permit clarity about the age of the patient. In section A4, it is proposed that checkboxes for pounds (lb) and kilograms (kg) be added to permit clarity about the patient's weight. To permit clarity and utility for the dates being reported, it is proposed that field labels and instructions be modified to ask the reporter to use the format DD-MMM-YYYY. A watermark will be added to the date fields to prompt the reporter to enter data using this format. This proposed change will reduce the data-entry burden for FDA by making the form more easily scanned by the optical character recognition (OCR) software used by the Agency. This change is proposed for all of the date fields on the form including: A2 (Date of Birth), B2 (Death), B3, B4, C (Returned to Manufacturer On), D7, E4 (Expiration Date), E6, and E7.

    In recognition of OMB 1997 Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, and as part of FDA's Action Plan to Enhance the Collection and Availability of Demographic Subgroup Data (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDCAct/SignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/FDASIA/UCM410474.pdf) developed in response to the requirement in section 907 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) of 2012 (Pub. L.112-144), changes are proposed to the location and formatting of the fields containing data about the patient's race. It is proposed that race be deleted from the descriptor in section B, field B7, that requests “Other Relevant History, Including Preexisting Medical Conditions (e.g. allergies, race, pregnancy, smoking and alcohol use, liver/kidney problems, etc.).” Instead, it is proposed that a new race and ethnicity field be added to section A, “Patient Information.” The proposed ethnicity field will be numbered 5a and state “Ethnicity (Check single best answer)” with corresponding checkboxes for “Hispanic/Latino” and “Not Hispanic/Latino.” Adjacent to this field, the “Race” field will be numbered 5b and state “Race (Check all that apply).” It will contain checkboxes for “Asian,” “American Indian or Alaskan Native,” “Black or African American,” “White,” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.”

    Changes are proposed to the location, formatting, and labeling of fields related to the suspect product and its availability for evaluation to allow the product's identifying information to be grouped in one place, and increase the likelihood that this information is entered. In section D, field D1 will be used to request data for “Name and Strength,” “Manufacturer/Compounder,” as well as “Lot #,” and “NDC # or Unique ID #” for up to two suspect medical products.

    In 2013, the Drug Quality and Security Act (Pub. L. 113-54) added new section 503B to the FD&C Act, under which a compounder may elect to become an outsourcing facility by registering with FDA. Outsourcing facilities are required to report adverse events to FDA in accordance with the content and format requirements established through guidance or regulation under § 310.305. In addition to mandatory reporting, many adverse events related to compounded drugs are reported voluntarily by healthcare professionals and consumers. Therefore, FDA is proposing changes to the voluntary versions of the MedWatch forms (i.e. Forms FDA 3500 and 3500B) to improve the ability to rapidly identify reports involving compounded drugs. The existing field (section D, field D1) that contains the descriptor “Manufacturer” will be relabeled “Manufacturer/Compounder.” Correspondingly, a checkbox for “Manufacturer/Compounder” will be added to the existing field (section G, field G4) “Also Reported to.” It is proposed that a new field be added to the section entitled “Suspect Products.” The new field will be numbered and include a descriptor “Is the Product Compounded?” with corresponding checkboxes for “Yes” or “No.”

    The new field will also include a descriptor “Is the Product Over-the-Counter” with corresponding checkboxes for “Yes” or “No.” The instructions to the form will be updated accordingly. The form remains a three-page form with all the main data fields on page one, with instructions for use and a self-addressed, postage-paid return mailer on the reverse side of page one, and page three being a continuation page for additional information should reporters need extra space.

    C. Changes Proposed for Form FDA 3500A

    Formatting modifications are proposed to several fields to enhance the clarity and utility of the information collected. In section A2, it is proposed that checkboxes for years, months, weeks, and days be added to permit clarity about the age of the patient. In section A4, it is proposed that checkboxes for pounds (lb) and kilograms (kg) be added to permit clarity about the patient's weight. To permit clarity and utility for the dates being reported, it is proposed that field labels and instructions be modified to ask the reporter to use the format DD-MMM-YYYY. A watermark will be added to the date fields to prompt the reporter to enter data using this format. This proposed change will reduce the data-entry burden for FDA by making the form more easily scanned by the OCR software used by the Agency. This change is proposed for all of the date fields on the form including: A2 (Date of Birth), B2 (Death), B3, B4, C7, D4 (Expiration Date), D6, D7, D10 (Returned to Manufacturer on), F6, F8, F11, F13, G4, and H4.

    In recognition of OMB's 1997 Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, and as part of FDA's Action Plan to Enhance the Collection and Availability of Demographic Subgroup Data (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDCAct/SignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/FDASIA/UCM410474.pdf) developed in response to the requirement in section 907 of FDASIA, changes are proposed to the location and formatting of the fields containing data about the patient's race. It is proposed that race be deleted from the descriptor in section B, field B7, that requests “Other Relevant History, Including Preexisting Medical Conditions (e.g. allergies, race, pregnancy, smoking and alcohol use, liver/kidney problems, etc.).” Instead, it is proposed that a new race and ethnicity field be added to section A, “Patient Information.” The proposed ethnicity field will be numbered 5a, and state “Ethnicity (Check single best answer)” with corresponding checkboxes for “Hispanic/Latino” and “Not Hispanic/Latino.” Adjacent to this field, the “Race” field will be numbered 5b, and state “Race (Check all that apply).” It will contain checkboxes for “Asian,” “American Indian or Alaskan Native,” “Black or African American,” “White,” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.”

