Federal Register Vol. 80, No.105,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 105 (June 2, 2015)

Page Range31299-31459
FR Document

80_FR_105
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 31441 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 31445 - International Maritime Organization's Technical Co-operation Committee; Notice of a Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 31448 - Preparations for the Second Session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Subcommittee on Implementation of IMO Instruments; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 31448 - Request for Input for Revisions to the “Know Your Rights” Pamphlet, Also Known as the Wilberforce PamphletPDF
80 FR 31446 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Seven DDTC Information CollectionsPDF
80 FR 31299 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal AwardsPDF
80 FR 31351 - District Export Council Nomination OpportunityPDF
80 FR 31350 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 31332 - Establishing a More Effective Fair Market Rent (FMR) System; Using Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs) in Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of the Current 50th Percentile FMRs; Advanced Notice of Proposed RulemakingPDF
80 FR 31419 - Sunshine Act Meetings: June 2015PDF
80 FR 31456 - Office of Foreign Assets ControlPDF
80 FR 31457 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
80 FR 31458 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 31342 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Definition of Multiple-Award ContractPDF
80 FR 31371 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status InformationPDF
80 FR 31342 - Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 31411 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Agency Executive Compensation InformationPDF
80 FR 31347 - Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Jonah Crab Fishery; Control Date for Jonah Crab FisheryPDF
80 FR 31370 - Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Meeting-June 2015PDF
80 FR 31300 - Safety Zone; Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race, New River; Fort Lauderdale, FLPDF
80 FR 31300 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel, Nassau, NYPDF
80 FR 31458 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 13704PDF
80 FR 31451 - Meeting: RTCA Program Management CommitteePDF
80 FR 31449 - Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 230, Airborne Weather Detection Systems CommitteePDF
80 FR 31449 - Fourteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of Navigation PerformancePDF
80 FR 31449 - Twenty Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 217-Aeronautical Databases Joint With EUROCAE WG-44-Aeronautical DatabasesPDF
80 FR 31386 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Formal Dispute Resolution; Appeals Above the Division LevelPDF
80 FR 31380 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 31376 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 31382 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 31440 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 31426 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 31437 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 31440 - Submission for OMB Review Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 31429 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the Scope of the Definition of “Asset-Backed Security” for Purposes of Reporting to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) SystemPDF
80 FR 31451 - Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 231, TAWSPDF
80 FR 31450 - Sixty-Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 186, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)PDF
80 FR 31418 - Comment Request for Information Collection for the Impact Evaluation of the YouthBuild Program, Extension With RevisionsPDF
80 FR 31419 - Bureau of International Labor Affairs; Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade PolicyPDF
80 FR 31365 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 31367 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2016 and 2018PDF
80 FR 31442 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 31442 - Oklahoma Disaster #OK-00092PDF
80 FR 31443 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 31443 - Nebraska Disaster #NE-00064PDF
80 FR 31444 - Georgia Disaster Number GA-00063PDF
80 FR 31444 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 31441 - Kentucky Disaster Number KY-00052PDF
80 FR 31443 - West Virginia Disaster #WV-00039PDF
80 FR 31445 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 31352 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 31324 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Residential Furnaces and BoilersPDF
80 FR 31366 - President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and UniversitiesPDF
80 FR 31388 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3794PDF
80 FR 31389 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority; Administration for Community LivingPDF
80 FR 31310 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore Training Activities in Virginia and North CarolinaPDF
80 FR 31343 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus Amendment To Simplify Vessel BaselinesPDF
80 FR 31402 - Notice of Correction for Announcement of Requirements and Registration for: “Harnessing Insights From Other Disciplines To Advance Drug Abuse and Addiction Research” ChallengePDF
80 FR 31326 - Trade OptionsPDF
80 FR 31407 - Submission for OMB Review 30-Day Comment Request: DERT Extramural Grantee Data Collection (NIEHS)PDF
80 FR 31454 - Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer ProtectionPDF
80 FR 31375 - Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088407XXPDF
80 FR 31413 - Endangered and Threatened Species Permit ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 31365 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Transshipment Requirements Under the WCPFCPDF
80 FR 31386 - Retrospective Review of Premarket Approval Application Devices; Striking the Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 31349 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 31415 - Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract ActionsPDF
80 FR 31455 - Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMBPDF
80 FR 31350 - Eastern Idaho Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 31384 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987; Policies, Requirements, and Administrative ProceduresPDF
80 FR 31385 - The Food and Drug Administration's Education and Outreach Program Targeting School-Aged ChildrenPDF
80 FR 31299 - Banned Devices; General Provisions; Technical AmendmentPDF
80 FR 31430 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 804.00 of the Listed Company Manual To Specify That Issuers Seeking a Review of a Delisting Decision Made by the Staff of NYSE Regulation, Inc. Must Have Paid All Prior Fees Owed to the ExchangePDF
80 FR 31452 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)PDF
80 FR 31432 - Benefit Street Partners BDC, Inc., et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 31453 - Environmental Impact Statement for Port Bienville Railroad ProjectPDF
80 FR 31381 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 31384 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 31379 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
80 FR 31378 - Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC) and Request for Suggested Meeting Topics for CLIACPDF
80 FR 31381 - Advisory Committee on Immunization PracticesPDF
80 FR 31383 - Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)PDF
80 FR 31368 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 31369 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 31349 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 31384 - Announcement of the Award of a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grant to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, VAPDF
80 FR 31420 - The RBB Fund, Inc., et al.;PDF
80 FR 31439 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.PDF
80 FR 31438 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.PDF
80 FR 31427 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.PDF
80 FR 31419 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and ModifiersPDF
80 FR 31411 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Appeal of Decision Under Section 210 or 245A, Form I-694; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 31303 - Rules of Practice Before the Postal Service Board of Contract AppealsPDF
80 FR 31336 - Privacy Act; ImplementationPDF
80 FR 31379 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 31376 - John T. Barbour t/d/b/a Barbour Auto Group; Barbour Auto Sales; Barbour Shipping; and Barbour Shipping and Transportation Inc.-Possible Violations of the Shipping Act of 1984; Order of Investigation and HearingPDF
80 FR 31376 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10157, First Security National Bank, Norcross, GeorgiaPDF
80 FR 31351 - Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 31406 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 31408 - National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 31410 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 31402 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 31405 - National Institute On Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 31407 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 31408 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 31405 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 31404 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 31410 - National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 31404 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 31410 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 31352 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Cruise Ship Terminal ProjectPDF
80 FR 31338 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Part 3 RulesPDF
80 FR 31305 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Part 3 RulesPDF
80 FR 31415 - Request for Nominations for the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 31402 - Announcement for Request for Comment for: Antimicrobial Resistance Rapid, Point-of-Care Diagnostic Test ChallengePDF
80 FR 31327 - Design Standards for HighwaysPDF
80 FR 31412 - Endangered Species; Recovery Permit ApplicationPDF
80 FR 31338 - Idaho: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program RevisionPDF
80 FR 31309 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Offset Costs (DFARS Case 2015-D028)PDF
80 FR 31325 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop EnginesPDF