    Changes are proposed to the location, formatting, and labeling of fields related to the suspect product and its availability for evaluation to allow the product's identifying information to be grouped in one place and increase the likelihood that this information is entered. For consistency and clarity, it is proposed that many of the fields in the suspect products sections on Forms FDA 3500 and 3500A be mirrored. For Form FDA 3500A, it is proposed that the current section C, field C1, “Name (Give labeled strength & mfr/labeler),” also be used to request data for “Lot #” and “NDC # or Unique ID #.” Section C, field C1 will be relabeled “Name, Manufacturer/Compounder, Strength.” Proposed field C1 will contain distinct areas for “Name and Strength,” “Manufacturer/Compounder,” “NDC # or Unique ID #,” and “Lot #” for up to two suspect products. Since the information will now be captured in proposed field C1, separate fields for “Lot #” and “NDC #/Unique ID #” (C6 and C9 from the current form) will not be needed. The currently numbered field C2, “Dose, Frequency & Route Used,” will be renumbered C3. It will also be reformatted to have three distinct areas for dose, frequency, and route, respectively, for up to two suspect products. Current field C3, “Therapy Dates,” will be renumbered C4, and current field C4, “Diagnosis for Use,” will be renumbered C5. Current field C5, “Event Abated After Use Stopped or Dose Reduced,” will be renumbered C9, and field C8, “Event Reappeared After Reintroduction?” will be renumbered C10. The field for expiration date will be renumbered C8, and the field for concomitant medical products and therapy dates (current field C10) will be renumbered C2.

    As stated previously, in 2013, the Drug Quality and Security Act added new section 503B to the FD&C Act, under which a compounder may elect to become an outsourcing facility by registering with FDA. Outsourcing facilities are required to report adverse events to FDA in accordance with the content and format requirements established through guidance or regulation under § 310.305. To facilitate implementation of this mandatory reporting requirement, changes will need to be made to the existing Form FDA 3500A. It is proposed that a new field be added to section G1 that contains the descriptor “Compounding Outsourcing Facility 503B?” with a corresponding checkbox for “Yes.” It is also proposed that a new field be added to section C, “Suspect Products.” The new field will be numbered C6 and include a descriptor “Is the Product Compounded?” with corresponding checkboxes for “Yes” or “No” (for up to two suspect products). The instructions to the form will be updated accordingly.

    In addition, a new field numbered C7 will be added and “Is the Product Over-the-Counter?” with corresponding checkboxes for “Yes” or “No” (for up to two suspect products). The instructions to the form will be updated accordingly.

    Additionally, for clarity, in section G, field G5, the area labeled “(A)NDA #” will be split into two separate areas—one for “ANDA #” and one for “NDA #.”

    D. Changes Proposed for Form FDA 3500B

    For consistency, and to improve the quality of the data received, the changes being proposed on the voluntary Form FDA 3500 (for use by healthcare professionals) are also being proposed on the voluntary Form FDA 3500B (for use by consumers). Formatting modifications are being proposed to several fields to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information. In section D, the field entitled “Age (at time the problem occurred) or Birth Date” will be separated into separate fields for age and date of birth. In the field for “Age,” checkboxes for years, months, weeks, and days will be added to permit clarity about the age of the patient. Similarly, for the field in section D labeled “Weight,” checkboxes for pounds (lb) and kilograms (kg) will be added to permit clarity about the patient's weight. The instructions will be modified accordingly. To permit clarity about the dates being reported, field labels and instructions will be modified to ask the reporter to use the format DD-MMM-YYYY. A watermark will be added to the field to prompt the reporter to respond using this format. This will also reduce the data entry burden by making the form more easily scanned by the OCR software used by FDA. All of the date fields on the form will be affected by this proposed change. These include section A (date the problem occurred, death), section B (expiration date, date the person first started taking or using this product, date the person stopped taking or using this product), section C (date the implant was put in, date the implant was taken out), section D (date of birth), and section E (today's date).

    A formatting modification to the field in section D that is currently labeled “Race” is being proposed in recognition of OMB 1997 Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, and as part of FDA's Action Plan to Enhance the Collection and Availability of Demographic Subgroup Data (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDCAct/SignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/FDASIA/UCM410474.pdf) developed in response to the requirement in section 907 of FDASIA. It is proposed that the field be relabeled “Race (Check all that apply)” and contain checkboxes for “Asian,” “American Indian or Alaskan Native,” “Black or African American,” “White,” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.” It is also proposed that the field contain an adjacent area labeled “Ethnicity (Check single best answer)” with corresponding checkboxes for “Hispanic/Latino” and “Not Hispanic/Latino.”

    As discussed previously in this notice, many adverse events related to compounded drugs are reported voluntarily by healthcare professionals and consumers. Therefore, FDA is proposing changes to the voluntary versions of Forms FDA 3500 and 3500B to improve the Agency's ability to rapidly identify reports involving compounded drugs. FDA proposes to add a field to section B with the label “Is the Product Compounded?” and corresponding checkboxes for “Yes” or “No.” FDA also proposes to add a field to section B with the label “Is the Product Over-the-Counter” with corresponding checkboxes for “Yes” or “No.”

    Finally, to improve clarity and to be consistent with Form FDA 3500, FDA proposes to reword the last field of section E that currently asks “May we give your name and contact information to the company that makes the product (manufacturer) to help them evaluate the product?” to “If you do NOT want your identity disclosed to the manufacturer, place an `X' in this box.”

    Items that we proposed in the 60-day notice that have changed: The proposed change to Form FDA 3500 to merge sections C and D has been retracted; therefore, the sections will not be re-sequenced on Form FDA 3500. For the proposed new field “Is product compounded or over-the-counter” (proposed on Forms FDA 3500, 3500A and 3500B), the descriptor “Check all that apply” will be deleted and these will be broken out into two separate questions, in two separate fields, with corresponding “Yes” and “No” checkboxes for up to two suspect products. The proposal to add a new “compounder” checkbox to Form 3500 Field G4 has been retracted. Instead the existing manufacturer checkbox will be relabeled “manufacturer/compounder.” The proposal to add a new field “Product Available for Evaluation?” to the “suspect products” section of the Form FDA 3500A was retracted. The proposed changes outlined above reflect these differences. We have reviewed the name address field for Forms FDA 3500 and 3500A and believe data quality would be improved if separate fields for last name, first name, address, state, ZIP code, and Country were also included instead of one field labeled “name and address” to capture all of that information.

    In the Federal Register of December 11, 2014 (79 FR 73591), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. Four comments were received.

    Comments Affecting All Three FDA Forms (3500, 3500A, 3500B)

    (Comment 1) One commenter recommended the option of an “unknown” check box for race/ethnicity.

    (Response) FDA disagrees with this comment as it is inconsistent with the OMB standards for the classification of Federal data on race and ethnicity.

    (Comment 2) One commenter requested an implementation date of 18 months after publication of the finalized form.

    (Response) FDA will allow sufficient time for implementation.

    Comments Affecting FDA Forms 3500 and 3500A

    (Comment 1) Section G Field 4 and Section C Field 6: We propose to add a third checkbox labeled “unknown” for when this type of information is not received. Rationale: This information may not be received.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. G4 corresponds to “Date Received by Manufacturer” on Form FDA 3500A. This is a required element and the manufacturer should always have this information. C6 corresponds to Lot # on the existing Form FDA 3500A. If this information is unknown the field should be left blank.

    (Comment 2) In Section A1: Along with Patient Identifier, in bracket (first, last) can be added for better identification.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. Capturing this data may discourage people from submitting voluntary reports. The instructions for the form state “Do not use the patient's name or social security number.”

    (Comment 3) In Section A2, Age group can be added.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. The WG believes that the two data elements proposed for age—Age with checkboxes for days, weeks, months, years, and date of birth in the format DD-MMM-YYYY are sufficient to capture this data.

    (Comment 4) In Section A3, after selecting Female, a check box should populate for pregnancy with options Yes, No, UNK. Pregnancy can be removed from section B7.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. The Agency believes pregnancy status is captured sufficiently well through existing field B7.

    (Comment 5) In Section B1, if Product problem check box is selected then only a text box to enter NDC# should come as National Drug Code is required ONLY when reporting a drug product problem. It can be removed from C9.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. Product problem is not limited to drug products, and may include medical devices, biologics, and other products which would not have an associated NDC number.

    (Comment 6) In section B2, Hospitalization—initial or prolonged can be relabeled to only Hospitalization and can have three check boxes; Initial, Prolonged and Hospital discharge summary available. Reporter can select whichever is applicable.

    (Response) FDA Disagrees. We encourage reporters to put more detail about the hospitalization in the narrative text.

    (Comment 7) In section B5, Describe Event or Problem, along with individual event terms, seriousness criteria for each event should be populated, so that event-wise seriousness criteria can be identified.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. An event is considered serious if it meets the regulatory definition, as outlined in §§ 310.305, 314.80, 600.80, 803.3, and 1271.

    Comments Affecting Form FDA 3500

    None.

    Comments Affecting Form FDA 3500A

    (Comment 1) Action taken with drug can be added in section C.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. This information equates to product use stopped or dose reduced, which is already captured on Forms FDA 3500 and 3500A.

    (Comment 2) We propose that the FDA require medical device adverse reporting use the MedDRA dictionary instead of the Patient Problem Codes. Rationale: Currently when reporting adverse events for medical devices, the current dictionary used is the “Patient Problem Codes of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health.” This dictionary is much smaller (~800 terms) than the widely used MedDRA dictionary used when reporting adverse events with drugs (~20.6K terms). Using the MedDRA dictionary in place of the Patient Problem Codes would allow for more accurate recording of patient adverse events.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. FDA will continue to use Patient Problem Codes for medical devices instead of MedDRA coding. While the MedDRA dictionary is able to adequately capture adverse events with drugs, patient problem codes and device problem codes are more effective at capturing device related adverse events.

    (Comment 3) Causality scale can be added in Section C.

    (Response) FDA Disagrees. Causality is not assessed at the reporting level. Refer to §§ 310.305(g), 314.80(k), 600.80(k)(1), and 803.16.

    (Comment 4) In section C10, Concomitant Medical Products and Therapy Dates (Exclude treatment of event), Dose of concomitant drugs should also be included.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. Concomitant medical products are not limited to drug products, and may include medical devices, biologics, and other regulated products. As concomitant products are not suspected to be related to the adverse event, it is not necessary to capture the dose.

    (Comment 5) In Section E1, along with Phone#, Email address can also be included.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. Form FDA 3500A, section E already includes a field for email address, as does Forms FDA 3500, section G, and 3500B. However, we have reviewed the name address field for Forms FDA 3500 and 3500A and believe data quality would be improved if separate fields for last name, first name, address, state, ZIP code, and Country were also included instead of one field labeled “name and address” to capture all of that information.

    Comments Affecting Form 3500B

    (Comment 1) One commenter urged the inclusion of a Spanish version of Form FDA 3500B.