Issue

80 105 Tuesday, June 2, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31349 2015-13179
Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-13161 2015-13383 31376-31383 2015-13384 2015-13385 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 31381 2015-13312 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 31379-31382, 31384 2015-13314 2015-13315 2015-13316 Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 31383-31384 2015-13311 Requests for Nominations: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee, 31378 2015-13313 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grants: U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, VA, 31384 2015-13177 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Reynolds Channel, Nassau, NY, 31300 2015-13396 Safety Zones: Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race, New River; Fort Lauderdale, FL, 31300-31303 2015-13401 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Trade Options, 31326-31327 2015-13347 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Offset Costs, 31309-31310 2015-12901 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Definition of Multiple-Award Contract, 31342-31343 2015-13424
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: School Survey on Crime and Safety, 31367-31368 2015-13372 Meetings: President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 31366-31367 2015-13353 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Impact Evaluation of the YouthBuild Program, 31418-31419 2015-13375 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Residential Furnaces and Boilers, 31324 2015-13356
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Michigan; Part 3 Rules, 31305-31309 2015-13118 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Michigan; Part 3 Rules, 31338 2015-13119 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, 31342 2015-13414 State Hazardous Waste Management Programs: Idaho, 31338-31342 2015-12932 NOTICES Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information, 31371-31375 2015-13418 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee, 31370-31371 2015-13406 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Applications for Long-Term Loans or Financial Guarantees in Excess of 100 Million Dollars, 31375-31376 2015-13344 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Pratt and Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop Engines, 31325-31326 2015-12768 NOTICES Meetings: RTCA Program Management Committee, 31451 2015-13390 RTCA Special Committee 186, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, 31450 2015-13376 RTCA Special Committee 217—Aeronautical Databases Joint With EUROCAE WG-44—Aeronautical Databases, 31449 2015-13387 RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of Navigation Performance, 31449-31450 2015-13388 RTCA Special Committee 230, Airborne Weather Detection Systems Committee, 31449 2015-13389 RTCA Special Committee 231, TAWS, 31451-31452 2015-13377 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receiverships: First Security National Bank Norcross, GA, 31376 2015-13155 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 31368-31370 2015-13309 2015-13310 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration PROPOSED RULES Design Standards for Highways, 31327-31332 2015-13097 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Investigations and Hearings: John T. Barbour t/d/b/a Barbour Auto Group; Barbour Auto Sales; et al.; Shipping Act Violations, 31376 2015-13157 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Commercial Driver's License Standards; Exemption Applications: Daimler Trucks North America, 31452-31453 2015-13324 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Port Bienville Railroad Project, 31453-31454 2015-13317 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered Species Recovery Permit Application, 31412-31413 2015-13085 Permits: Endangered and Threatened Species, 31413-31415 2015-13341 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Banned Devices; General Provisions; Technical Amendments, 31299-31300 2015-13329 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Industry on Formal Dispute Resolution; Appeals Above the Division Level, 31386-31388 2015-13386 Guidance for Industry on Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, 31388-31389 2015-13352 Prescription Drug Marketing Act; Policies, Requirements, and Administrative Procedures, 31384-31385 2015-13331 Funding Availability: Education and Outreach Program Targeting School-Aged Children, 31385-31386 2015-13330 Retrospective Review of Premarket Approval Application Devices; Striking the Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection; Corrections, 31386 2015-13337 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 31456-31458 2015-13427 2015-13428 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, 31349-31350 2015-13336 Eastern Idaho Resource Advisory Committee, 31350 2015-13332 General Services General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Definition of Multiple-Award Contract, 31342-31343 2015-13424 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority; Administration for Community Living, 31389-31402 2015-13351
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Establishing a More Effective Fair Market Rent System: Using Small Area Fair Market Rents in Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of the Current 50th Percentile Fair Market Rent Systems, 31332-31336 2015-13430 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Public Housing Agency Executive Compensation Information, 31411-31412 2015-13409 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

National Park Service

See

Reclamation Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31458-31459 2015-13391 2015-13426 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness, 31350-31351 2015-13433 U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, 31351 2015-13154 Requests for Nominations: District Export Council, 31351-31352 2015-13436 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

NOTICES Meetings: Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy, 31419 2015-13374
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Definition of Multiple-Award Contract, 31342-31343 2015-13424 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: DERT Extramural Grantee Data Collection, 31407-31408 2015-13346 Antimicrobial Resistance Rapid, Point-of-Care Diagnostic Test Challenge, 31402-31404 2015-13113 Harnessing Insights From Other Disciplines to Advance Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Challenge: Requirements and Registrations, 31402 2015-13348 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 2015-13140 2015-13144 31404-31406, 31408-31410 2015-13145 2015-13146 National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 31408 2015-13151 National Eye Institute, 31407 2015-13147 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 2015-13141 2015-13142 31404-31405, 31410-31411 2015-13143 National Human Genome Research Institute, 31406-31407 2015-13152 National Institute on Aging, 31402, 31405 2015-13148 2015-13149 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 31410 2015-13150 National Labor National Labor Relations Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31419 2015-13429 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: U.S. Navy Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore Training Activities in Virginia and North Carolina, 31310-31323 2015-13350 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Control Date for Jonah Crab Fishery, 31347-31348 2015-13408 Omnibus Amendment to Simplify Vessel Baselines, 31343-31347 2015-13349 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31352 2015-13359 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Transshipment Requirements Under the WCPFC, 31365 2015-13338 Meetings: Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review, 31365-31366 2015-13373 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Cruise Ship Terminal Project, Hoonah, AK, 31352-31365 2015-13134 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council, 31415 2015-13117 Postal Service Postal Service RULES Rules of Practice: Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals, 31303-31305 2015-13167 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Quarterly Status Reports: Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract Actions, 31415-31418 2015-13334 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-13379 31426-31427, 31437-31438, 31440-31441 2015-13380 2015-13381 2015-13382 Applications: Benefit Street Partners BDC, Inc., et al., 31432-31437 2015-13321 The RBB Fund, Inc., et al., 31420-31426 2015-13176 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31441 2015-13453 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 31429-31430 2015-13378 NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 31427-31429 2015-13173 NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, 31439-31440 2015-13175 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 31419-31420, 31430-31432 2015-13171 2015-13326 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 31438-31439 2015-13174 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-13360 31442-31445 2015-13363 2015-13366 2015-13368 Disaster Declarations: Georgia; Amendment 1, 31444 2015-13364 Kentucky; Amendment 1, 31441-31442 2015-13362 Nebraska, 31443-31444 2015-13365 Oklahoma, 31442 2015-13367 West Virginia, 31443 2015-13361 State Department State Department RULES Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 31299 2015-13437 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31446-31448 2015-13440 Know Your Rights Pamphlet, 31448 2015-13441 Meetings: International Maritime Organization Technical Co-operation Committee; Public Meeting, 31445-31446 2015-13443 Preperation for the International Maritime Organization Subcommittee on Implementation of IMO Instruments, 31448 2015-13442 TDA Trade and Development Agency PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act; Implementation, 31336-31338 2015-13166 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31455-31456 2015-13333 Meetings: Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection, 31454-31455 2015-13345
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31411 2015-13168 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.