    (Response) FDA agrees with the importance of communicating the benefits and risks of medical products to healthcare providers and patients, especially underrepresented populations, including those with limited English proficiency. FDA's language access plan (http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/MinorityHealth/ucm412582.htm) outlines some of the steps FDA is taking to improve communications with underrepresented populations. FDA's drug safety communications are currently translated into Spanish and are available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm263010.htm. FDA is also working to improve the quality of the data received in adverse event reports received directly from consumers. At this time, FDA plans to focus resources on improving data quality from English-language consumer reports before evaluating how to best handle product experience information from non-English speaking consumers.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden FDA center/21 CFR section/FDA form Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total
    Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research/Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: Form FDA 3500 14,727 1 14,727 0.66 (40 minutes) 9,720 Form FDA 3500A (§§ 310.305, 314.80, 314.98, 600.80, 1271.350) 599 98 58,702 1.21 71,029 Form FDA 3500A (§ 310.305 outsourcing facilities) 50 2 100 1.21 121 Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Form FDA 3500 5,233 1 5,233 0.66 (40 minutes) 3,454 Form 3500A (§ 803) 2,277 296 673,992 1.21 815,530 Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition: Form FDA 3500 1,793 1 1,793 0.66 (40 minutes) 1,183 Form 3500A 1,659 1 1,659 1.21 2,007 Center for Tobacco Products Form FDA 3500 39 1 39 0.66 (40 minutes) 26 All Centers Form FDA 3500B 13,750 1 13,750 0.46 (30 minutes) 6,325 Total 909,395
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13102 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1798] Patient-Focused Drug Development for Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing a public meeting and an opportunity for public comment on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency (AATD). Patient-Focused Drug Development is an FDA performance commitment under the fifth authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V). The public meeting is intended to provide FDA with patients' perspectives on the impact on daily life of AATD. FDA also is seeking patients' perspectives on the available therapies for this disorder.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on September 29, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be received by September 15, 2015. Registration from those individuals interested in presenting comments as part of the panel discussions should be received by July 31, 2015. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on how to register for the meeting. Submit either electronic or written comments by November 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security checks will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara Kass, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, rm. 1125, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-6887, FAX: 301-595-1243, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background on Patient-Focused Drug Development

    FDA has selected AATD as the focus of a public meeting under the Patient-Focused Drug Development initiative. This initiative involves obtaining a better understanding of patients' perspectives on the challenges posed by AATD and the impact of current therapies for this condition. The Patient-Focused Drug Development initiative is being conducted to fulfill FDA performance commitments that are part of the PDUFA reauthorization under Title I of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144). The full set of performance commitments is available on the FDA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm270412.pdf.

    FDA has committed to obtaining the patient perspective on 20 disease areas during the course of PDUFA V. For each disease area, the Agency will conduct a public meeting to discuss the disease and its impact on patients' daily lives, the types of treatment benefits that matter most to patients, and patients' perspectives on the adequacy of the available therapies. These meetings will include participation of FDA review divisions, the relevant patient communities, and other interested stakeholders.

    On April 11, 2013, FDA published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 21613) that announced the disease areas for meetings in fiscal years (FY) 2013-2015, the first 3 years of the 5-year PDUFA V timeframe. The Agency used several criteria outlined in the April 11, 2013, notice to develop the list of disease areas. FDA obtained public comment on the Agency's proposed criteria and potential disease areas through a public docket and a public meeting that was convened on October 25, 2012. In selecting the set of disease areas, FDA carefully considered the public comments received and the perspectives of review divisions at FDA. FDA has initiated a second public process for determining the disease areas for meetings in FY 2016-2017 and published a notice in the Federal Register on October 8, 2014 (79 FR 60857). More information, including the list of disease areas and a general schedule of meetings, is posted on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm326192.htm.

    II. Purpose and Scope of the Meeting

    The purpose of this Patient-Focused Drug Development meeting is to obtain input on the symptoms and other impacts that matter most to patients with AATD. FDA also intends to seek patients' perspectives on current approaches to treating this disorder. FDA expects that this information will come directly from patients, caregivers, and patient advocates.

    Individuals with AATD have low serum levels of Alpha-1-Antitrypsin (AAT, also known as Alpha-1 proteinase inhibitor (A1-PI)) and increased risks of developing a form of chronic obstructive lung disease called emphysema and, less frequently, liver disease. Some AATD patients with emphysema have symptoms of asthma. There are different genetic forms of the disease, but even among people with the same genetic form and similar levels of AAT in their blood, there is tremendous diversity in clinical severity. A substantial percentage of individuals with severe AATD never develop symptomatic lung disease during their lifetimes. Others may develop the first signs and symptoms of lung disease between the ages of approximately 25 and 50 years, or older. Affected individuals often develop emphysema, which is a lung disease caused by damage to the small air sacs in the lung. Progression of emphysema in AATD may lead to respiratory failure, a need for lung transplantation, and eventually death. The only specific medication approved for raising the blood levels of AAT in severe AATD patients with emphysema is weekly intravenous treatment with A1-PI (Human) purified from human blood plasma.

    Severe AATD patients may also develop liver disease as infants, during childhood, or as adults. There is wide variation in the severity of liver disease among affected patients. Currently, no specific therapy for AATD-related liver disease is available other than liver transplantation, so the focus in these patients is on the prevention and management of other types of liver damage.

    The questions that will be asked of patients and patient caregivers at the meeting are provided in this document. The meeting will be divided into two main topics: (1) The effects of Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency that matter most to you, and (2) perspectives on current approaches to treatment. For each topic, a brief patient panel discussion will begin the dialogue. This will be followed by a facilitated discussion inviting comments from other patient and patient caregiver participants. In addition to input generated through this public meeting, FDA is interested in receiving patient input addressing these questions through electronic or written comments, which can be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). For context, please indicate if you are commenting as a patient with AATD or on behalf of a child or loved one.

    Topic 1: The effects of Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency that matter most to you.