80 105 Tuesday, June 2, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF STATE 2 CFR Part 600 22 CFR Parts 135 and 145 [Public Notice: 9160] RIN 1400-AD57 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards AGENCY:

Department of State.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of State (“Department”) finalizes its portion of the uniform federal assistance rule published by the Office of Management and Budget.

DATES:

This rule is effective on June 2, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey D. Johnson, Director, Federal Assistance, 703-812-2526, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On December 19, 2014, the Office of Management and Budget published an interim final rule that provided comprehensive modifications to the principles and requirements for federal awards. 79 FR 75871. The uniform rules were published as 2 CFR part 200. As part of that rulemaking, the Department of State adopted part 200, along with an agency-specific addendum in a new part 600. In addition, the Department removed 22 CFR parts 135 and 145, as they became obsolete with the publication of the interim final rule. See 79 FR at 76019.

The Department received no relevant comments in response to the rule. Therefore, 2 CFR part 600, as described in the interim final rule, is adopted with no changes.

Regulatory Findings

For the regulatory findings regarding this rulemaking, please refer to the analysis prepared by OMB in the interim final rule, which is incorporated herein. 79 FR at 75876.

List of Subjects in 2 CFR Part 600 and 22 CFR Parts 135 and 145

Accounting, Colleges and universities, Grant programs, Hospitals, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, the interim rule adding 2 CFR part 600 and amending 22 CFR parts 135 and 145, which was published at 79 FR 75871 on December 19, 2014, is adopted as a final rule without change.

Dated: May 27, 2015. Jeffrey D. Johnson, Director, Federal Assistance, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-13437 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 895 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0011] Banned Devices; General Provisions; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations to clarify that the Agency will provide an opportunity for an informal hearing in connection with a proposed rule to ban a device with a special effective date. This action is being taken to align the regulations with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).

DATES:

This rule is effective June 2, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ian Ostermiller, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4432, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5678.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FDA is correcting an error in the regulations that set forth the procedures for banning a medical device using a special effective date (§ 895.30 (21 CFR 895.30)). Specifically, the Agency is restoring a phrase that was incorrectly deleted from § 895.30(c). The regulations are being amended to ensure clarity and consistency with the requirements of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.).

In this case, the regulations became inconsistent after the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (SMDA) (Pub. L. 101-629) amended the FD&C Act. Prior to the SMDA, the FD&C Act required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to afford an opportunity for informal hearings about any proposed rule to ban a medical device, regardless of effective date. One of the SMDA's provisions removed the requirement that FDA provide an opportunity for an informal hearing when FDA does not establish a special effective date for a proposed ban.1 However, the SMDA did not eliminate the informal hearing provision for a proposed ban issued with a special effective date. Thus, section 516(b) of the FD&C Act continues to require that FDA “provide reasonable opportunity for an informal hearing” on a proposed ban with a special effective date (21 U.S.C. 360f(b)).

1 Specifically, the SMDA deleted the then-last sentence of section 516(a). See Pub. L. 101-629, section 18(d)(2) (“Section 516(a) (21 U.S.C. 360f(a)) is amended . . . by striking out the last sentence.”); 21 U.S.C. 360f(a) (1989) (stating, in the last sentence, “The Secretary shall afford all interested persons opportunity for an informal hearing on a regulation proposed under this subsection.”).

On December 10, 1992 (57 FR 58400), FDA published a final rule implementing the SMDA. The final rule of 1992 correctly amended 21 CFR 895.21(d), which covers the procedures for issuing a ban without a special effective date, by removing the requirement that FDA provide an opportunity for an informal hearing when there is no special effective date.2 However, the final rule incorrectly removed the same phrase from § 895.30, which covers the procedures for issuing a ban with a special effective date. This rule corrects § 895.30(c) by restoring the incorrectly removed phrase.

2 Although the hearing provision was validly removed from § 895.21(d)(8) in 1992, the removed language erroneously reappeared in the Code of Federal Regulations starting in 1994. On March 5, 2015 (80 FR 11865), the Office of the Federal Register published a correction document fixing this publication error.

FDA finds good cause for issuing this amendment as a final rule without notice and comment because this amendment only corrects the implementing regulation to restate the statute (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). “[W]hen regulations merely restate the statute they implement, notice-and-comment procedures are unnecessary.” Gray Panthers Advocacy Committee v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1284, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); see also Komjathy v. Nat. Trans. Safety Bd., 832 F.2d 1294, 1296 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (when a rule “does no more than repeat, virtually verbatim, the statutory grant of authority,” notice-and-comment procedures are not required). This amendment to § 895.30(c) merely incorporates applicable requirements of the FD&C Act, making notice-and-comment procedures unnecessary in this case. Therefore, publication of this document constitutes final action on this change under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553).

In addition, FDA finds good cause for this amendment to become effective on the date of publication of this action. The APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication as “provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule” (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). A delayed effective date is unnecessary in this case because the amendment to § 895.30 does not impose any new regulatory requirements on affected parties. As a result, affected parties do not need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Therefore, FDA finds good cause for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 895

Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, 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 895 is amended as follows:

PART 895—BANNED DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 895 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 352, 360f, 360h, 360i, 371.

2. Amend § 895.30 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 895.30 Special effective date.

(c) If the Commissioner makes a proposed regulation effective in accordance with this section, the Commissioner will, as expeditiously as possible, give interested persons prompt notice of this action in the Federal Register and will provide an opportunity for an informal hearing in accordance with part 16 of this chapter.

Dated: May 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-13329 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0429] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel, Nassau, NY 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 Long Beach Bridge, across Reynolds Channel, mile 4.7, at Nassau, New York. This temporary deviation is necessary to facilitate the City of Long Beach Annual Fireworks Display. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position during this public event.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0429] 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, contact Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Long Beach Bridge, mile 4.7, across Reynolds Channel has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 22 feet at mean high water and 24 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(g).

Reynolds Channel is transited by commercial fishing and recreational vessel traffic.

Nassau County Department of Public Works requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public event, the City of Long Beach Annual Fireworks Display.

Under this temporary deviation, the Long Beach Bridge may remain in the closed position between 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on July 10, 2015 (rain date July 11, 2015).

There is no alternate route for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open in the event of an emergency.

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

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

Dated: May 21, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-13396 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0024] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race, New River; Fort Lauderdale, FL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida during the Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race, on Saturday, June 13, 2015. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the New River between Esplanade Park and the west side of the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge. Approximately 100 participants will attend the race. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, participant vessels, and the general public during the event. Persons and vessels, except those participating in the event, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule will be effective on June 13, 2015 and enforced from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0024]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. 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 rule, call or email John K. Jennings, Sector Miami Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (305) 535-4317, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to 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 A. Regulatory History and Information

On March 4, 2015, a Notice of proposed rulemaking entitled Safety Zone; Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race, New River; Fort Lauderdale, FL was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 11607). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. The Coast Guard recently received notice that the date for this event had been changed from the posted date of April 18, 2015 to June 13, 2015 and the posted location had been changed from the waters between Esplanade Park to just east of the Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge to the new location of the waters between Esplanade Park and the west side of the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge.