    • Of all of the symptoms that you experience because of your condition, which one to three symptoms have the most significant impact on your life? (Examples may include:

    (a) For lung disease: shortness of breath during specific activities or at rest, chronic cough, wheezing, weight loss, exacerbations of particular symptoms;

    (b) For liver disease: abdominal pain, loss of appetite, height and weight concerns.)

    • Are there specific activities that are important to you, but that you cannot do at all, or as well as you would like, because of your condition? Please describe, using specific examples. (Examples may include: Participating in physical activities, attending work/school and family/social activities.)

    • How have your condition and its symptoms changed over time?

    • What worries you most about your condition?

    Topic 2: Perspectives on current approaches to treatment.

    • What are you currently doing to treat your condition or its symptoms? (Examples may include:

    (a) For lung disease: Inhaled bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids, intravenous augmentation therapy with A1-PI (Human) on a regular or intermittent basis;

    (b) For liver disease: Ursodiol.)

    ○ How well do these treatments work for you?

    ○ What are the most significant disadvantages or complications of your current treatments, and how do they affect your daily life?

    ○ How has your treatment changed over time and why?

    ○ What aspects of your condition are not improved by your current treatment regimen?

    ○ What treatment has had the most positive impact on your life?

    • If you could create your ideal treatment, what would it do for you (i.e., what specific things would you look for in an ideal treatment)?

    • If you had the opportunity to consider participating in a clinical trial studying experimental treatments, what things would you consider when deciding whether or not to participate?

    III. Attendance and Registration

    If you wish to attend this meeting, visit https://www.eventbrite.com/e/public-meeting-on-patient-focused-drug-development-for-alpha-1-antitrypsin-deficiency-tickets-15617092143. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may mail or fax your registration information (including name, title, affiliation, address, email address, telephone, and fax numbers) to Barbara Kass (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by September 15, 2015. There is no registration fee for the public meeting. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization based on space limitations. Registrants will receive confirmation once they have been accepted. Registration on the day of the public meeting will be provided on a space available basis beginning at 8 a.m. Those who are unable to attend the meeting in person can register to view a live Web cast of the meeting. You will be asked to indicate in your registration if you plan to attend in person or via the Web cast.

    If you need special accommodations because of disability, please contact Barbara Kass at least 7 days in advance. FDA will post the agenda approximately 5 days before the meeting at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/NewsEvents/MeetingsMeetingsConferences/ucm435242.htm.

    IV. Comments

    Patients and patient caregivers who are interested in presenting comments as part of the panel discussions should register by July 31, 2015. You will be asked to indicate in your registration which topic(s) you wish to address and to send a brief summary of responses to the topic questions to [email protected] by July 31, 2015. Panelists will be notified of their selection soon after August 28, 2015. FDA will try to accommodate all patients and patient caregivers who wish to speak, either through the panel discussion or audience participation; however, the duration of comments may be limited by time constraints.

    Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, interested persons may submit either electronic or written responses to any or all of the questions pertaining to topics 1 and 2 to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. To ensure consideration, submit comments by November 30, 2015. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    V. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/ucm435242.htm and at http://www.regulations.gov. It may also be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13063 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2005-N-0161] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Current Good Manufacturing Practices for Blood and Related Regulations for and Blood Components; and Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and “Lookback” AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled, “Current Good Manufacturing Practices for Blood and Related Regulations for and Blood Components; and Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and `Lookback' ” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 11, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled, “Current Good Manufacturing Practices for Blood and Related Regulations for and Blood Components; and Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and `Lookback' ” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0116. The approval expires on May 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: May 21, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13064 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-1659] Established Conditions: Reportable Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Changes for Approved Drug and Biologic Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Established Conditions: Reportable CMC Changes for Approved Drug and Biologic Products.” The purpose of this guidance is to provide applicants of new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications, and biologic license applications with FDA's current thinking on established conditions (i.e., the chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) information in a submission that would require reporting to FDA if changed for approved drug and biologic products, per the current regulations). This guidance also describes those sections of a common technical document formatted application that typically contain information that meets the definition of established conditions, and provides considerations for managing changes to established conditions over the life cycle of an approved product.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-7800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ashley Boam, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-2400; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Established Conditions: Reportable CMC Changes for Approved Drug and Biologic Products.” The current regulations for drugs and biologics require applicants with approved drug or biologic products to notify FDA about each change in each condition established in the approved application beyond the variations already provided for in the application (see 21 CFR 314.70) or each change in the product, production process, quality controls, equipment, facilities, responsible personnel, or labeling established in the approved license application (see 21 CFR 601.12). FDA guidance documents clarify the recommended reporting mechanism (i.e., supplement, annual report) for postapproval CMC changes. This draft guidance has been developed to address the lack of clarity with respect to what CMC information in an application constitutes an established condition.

    A better understanding of which elements of the CMC information constitute established conditions to FDA and where in an application these are generally expected to be described will allow for a more effective postapproval submission strategy (e.g., effective use of risk management principles in the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Q9, and knowledge management as defined in ICH Q10) by the regulated industry. This will also provide the FDA pathways to better regulate postapproval changes by utilizing more flexibility and risk-based principles, as envisioned by the pharmaceutical product quality initiatives laid out in FDA's “Pharmaceutical Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) for the 21st Century—A Risk Based Approach” (see http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/Manufacturing/QuestionsandAnswersonCurrentGoodManufacturingPracticescGMPforDrugs/UCM071836).

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Established Conditions: Reportable CMC Changes for Approved Drug and Biologic Products.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 211, 314, and 601 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0139, 0910-0001, and 0910-0338, respectively.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13104 Filed 5-29-15; 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 Information Collection Request must be received no later than July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or mail the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Room 10-29, Parklawn Building, 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) 594-4306.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Rural Outreach Benefits Counseling Program Measures OMB No. 0915-XXXX—New.

    Abstract: The Rural Outreach Benefits Counseling Program (Benefits Counseling Program) is authorized by section 330A(e) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 254c(e)), as amended, to “promote rural health care services outreach by expanding the delivery of health care services to include new and enhanced services in rural areas.” The purpose of the 3-year Benefits Counseling Program is to expand outreach, education, and enrollment efforts to eligible uninsured and newly insured individuals and families in rural communities.

    The overarching goals of this grant funding are to coordinate and conduct innovative outreach activities through a strong consortium in order to: (1) Identify and enroll uninsured individuals and families who are eligible for public health insurance, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, and qualified health plans offered through Health Insurance Marketplaces and/or private health insurance plans in rural communities and (2) educate the newly insured individuals and families in rural communities about their health insurance benefits, help connect them to primary care and preventive services to which they now have access, and help them retain their health insurance coverage.

    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 (GPRA) 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) benefits counseling process and outcomes. Several measures will be used for the Benefits Counseling Program. All measures will speak to FORHP's progress toward meeting the goals set.

    Likely Respondents: The respondents will be recipients of the Rural Outreach Benefits Counseling 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 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
    Rural Outreach Benefits Counseling Grant Program Measures 10 1 10 1.5 15 Total 10 1 10 1.5 15

    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.

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13088 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:

    Ryan Asherin, Oregon Health Authority: Based on the report of an investigation conducted by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Ryan Asherin, former Surveillance Officer and Principal Investigator, OHA, Public Health Division engaged in research misconduct in research supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Emerging Infections Program Grant 5U01CI00306-05.

    ORI found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating data that were included in the CDC research record, a manuscript submitted to JAMA Intern Med in January 2013, a published CDC report (CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 61(09):157-162, March 2012), and presentations in 2012 to CDC and at the 11th Biennial Congress of the Anaerobe Society.

    ORI found that the Respondent falsified and/or fabricated fifty-six (56) case report forms (CRFs) while acquiring data on the incidence of Clostridium difficile infections in Klamath County, Oregon. Specifically, the Respondent (1) fabricated responses to multiple questions on the CRFs for patient demographic data, patient health information, and Clostridium difficile infection data, including the diagnoses of toxic megacolon and ileus and the performance of a colectomy, with no evidence in patient medical records to support the responses; and (2) falsified the CRFs by omitting data on the CRFs that clearly were included in patient medical records.

    Mr. Asherin has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement (Agreement) and has voluntarily agreed for a period of two (2) years, beginning on May 12, 2015:

    (1) To have his research supervised; Respondent agrees that prior to submission of an application for U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) support for a research project on which the Respondent's participation is proposed and prior to Respondent's participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of Respondent's duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of Respondent's research contribution; Respondent agrees that he will not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agrees to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;

    (2) that any institution employing him must submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract; and

    (3) to exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.

    Donald Wright, Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13054 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the 2015 Hurricane Sandy Conference: Translating Research Into Practice AGENCY:

    Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) is hereby giving notice that ASPR will convene a Hurricane Sandy Conference: Translating Research into Practice public meeting on August 10-11, 2015. The purpose of the meeting is to broadly share, with interested stakeholders, outcomes of Hurricane Sandy recovery science research and training projects awarded under ASPR FOAs EP-HIT-13-001 and EP-HIT-14-001, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) FOAs TP13-001 and OH13-002, and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) FOAs RFA-ES-13-008 and NOT-ES-13-003. Meeting participants will discuss opportunities to build a community of practice around Hurricane Sandy recovery research and the path forward for translating Hurricane Sandy recovery science research results into practice; highlight Hurricane Sandy recovery science grants as a model for disaster research science preparedness; and demonstrate the benefit of Hurricane Sandy recovery research to the impacted communities.

    DATES:

    The 2015 Hurricane Sandy Conference: Translating Research into Practice is scheduled on August 10 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST and on August 11 from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    New York University's Kimmel Center for University Life, 60 Washington Square South, New York City, NY 10010. Registration is required for public attendance. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting should complete the registration via www.PHE.gov/Research2Practice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please contact [email protected] for additional information.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: Shortly after Hurricane Sandy, ASPR, CDC, and NIEHS each funded a series of two-year research grants and training awards under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-2) that examine the long-term recovery of health systems, communities, and workers in the area of the country hardest hit by the storm. As the projects near completion, ASPR is hosting a public conference to share the research products and outcomes broadly with the impacted communities and other stakeholders.

    Availability of Materials: The meeting agenda and materials will be posted on www.PHE.gov/Research2Practice prior to the meeting.

    Registration for the Public Meeting: Information about registration for the meeting is available at www.PHE.gov/Research2Practice.

    Dated: May 22, 2015. Nicole Lurie, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13050 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health: Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Pilot Effectiveness Studies and Services Research Grants (R34).

    Date: June 15, 2015.

    Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Karen Gavin-Evans, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6153, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2356, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 26, 2015. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13049 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; 60-day Comment Request; National Institute of Mental Health Recruitment and Milestone Reporting System (NIMH) Summary:

    In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

    Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    To Submit Comments And For Further Information: To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Keisha Shropshire, NIMH Project Clearance Liaison, Science Policy and Evaluation Branch, OSPPC, NIMH, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, MSC 9667, Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call 301-443-4335 or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Comment Due Date: Comments received within 60 days of the date of this publication will receive fullest consideration.

    Proposed Collection: The National Institute of Mental Health Recruitment Milestone Reporting System (NIMH); REVISION; OMB Control Number 0925-0697. National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health.