The Coast Guard is issuing this 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 NPRM with respect to this rule because publishing a NPRM would be impracticable. The Coast Guard received updated information about the time of this event on March 10, 2015. Additional details required to implement this rule were not obtained in sufficient time to provide notice and opportunity for comment.

For the same reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

On June 13, 2015, Fort Lauderdale Rotary Club is hosting the Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race. The race will be held on the waters of the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Approximately 100 participants will attend the race. Minimal spectator vessels are expected.

This rule will establish a safety zone that encompasses certain navigable waters of the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida from Esplanade Park to the west side of the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge. The safety zone will be enforced from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. on June 13, 2015.

Non-participant persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

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 Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for 3 hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of non-participant vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone described in this regulation during the respective enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 creation of a safety zone. This rule 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; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add temporary § 165.T07-0024 to read as follows:
§ 165.T07-0024 Safety Zone; Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race, New River, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

(a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a safety zone. All waters of the New River between Esplanade Park to the west side of the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge, contained within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 26°07′10″ N., 80°08′54″ W.; thence southeast to Point 2 in position 26°07′08″ N., 80°08′44″ W.; thence south to Point 3 in position 26°07′06″ N., 80°08′45″ W. thence northwest to Point 4 in position 26°07′09″ N., 80°08′54″ W.; thence north back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

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

(c) Regulations. (1) Non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. Non-participant persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

(2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.

(d) Effective date. This rule will be enforced from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. on June 13, 2015.

Dated: May 22, 2015. A.J. Gould, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2015-13401 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 955 Rules of Practice Before the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals AGENCY:

Postal Service.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This document revises the rules of practice of the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals to implement an electronic filing system.

DATES:

Effective date: July 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Written inquiries may be addressed to Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vice Chairman Gary E. Shapiro, (703) 812-1910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background

The Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) recently has implemented an electronic filing system. Changes to the rules of practice before the Board in 39 CFR part 955 are necessary to accommodate the new system, and to establish rules relative to that system. No other changes to the rules have been made.

B. Explanation of Changes

In § 955.1, concerning jurisdiction, procedure, and service of documents in proceedings before the Board:

• Paragraph (b)(1) is amended to identify the internet address for the electronic filing system.

• Paragraph (c)(3)(ii) is amended to indicate when Board orders and decisions are considered received by the parties in the electronic filing system.

• Paragraph (c)(4) is revised to indicate when documents submitted by parties are considered received by the Board in the electronic filing system, and to clarify other language involving receipt of documents.

• Paragraph (c)(5) is revised to indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

In § 955.2, the heading is revised to Initiation of appeals, and the text is revised to indicate how appeals may be initiated directly by a contractor following implementation of the electronic filing system.

In § 955.4, with regard to the forwarding of appeals, the text is revised to indicate how appeals are initiated when a contractor submits a notice of appeal to a contracting officer following implementation of the electronic filing system.

In § 955.5, concerning the preparation, contents, organization, forwarding, and status of the appeal file:

• Paragraph (a) is revised to eliminate the requirement for the Postal Service's counsel to provide a copy of the appeal file to the appellant, which becomes unnecessary under the electronic filing system, and to clarify the language of paragraph (a)(4) with regard to transcripts and affidavits included in the appeal file.

• Paragraph (b) is revised to eliminate the requirement for the appellant to provide a copy of an appeal file supplement to the Postal Service, which becomes unnecessary under the electronic filing system.

• Paragraph (c) is revised to reflect that appeal file documents submitted in the electronic filing system are not original documents.

• Paragraph (d) is revised to reflect appropriate rules for handling bulky, lengthy or out-of-size documents, and tangible evidence following implementation of the electronic filing system.

In § 955.7, with regard to the procedures required to file pleadings in cases before the Board:

• Paragraph (a) is revised to eliminate the requirement for the appellant to provide a copy of the complaint to the Postal Service, which becomes unnecessary under the electronic filing system.

• Paragraph (b) is revised to eliminate the requirement for the Postal Service to provide a copy of the answer to the appellant, which becomes unnecessary under the electronic filing system.

In § 955.10, with regard to prehearing briefs, a sentence is added to specify the deadline for filing prehearing briefs under the electronic filing system.

In § 955.13, concerning optional small claims and accelerated procedures, language in paragraph (a)(3) is amended to enhance clarity.

In § 955.14, with regard to settling the record, language requiring the availability of the record for inspection at the Board's location is removed from paragraph (a), since the record will be available in the electronic filing system.

In § 955.15, concerning discovery, language is added to paragraph (a) to clarify when discovery requests and responses should be filed under the electronic filing system.

In § 955.26, with regard to the appearance and representation by counsel of parties before the Board:

• Paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to specify that attorneys for appellants and the respondent U.S. Postal Service shall register in the electronic filing system and provide an email address.

• Paragraph (c) is revised to indicate that changes in email addresses or in representation of a party must be entered in the electronic filing system.

In § 955.27, concerning the withdrawal of an attorney, the revised language specifies that a motion or notice to withdraw from representation must include an email address for the person assuming responsibility for representation.

In § 955.29, with regard to decisions of the Board, the first sentence is revised to indicate that the Board will issue decisions through the electronic filing system.

In § 955.36, concerning effective dates and applicability, the revised language specifies that these amended rules will govern proceedings under part 955 docketed on or after July 2, 2015.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 955

Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, 39 CFR part 955 is amended as follows:

PART 955—RULES OF PRACTICE BEFORE THE POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 955 continues to read as follows: Authority:

39 U.S.C. 204, 401; 41 U.S.C. 7101-7109.

2. In § 955.1, revise the second and third sentences of paragraph (b)(1), add a new sentence at the start of paragraph (c)(3)(ii), and revise paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) to read as follows:
§ 955.1 Jurisdiction, procedure, service of documents.

(b) * * *

(1) * * * The Board's telephone number is (703) 812-1900, and its Web site is http://www.about.usps.com/who-we-are/judicial/welcome.htm. The Web site for electronic filing is https://uspsjoe.newdawn.com/justiceweb.

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Unless otherwise specified by the Board, orders and decisions shall be considered received by the parties on the date posted to the electronic filing system. * * *

* * *

(4) Manner of filings. Pleadings and other communications shall be filed using the electronic filing system unless the Board permits otherwise. Documents submitted using that system are considered filed with the Board as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Board are considered filed with the Board on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States postmark. Filings submitted by any other means are considered filed with the Board upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during the Board's working hours (8:45 a.m.-4:45 p.m. Eastern Time).

(5) Service. If both parties to an appeal are participating via the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail with the opposing party by an equally or more expeditious means of transmittal, noting on the document filed with the Board, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been furnished. The filing of a document by fax transmission occurs upon receipt by the Board of the entire legible submission by fax. Copies of simultaneous briefs shall not be filed electronically or otherwise exchanged by the parties but rather shall be filed only with the Board by mail, fax, commercial carrier, on in-person. The Board will distribute simultaneous briefs electronically, or otherwise as appropriate. The Board may determine not to extend a deadline for filing if the extension is necessary solely because the Board's fax machine is busy or otherwise unavailable when a filing is due. Submissions filed by fax shall be followed promptly by filing by mail.

3. Revise § 955.2 to read as follows:
§ 955.2 Initiation of appeals.

An appeal must be initiated by the filing of a notice of appeal (or equivalent). See § 955.1(c)(4). The notice of appeal must be in writing and must be filed within the time specified by applicable law.

4. Revise § 955.4 to read as follows:
§ 955.4 Forwarding of appeals.

If a party seeking to file an appeal submits a notice of appeal to the contracting officer instead of filing it using the electronic filing system, the contracting officer shall indicate thereon the date of receipt and shall forward the notice of appeal, including any envelope or other wrapping indicating the date of mailing, within 10 days to the Postal Service General Counsel's Office. A designee of the General Counsel promptly shall enter the resulting case into the electronic filing system.

5. In § 955.5, revise the first sentence of the introductory text of paragraph (a), and revise paragraph (a)(4), and paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows:
§ 955.5 Preparation, contents, organization, forwarding, and status of appeal file.

(a) * * * Within 30 days from receipt of the Board's docketing notice, or such other period as the Board may order, the respondent's counsel shall file with the Board an appeal file consisting of all documents pertinent to the appeal. * * *

(4) Transcripts of any testimony taken during the course of proceedings, and affidavits or statements of any witnesses on the matter in dispute made prior to the filing of the notice of appeal; and

(b) Duties of the appellant. Within 30 days after receipt of a copy of the appeal file, the appellant shall supplement the appeal file by transmitting to the Board any documents not contained therein considered to be pertinent to the appeal.

(c) Organization of appeal file. Documents in the appeal file or supplement, as applicable shall be arranged in chronological order where practicable, numbered sequentially, tabbed, and indexed, to identify the contents. Page numbering shall be consecutive and continuous from one document to the next, so that the complete file or supplement, as applicable, will consist of one set of consecutively numbered pages.

(d) Lengthy documents. The Board may waive the requirement to exchange or electronically file bulky, lengthy, or out-of-size documents, or tangible evidence in the appeal file on a showing of impracticality or undue burden. Documents or tangible evidence subject to a waiver will be available for inspection at the Board.

6. In § 955.7, revise the first sentence of paragraph (a) and the first sentence of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 955.7 Pleadings.

(a) * * * Within 45 days after receipt of notice of docketing of the appeal, the appellant shall file with the Board a complaint setting forth simple, concise and direct statements of each of its claims, alleging the basis, with appropriate reference to contract provisions, for each claim, and the dollar amount claimed. * * *

(b) * * * Within 30 days from receipt of said complaint, or the aforesaid notice from the Board, the respondent shall prepare and file with the Board an answer thereto, setting forth simple, concise, and direct statements of the respondent's defenses to each claim asserted by the appellant. * * *

7. In § 955.10, revise the final sentence to read as follows:
§ 955.10 Prehearing briefs.

* * * In any case where a prehearing brief is submitted, it shall be filed with the Board at least 15 days prior to the date set for hearing.

8. In § 955.13, revise the first sentence of paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
§ 955.13 Optional Small Claims (Expedited) and Accelerated Procedures.

(a) * * *

(3) In cases proceeding under the Expedited Procedure, the respondent shall file with the Board a copy of the contract, the contracting officer's final decision, and the appellant's claim letter or letters, if any, within ten days from the respondent's first receipt from either the appellant or the Board of a copy of the appellant's notice of election of the Expedited Procedure. * * *

§ 955.14 [Amended]
9. In § 955.14, remove the sentence at the end of paragraph (a).
10. In § 955.15, add a sentence to the end of paragraph (a), to read as follows:
§ 955.15 Discovery.

(a) * * * Except in connection with motions to compel or for a protective order, discovery requests and responses should not be filed with the Board.

11. Revise § 955.26 to read as follows:
§ 955.26 Representation of the parties.

(a) The term appellant means a party that has filed an appeal for resolution by the Board. An individual appellant may appear before the Board in his or her own behalf, a corporation may appear before the Board by an officer thereof, a partnership or joint venture may appear before the Board by a member thereof. Any appellant may appear before the Board by an attorney at law duly licensed in any state, commonwealth, territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia. An attorney representing an appellant shall register in the electronic filing system, and file a notice of appearance. The notice of appearance must include an email address, mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and a jurisdiction in which the attorney is licensed to practice law.

(b) The term respondent means the U.S. Postal Service. Postal Service counsel, who shall be an attorney at law licensed to practice in a state, commonwealth, or territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, designated by the General Counsel, will represent the interest of the Postal Service before the Board. Postal Service counsel shall register in the electronic filing system, and file a written notice of appearance with the Board. The notice of appearance must include an email address, mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and a jurisdiction in which the attorney is licensed to practice law.

(c) References to contractor, appellant, contracting officer, respondent and parties shall include respective counsel for the parties, as soon as appropriate notices of appearance have been filed with the Board. A self-represented party or an attorney representing either party shall inform the Board promptly of any change in his or her email address, mailing address, telephone number, or fax number, and must enter the appropriate changes promptly in the electronic filing system.

12. Revise § 955.27 to read as follows:
§ 955.27 Withdrawal of attorney.

Any attorney for either party who has filed a notice of appearance and who wishes to withdraw from a case must file a motion or notice which includes the name, email address, mailing address, telephone number, and fax number of the person who will assume responsibility for representation of the party in question.

13. In § 955.29, revise the first sentence to read as follows:
§ 955.29 Decisions.

Decisions of the Board will be made in writing and sent to both parties through the electronic filing system, or otherwise as appropriate. * * *

14. Revise § 955.36 to read as follows:
§ 955.36 Effective dates and applicability.

These revised rules govern proceedings under this part docketed on or after July 2, 2015.

Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-13167 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0824; FRL-9928-35-Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Part 3 Rules AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Part 3 rules into the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). On December 13, 2013, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted to EPA for approval revisions to Part 3, Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Particulate Matter (PM), for open burning and electro-static precipitators (ESPs). The revisions for open burning eliminate specific provisions to allow household waste burning, and add a provision to allow for burning of fruit and vegetable storage bins for pest or disease control with specific location limitations. The SIP request also removes rule 330 dealing with operation parameters for electrostatic precipitators because of redundancy, and rule 349 dealing with compliance dates for coke ovens because it is now obsolete. EPA is approving this SIP revision because it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

DATES:

This direct final rule will be effective August 3, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 2, 2015. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0824, by one of the following methods:

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

2. Email: [email protected]

3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0824. 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 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 Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-8290, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. What is EPA's analysis of the Part 3 Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Particulate Matter Revisions?