    Need and Use of Information Collection: Recruitment Milestone Reporting (RMR) allows NIMH staff to monitor more accurately the required recruitment of participants in NIMH-sponsored clinical trials and other clinical research studies that plan to enroll 150 or more human subjects in a single study. Clinical studies can have difficulty recruiting, and accurate and timely reporting is the best way to ensure proper use of the grant funds. Investigators develop a recruitment plan that includes tri-yearly milestones for recruitment of the total study population, and for recruitment of racial and ethnic minority participants. Once recruitment is scheduled to begin, investigators report actual progress on recruitment milestones three times per year, by April 1, August 1, and December 1. Studies that fail to meet their milestones may be requested to provide interim monthly reports. The primary use of this information is to ensure that realistic recruitment targets are established from the onset of a project, and that these targets are met throughout the course of the research. By ensuring timely recruitment into clinical research studies, NIMH can reduce the need to extend timelines or supplement funds in order to complete the research project, and potentially increase efficiency in our funding process.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2295.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average time per response
  • (in hours)
  • Annual hour burden
    NIMH Recruitment Milestone Reporting Principal Investigators/Research Assistant 900 3 45/60 2025 NIMH Recruitment Milestone Monthly Report Principal Investigators/Research Assistant 40 9 45/60 270
    Dated: May 21, 2015. Keisha L Shropshire, Project Clearance Liaison, NIMH, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13112 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies AGENCY:

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11970), and subsequently revised in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29908); September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51118); April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644); November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858); December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75122); and on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809).

    A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the Federal Register during the first week of each month. If any laboratory or IITF certification is suspended or revoked, the laboratory or IITF will be omitted from subsequent lists until such time as it is restored to full certification under the Mandatory Guidelines.

    If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.

    This notice is also available on the Internet at http://beta.samhsa.gov/workplace.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, Room 7-1051, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice), 240-276-2610 (fax).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.

    To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.

    Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.

    In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:

    HHS-Certified Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities: Dynacare Medical Laboratories, 6628 50th Street NW., Edmonton, AB Canada T6B 2N7, 780-784-1190. HHS-Certified Laboratories: ACM Medical Laboratory, Inc., 160 Elmgrove Park, Rochester, NY 14624, 585-429-2264. Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc., 345 Hill Ave., Nashville, TN 37210, 615-255-2400, (Formerly: Aegis Sciences Corporation, Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc., Aegis Analytical Laboratories). Alere Toxicology Services, 1111 Newton St., Gretna, LA 70053, 504-361-8989/800-433-3823, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Laboratory Specialists, Inc.). Alere Toxicology Services, 450 Southlake Blvd., Richmond, VA 23236, 804-378-9130, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.; Kroll Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.). Baptist Medical Center-Toxicology Laboratory, 11401 I-30, Little Rock, AR 72209-7056, 501-202-2783, (Formerly: Forensic Toxicology Laboratory Baptist Medical Center). Clinical Reference Lab, 8433 Quivira Road, Lenexa, KS 66215-2802, 800-445-6917. DrugScan, Inc., 200 Precision Road, Suite 200, Horsham, PA 19044, 800-235-4890. Dynacare Medical Laboratories *, A Division of the Gamma-Dynacare Laboratory Partnership, 245 Pall Mall Street, London, ONT, Canada N6A 1P4, 519-679-1630. ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, MS 38655, 662-236-2609. Fortes Laboratories, Inc., 25749 SW Canyon Creek Road, Suite 600, Wilsonville, OR 97070, 503-486-1023. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 7207 N. Gessner Road, Houston, TX 77040, 713-856-8288/800-800-2387. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 69 First Ave., Raritan, NJ 08869, 908-526-2400/800-437-4986, (Formerly: Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.). Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1904 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919-572-6900/800-833-3984, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc., CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.; CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Subsidiary of Roche Biomedical Laboratory; Roche CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Member of the Roche Group). Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1120 Main Street, Southaven, MS 38671, 866-827-8042/800-233-6339, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc.; MedExpress/National Laboratory Center). LabOne, Inc. d/b/a Quest Diagnostics, 10101 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219, 913-888-3927/800-873-8845, (Formerly: Quest Diagnostics Incorporated; LabOne, Inc.; Center for Laboratory Services, a Division of LabOne, Inc.). MedTox Laboratories, Inc., 402 W. County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55112, 651-636-7466/800-832-3244. MetroLab-Legacy Laboratory Services, 1225 NE 2nd Ave., Portland, OR 97232, 503-413-5295/800-950-5295. Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Forensic Toxicology Laboratory, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, 612-725-2088. National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc., 1100 California Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93304, 661-322-4250/800-350-3515.

    One Source Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., 1213 Genoa-Red Bluff, Pasadena, TX 77504, 888-747-3774, (Formerly: University of Texas Medical Branch, Clinical Chemistry Division; UTMB Pathology-Toxicology Laboratory).

    Pacific Toxicology Laboratories, 9348 DeSoto Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, 800-328-6942, (Formerly: Centinela Hospital Airport Toxicology Laboratory). Pathology Associates Medical Laboratories, 110 West Cliff Dr., Spokane, WA 99204, 509-755-8991/800-541-7891x7. Phamatech, Inc., 15175 Innovation Drive, San Diego, CA 92128, 888-635-5840, Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 1777 Montreal Circle, Tucker, GA 30084, 800-729-6432, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories). Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 400 Egypt Road, Norristown, PA 19403, 610-631-4600/877-642-2216, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories). Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 8401 Fallbrook Ave., West Hills, CA 91304, 818-737-6370, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories). Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, 3700650 Westwind Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA 95403, 800-255-2159. Southwest Laboratories, 4625 E. Cotton Center Boulevard, Suite 177, Phoenix, AZ 85040, 602-438-8507/800-279-0027. STERLING Reference Laboratories, 2617 East L Street, Tacoma, Washington 98421, 800-442-0438. U.S. Army Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory, 2490 Wilson St., Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-5235, 301-677-7085. * The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.

    Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (Federal Register, July 16, 1996) as meeting the minimum standards of the Mandatory Guidelines published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809). After receiving DOT certification, the laboratory will be included in the monthly list of HHS-certified laboratories and participate in the NLCP certification maintenance program.

    Janine Denis Cook, Chemist, Division of Workplace Programs, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13083 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of February 25, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on February 25, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for February 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 101 20th Street South, Texas City, TX 77590, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API Chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-01 ASTM D-287 Standard test method for API gravity of crude Petroleum & Petroleum products (Hydrometer Method). 27-02 ASTM D-1298 Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method. 27-03 ASTM D-4006 Standard test method for water in crude oil by distillation. 27-04 ASTM D-95 Standard test method for water in petroleum products and bituminous materials by distillation. 27-05 ASTM D-4928 Standard test method for water in crude oils by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration. 27-06 ASTM D-473 Standard test method for sediment in crude oils and fuel oils by the extraction method. 27-07 ASTM D-4807 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oil by Membrane Filtration. 27-08 ASTM D-86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products. 27-11 ASTM D-445 Standard test method for kinematic viscosity of transparent and opaque liquids (and calculations of dynamic viscosity). 27-13 ASTM D-4294 Standard test method for sulfur in petroleum and petroleum products by energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometry. 27-48 ASTM D-4052 Standard test method for density and relative density of liquids by digital density meter. 27-50 ASTM D-93 Standard test methods for flash point by Penske-Martens Closed Cup Tester.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/gaulist_3.pdf

    Dated: May 22, 2015. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13071 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [CIS No. 2559-15; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2013-0006] RIN 1615-ZB38 Extension of the Designation of Somalia for Temporary Protected Status AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Through this Notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is extending the designation of Somalia for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months from September 18, 2015, through March 17, 2017.

    The extension allows currently eligible TPS beneficiaries to retain TPS through March 17, 2017, so long as they otherwise continue to meet the eligibility requirements for TPS. The Secretary has determined that an extension is warranted because the conditions in Somalia that prompted the TPS designation continue to be met. There continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in Somalia due to ongoing armed conflict that would pose a serious threat to the personal safety of returning Somali nationals, as well as extraordinary and temporary conditions in the country that prevent Somali nationals from returning to Somalia in safety. The Secretary has also determined that permitting eligible Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is not contrary to the national interest of the United States.

    Through this Notice, DHS also sets forth procedures necessary for nationals of Somalia (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Somalia) to re-register for TPS and to apply for renewal of their Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Re-registration is limited to persons who have previously registered for TPS under the designation of Somalia and whose applications have been granted. Certain nationals of Somalia (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Somalia) who have not previously applied for TPS may be eligible to apply under the late initial registration provisions, if they meet: (1) At least one of the late initial filing criteria; and (2) all TPS eligibility criteria (including continuous residence in the United States since May 1, 2012, and continuous physical presence in the United States since September 18, 2012).

    For individuals who have already been granted TPS under the Somalia designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from June 1, 2015 through July 31, 2015. USCIS will issue new EADs with a March 17, 2017 expiration date to eligible Somalia TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs under this extension.

    DATES:

    The 18-month extension of the TPS designation of Somalia is effective September 18, 2015, and will remain in effect through March 17, 2017. The 60-day re-registration period runs from June 1, 2015 through July 31, 2015. (Note: It is important for re-registrants to timely re-register during this 60-day re-registration period and not to wait until their EADs expire.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

    • For further information on TPS, including guidance on the application process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at http://www.uscis.gov/tps. You can find specific information about this extension of Somalia's TPS designation by selecting “TPS Designated Country: Somalia” from the menu on the left of the TPS Web page.

    • You can also contact the TPS Operations Program Manager at the Family and Status Branch, Service Center Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2060; or by phone at (202) 272-1533 (this is not a toll-free number). Note: The phone number provided here is solely for questions regarding this TPS Notice. It is not for individual case status inquires.

    • Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833). Service is available in English and Spanish.

    • Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Abbreviations BIA—Board of Immigration Appeals DHS—Department of Homeland Security DOS—Department of State EAD—Employment Authorization Document FNC—Final Nonconfirmation Government—U.S. Government IDP—Internally Displaced Person IJ—Immigration Judge INA—Immigration and Nationality Act OSC—U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices SAVE—USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program Secretary—Secretary of Homeland Security TNC—Tentative Nonconfirmation TPS—Temporary Protected Status TTY—Text Telephone UNHCR—Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees USAID—U.S. Agency for International Development USCIS—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services What is Temporary Protected Status (TPS)?

    • TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or to eligible persons without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country.

    • During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to work and obtain EADs, so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS.

    • TPS beneficiaries may also be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.

    • The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to permanent resident status.

    • When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to the same immigration status they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status has since expired or been terminated), or to any other lawfully obtained immigration status they received while registered for TPS.

    When was Somalia designated for TPS?

    On September 16, 1991, the Attorney General designated Somalia for TPS based on extraordinary and temporary conditions. See 56 FR 46804 (Sept. 16, 1991). The initial designation was extended nine times based on determinations that the conditions warranting the designation continued to be met. On September 4, 2001, the Attorney General extended Somalia's TPS designation for a tenth time and redesignated Somalia for TPS. See 66 FR 46288 (Sept. 4, 2001). Under the 2001 redesignation, the Attorney General revi