II. What Action is EPA taking?

III. Incorporation by Reference.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What is EPA's analysis of the Part 3 Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Particulate Matter Revisions? A. Background of Rule 310, 330, and 349

EPA approved the Part 3 open burning rule (rule 310) into the Michigan SIP on November 2, 1988 (53 FR 44189), and amended it on June 28, 2002 (67 FR 43548). The rule prohibits open burning, with exceptions that originally included household waste, structures for fire training, trees, logs, brush and stumps located outside incorporated areas, beekeeping equipment, and logs, charcoal, and brush used for cooking or recreation. Revisions to the rule promulgated by the state on October 8, 2012, further prohibited residential burning of plastic, rubber, foam, chemically treated wood, textiles, electronics, chemicals, or hazardous materials. The revisions also allowed for burning of fruit or vegetable untreated wooden storage bins for disease or pest control, only if the burning did not occur in a class I or II area, in a city or village, or within 1400 feet of a city or village.

Along with the October 8, 2012, revisions to open burning rule 310, Michigan rescinded both rule 330 and 349, electrostatic precipitator control parameters, and coke-oven compliance date, respectively. EPA originally approved rule 330 into the Michigan SIP on May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29790), and most recently approved a revision to it in an update of the Part 3 rules on June 1, 2006 (71 FR 31093). Rule 330 outlined operational parameters for ESPs on cement kilns, kraft recovery boilers, lime kilns, calciners, pulverized coal fired boilers, basic oxygen furnaces, and gypsum dryers, requiring that these electrostatic precipitators have an automatic control system approved by MDEQ. MDEQ found that the rule was redundant and rescinded it on April 1, 2013. MDEQ has provided documentation showing PM emission limits for the facilities subject to rule 330 have not changed, and that proper operation of control devices is still required by rule 910 in the Michigan SIP.

MDEQ also rescinded rule 349, which contained a compliance date of December 31, 1982, for coke ovens to meet requirements outlined in rules 350 and 357. Since the compliance date has long passed, and coke ovens must still comply with rules 350 and 357, MDEQ and EPA find this rule to be obsolete, and no analysis was required by the state.

On October 8, 2012, and March 25, 2013, the MDEQ filed, and the Michigan Secretary of State approved these rule changes in accordance with the provisions of Section 46(1) of Act 306, Public Acts of 1969, as amended, and Executive Order 1995-6. The rules became effective on April 1, 2013. Subsequently, MDEQ published in the May 6, 2013 MDEQ Environmental Calendar, located at http://www.michigan.gov/envcalendar, a public notice addressing revision of the SIP, and asking for public comment if the rules should be incorporated into the SIP. There were no requests for a public hearing, and no public comments were received.

B. Analysis of Revisions to Rules 310, 330, and 349

EPA's approval is based on consideration of whether the revisions to and rescissions of rules meet the requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). In particular, EPA considered whether the changes made to the Part 3 rules in the Michigan SIP will impact Michigan's ability to attain and maintain both the annual PM standard (2012) and the 24-hour PM standard (2006).

Under CAA section 110(l), the state must show that the SIP revision will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of all existing PM standards, which, in the case of revisions to Part 3 of the Michigan SIP, would be the annual standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) promulgated in 2012 and the 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3 promulgated in 2006. Based on the most current three-year monitoring design values (2011-2013), the entire state of Michigan is attaining the annual and 24-hour standard, with annual design values ranging from 5.9 to 11.3 μg/m3, and 24-hour design values ranging from 16 to 26 μg/m3. See EPA's Web site under the Design Values tab for PM, Table 6, at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html; data can also be found in the docket. Initial data from 2012-2014 indicates the entire state continues to attain and PM monitoring values continue to decline, indicating that the 2013 revisions to these rules has not interfered with attainment of the standards.

To support the revisions and address the ability of Michigan to maintain the PM standards in the future with these revisions, the state did a conservative analysis of potential emissions and impacts from the additional open burning of fruit and vegetable crates. MDEQ has estimated annual maximum emissions from these additional sources to be 30 tons per year (tpy) across the entire state.1 The rule only allows open burning of crates happen in rural areas. The highest monitored background concentrations in rural areas are 8μg/m3 for the annual standard and 20μg/m3 for the 24-hour standard. EPA's AERSCREEN tool estimates a maximum localized concentration increase of 3μg/m3. This maximum addition of 3μg/m3 PM2.5 to the highest maximum rural concentration, where burning is allowed, does not cause a violation of either the annual PM2.5 or the 24-hour standard. EPA also considered the air quality impact on urban areas, because the rule does not allow burning in an urban area EPA considered the potential increase to be 0μg/m3, resulting in no increase to the attaining monitored values. Therefore, EPA has concluded that changes to the Michigan SIP 310 Open Burning Rule does not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

1 The state's analysis can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.

For the analysis of the rescission of the ESP operations rule 330, MDEQ provided a list of facilities subject to the ESP operating parameters, which can be found in the docket. EPA has determined that emission limits for either PM or opacity exist for each of the sources, either through permits to install, which are permanent and enforceable construction permits, or the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU (utility MACTs or MATs). Thus, rescission of rule 330 will not affect the obligation of these facilities to continue to meet their PM or opacity emission limits. These existing limits are permanent and enforceable. Further, the utility MACT standards are Federal rules which require installation of the maximum control technology available to the sector at this point in time and, if updated, will reflect greater efficiency and removal as technology evolves. The permits to install are permanent and enforceable and, if the facility would like to change the limits, it must either find offsets (for nonattainment new source review (NSR)) or provide modeling that shows compliance with the NAAQS (for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)/NSR), the same analysis under Section 110(l) of the CAA that the state must use when proposing changes to a SIP. Therefore no future protection of the NAAQS is lost.

EPA has determined that the rescission of this rule will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, as the area is currently attainment and the current emission limits for the facilities that were subject to 330 are not affected by the rescission. EPA has also determined that the rescission will not affect maintenance. MDEQ has demonstrated that any changes to current PM or opacity emission limits in permits will become more stringent through the utility MACTs and that sources will have to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS through modeling or offsets if a permit to install is modified.

EPA finds that the recession of rule 340, compliance date for coke ovens, does not require a 110(l) analysis, since the compliance date has long past, and the rule is obsolete.

EPA has determined that the Michigan SIP revisions are therefore approvable because they meet the requirements of 110(l).

II. What Action is EPA taking?

EPA is approving into the Michigan SIP revisions to Part 3, including the revisions to open burning rule 310, removal of rule 330, ESP operating provisions, and removal of rule 340, compliance date. Specifically, EPA is approving into the SIP R 336.1310 and removing R 336.1330 and R 336.1349. The revisions to Part 3 are approvable, since EPA's analysis under worst case conditions indicates these revisions will not interfere with attaining or maintaining the NAAQS, as prescribed by section 110(l) of the CAA. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan amendment if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective August 3, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by July 2, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of this rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective August 3, 2015.

III. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Michigan Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 as 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).

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 CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, 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 August 3, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: May 18, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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.

2. In § 52.1170 the table in paragraph (c) is amended under “Part 3. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions-Particulate Matter” by: a. Revising the entry for R 336.1310. b. Removing the entries for R 336.1330 and R 336.1349.

The revised text reads as follows:

§ 52.1170 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations Michigan citation Title State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part 3. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Particulate Matter *         *         *         *         *         *         * R 336.1310 Open burning 04/01/13 06/02/15, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-13118 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 225 RIN 0750-AI59 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Offset Costs (DFARS Case 2015-D028) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Interim rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify requirements related to costs associated with indirect offsets under Foreign Military Sales agreements.

    DATES:

    Effective June 2, 2015.

    Comment Date: Comments on the interim rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before August 3, 2015, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2015-D028, using any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “DFARS Case 2015-D028” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2015-D028.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2015-D028” on your attached document.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2015-D028 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark Gomersall, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mark Gomersall, telephone 571-372-6099.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    This interim rule revises DFARS 225.7303-2, “Cost of doing business with a foreign government or an international organization,” by adding paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to provide guidelines to contracting officers when an indirect offset is a condition of a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) acquisition. A reference to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency manual is also updated at DFARS 225.7301.

    This interim rule specifically addresses indirect offsets as they are applied to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's FMS cases.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    DoD administers FMS programs to maintain and strengthen relationships with partner nations. Failure to nurture these relationships may create a threat to national security. DoD's FMS program allows foreign customers to request, and pay for, through inclusion of the cost in the FMS Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) and DoD contract, offsets that are directly related to the FMS end items (i.e., “direct offsets”), as well as offsets that are not directly related to the end item (i.e., “indirect offsets”).

    DoD recognizes the need to have offsets embedded in DoD FMS contracts. However, the decision whether to engage in indirect offsets and the responsibility for negotiating and implementing these offset arrangements ultimately reside with the FMS customer and contractor(s) involved. Thus, the DoD contracting officer is not provided the information necessary to negotiate cost or price of the indirect offsets, particularly with respect to price reasonableness determinations pursuant to FAR part 15. This interim rule provides that under these circumstances, when the provision of an indirect offset is a condition of the FMS acquisition, and provided that the U.S. defense contractor submits to the contracting officer an offset agreement or other substantiating documentation, the indirect offset costs are deemed reasonable for the purposes of FAR part 31.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed, and is summarized as follows:

    The objective of this rule is to provide clarification to contracting officers when indirect offsets are a condition of an FMS acquisition. This rule revises DFARS 225.7303-2, “Cost of doing business with a foreign government or an international organization,” by adding paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to provide guidelines to contracting officers when an indirect offset is a condition of a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) acquisition. This interim rule specifically addresses indirect offsets as they are applied to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's FMS cases.

    This rule does not add any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. This rule does not impose any significant economic burden on small firms because the DFARS amendments merely clarify that contracting officers are not responsible for making a determination of price reasonableness for indirect offset agreements, which are not within their purview.

    DoD did not identify any alternatives that could reduce the burden and still meet the objectives of the rule.

    DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

    DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2015-D028), in correspondence.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    VI. Determination to Issue an Interim Rule

    A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment. DoD administers FMS programs to maintain and strengthen relationships with partner nations. Failure to nurture these relationships may create a threat to national security. This action is necessary because of the recent and foreseeable trend of increasing numbers and complexity of indirect offsets desired by DoD's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers.

    Currently, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 225.7303-2(a)(3)(ii) provides that the U.S. Government assumes no obligation to satisfy or administer the offset requirement or to bear any of the associated costs. However, DFARS 225.7301(b) provides that the U.S. Government conduct FMS acquisitions under the same acquisition and contract management procedures used for other defense acquisitions. This requires the contracting officer to adhere to FAR provisions concerning the negotiation of contracts and subcontracts (FAR part 15) and contract cost principles (FAR part 31), and thus be capable of attesting to the price reasonableness of FMS contracts, including indirect offset costs that are not tied directly to the end item. Contracting officers must follow these regulations even though no DoD appropriated funds are being used to pay for the effort, and DoD contracting officers have no insight to pricing of the indirect offset. In the past several years, compliance with regulations has resulted in an inability of contracting officers to finalize FMS contract negotiations.

    The interim rule affirms that all offset costs that involve benefits provided by a U.S. defense contractor to an FMS customer that are unrelated to the item being purchased under a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA), i.e., indirect offset costs, are deemed reasonable for purposes of FAR part 31. The rule provides that no additional analysis is necessary on the part of the contracting officer, provided that the U.S. defense contractor submits to the contracting officer a signed offset agreement or other documentation showing that the FMS customer has made the provision of an indirect offset of a certain dollar value a condition of the FMS acquisition. Finally, the rule provides that the FMS customer shall be notified through the LOA that indirect offset costs are deemed reasonable without any further analysis by the contracting officer.

    It is essential that DoD implement this interim rule immediately to clarify that contracting officers are not required to make price reasonableness determinations on costs associated with indirect offsets under FMS agreements, which, while included in the FMS contract, fall outside of the DoD contracting officer's purview. Immediate implementation will allow DoD contracting officers to finalize pending negotiations for FMS contracts to support U.S. allies and partners, and maintain bilateral relationships. However, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707 and FAR 1.501-3(b), DoD will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 225

    Government procurement.

    Amy G. Williams, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR part 225 is amended as follows:

    PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 225 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    2. Amend section 225.7301 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    225.7301 General.

    (a) The U.S. Government sells defense articles and services to foreign governments or international organizations through FMS agreements. The agreement is documented in a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) (see the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) Security Assistance Management Manual (DSCA 5105.38-M)).

    3. Amend section 225.7303-2 by— a. Adding a heading to paragraph (a)(3), and revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(3); and b. Adding a new paragraph (a)(3)(iii).

    The revision and additions read as follows:

    225.7303-2 Cost of doing business with a foreign government or an international organization.

    (a) * * *

    (3) Offsets. For additional information see PGI 225.7303-2(a)(3)), and also see 225.7306.

    (iii) All offset costs that involve benefits provided by the U.S. defense contractor to the FMS customer that are unrelated to the item being purchased under the LOA (indirect offset costs) are deemed reasonable for purposes of FAR part 31 with no further analysis necessary on the part of the contracting officer, provided that the U.S. defense contractor submits to the contracting officer a signed offset agreement or other documentation showing that the FMS customer has made the provision of an indirect offset of a certain dollar value a condition of the FMS acquisition. FMS customers are placed on notice through the LOA that indirect offset costs are deemed reasonable without any further analysis by the contracting officer.

    [FR Doc. 2015-12901 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5006-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 218 [Docket No. 140909771-5427-02] RIN 0648-BE51 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore Training Activities in Virginia and North Carolina AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Upon application from the U.S. Navy (Navy), we (the National Marine Fisheries Service) are issuing regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to the Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) training activities conducted in Virginia and North Carolina, from June 2015 through June 2020. These regulations allows us to issue a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of marine mammals during the Navy's specified activities and timeframes, set forth the permissible methods of taking, set forth other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, and set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the incidental take.

    DATES:

    Effective June 2, 2015, through June 2, 2020.

    ADDRESSES:

    To obtain an electronic copy of the Navy's application or other referenced documents, visit the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. Documents cited in this rule may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et se.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-136) amended section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA by removing the “small numbers” and “specified geographic region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as applied to “military readiness activity” to mean: “(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].” (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA.)

    Summary of Request

    On August 20, 2014, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting a letter of authorization (LOA) for the take of bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins incidental to the Navy's JLOTS training activities in nearshore waters at the Joint Expeditionary Base (JEB) Little Creek-Fort Story in Virginia and at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The Navy is requesting regulations that would allow NMFS to authorize take, via a 5-year LOA, of marine mammals incidental to training activities. These activities are classified as military readiness activities. The Navy states that these activities may result in take of marine mammals from noise from temporary pier construction associated with the JLOTS training activities. The Navy requests to take bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins by Level B harassment.

    Specified Activity

    A detailed description of the Navy's proposed JLOTS activities is provided in the proposed rule (80 FR 2636; January 20, 2015) and is not repeated here. No changes were made to the proposed action since the proposed rule was published.

    Comments and Responses

    On January 20, 2015 (80 FR 2636), NMFS published a proposed rule to authorize the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's JLOTS training activities. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and a private citizen. Comments specific to section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and NMFS' analysis of impacts to marine mammals are summarized and addressed below and/or throughout the final rule.

    Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS require the Navy to submit a proposed monitoring plan in support of JLOTS training activities, which at the very least should include a brief synopsis of the projects the Navy plans to conduct, for public review and comment prior to issuance of the final regulations.

    Response 1: The Navy will use the existing Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program and the study-based approach that Navy and NMFS agreed to during a prior adaptive management session to satisfy monitoring requirements for the JLOTS MMPA authorization. The Navy's LOA application provided details on the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Plan, as well as the Web site where the public can obtain further information on all of the Navy's marine species monitoring work (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications).

    To ensure efficient implementation of the Navy's monitoring program and maintain consistency with how the program is already being implemented for the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) MMPA authorization, the same AFTT adaptive management process and reporting deadlines will be used for the JLOTS authorization. In fact, the in-water pile driving associated with JLOTS was originally part of the AFTT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and LOA, and this pile-driving activity and its associated monitoring requirements already went through public review and comment during the AFTT EIS and MMPA process, as JLOTS activities were not removed until the Final Rule and Final EIS stage.

    Table 1 shows Navy projects that help achieve the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program's top level goals. There may be future unforeseen budget or other logistical issues that require modification to study design, scope, or direction of one or more of these projects. However, the Navy has currently either planned for or is currently undertaking these projects as described. The first two projects will investigate the sound source level of pile driving and its effects on marine species and the remaining four projects help advance scientific knowledge of presence, density, distribution, and movement of marine species found in the Chesapeake Bay and along the coasts of Virginia and North Carolina. Information on these projectsand all Navy monitoring projects can be found at http://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/.

    Therefore, NMFS does not believe that an additional monitoring plan in support of JLOTS training activities or additional comment period is warranted.

    Table 1—Navy Monitoring Projects Project description Intermediate scientific objectives Status Title: Responses of Marine Mammals to Vibratory Pile Driving
  • Location: Marine Mammal Program (MMP) Research Facility, San Diego, CA
  • Objectives: Determine potential effects to marine mammals from vibratory pile driving noise
  • Methods: Source measurements and acoustic propagation modelling
  • Performing Organizations: Navy Marine Mammal Program
  • Timeline: 2013-2015.
  • Observe and record potential effects to marine mammals from vibratory pile driving noise. This entails a controlled exposure experiment with the bottlenose dolphin as a representative species. Their behavioral responses are evaluated at various received levels and durations of pre-recorded vibratory pile driving noise playback 2013-14: MMP developed experimental design and performed experimental trials with five dolphins.
  • 2014-2015: MMP conducting trials and analyzing dolphin responses.
  • Title: Sound Source Measurements from Pile Driving
  • Location: Navy installations along the U.S. East Coast
  • Objectives: Determine the source levels produced by impact and vibratory driving of different size and material piles during construction projects
  • Methods: Source measurements and acoustic propagation modelling
  • Performing Organizations: HDR Inc., Illingworth and Rodkin Inc.
  • Timeline: 2012-2015.
  • Measure the sound produced by both vibratory and impact pile driving methods on various types of piles at Navy installations along the U.S. East Coast. This data will support sound source measurement and propagation modelling for assessing the impacts of pile driving Field work 2013-2015.
  • Reports available for measurements at JEB Little Creek, NS Norfolk, and Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
  • Additional measurements to be completed at NS Mayport and SUBASE Kings Bay in 2015.
  • Title: Lower Chesapeake Bay Sea Turtle Tagging and Tracking
  • Location: Hampton Roads.
  • Objectives: Assess occurrence and behavior of loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles in the Chesapeake Bay
  • Methods: Satellite, GPS, and acoustic transmitter tags
  • Performing Organizations: Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center Foundation, NAVFAC Atlantic
  • Timeline: 2013 through 2016—anticipated 3 field seasons.
  • The project will estimate the density of sea turtles in Navy training areas by using a combination of satellite and acoustic transmitters. Satellite tags provide spatial locations, and dive and environmental data, allowing for habitat and home range modeling. The acoustic transmitter data will provide residency time and seasonality. Combination of the two tags types will yield a robust data set, providing greater insight into marine turtle use of the area Field work summers 2013-15.
  • Technical progress reports for 2013 and 2014 are available on Marine Species Monitoring Web site.
  • Title: Occurrence, Distribution, and Density of Marine Mammals Near Naval Station Norfolk and Virginia Beach
  • Location: Hampton Roads coastal Atlantic Ocean, W-50 MINEX training range
  • Objectives: Assess occurrence, seasonality, and stock structure of Tursiops in the coastal waters off military installations
  • Methods: Small vessel visual line transect surveys, photo ID, PAM
  • Performing Organizations: HDR Inc.
  • Timeline: 2012 through 2015.
  • This project will conduct monthly line-transect surveys to determine distribution of marine near Norfolk and Virginia Beach and conduct monthly photo-ID vessel surveys to determine the site fidelity of marine mammals utilizing these areas Field work summers 2013-15
  • Technical progress reports for 2013 and 2014 are available on Marine Species Monitoring Web site.
  • Title: Baseline Monitoring for Marine Mammals in the East Coast Range Complexes
  • Location: Virginia Capes, Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes
  • Objectives: Assess occurrence, habitat associations, density, stock structure, and vocal activity of marine mammal and sea turtle in key areas of Navy range complexes
  • Methods: Aerial and vessel visual surveys, biopsy sampling, photo ID, PAM
  • Performing Organizations: Duke University, UNC Wilmington, University of St. Andrews, Scripps Institute of Oceanography
  • Timeline: Ongoing.
  • This project will use aerial and vessel surveys to determine species and estimate density of marine mammals and sea turtles present in Navy range complexes and will ultimately evaluate trends in distribution and abundance of populations that are regularly exposed to sonar and underwater explosives Ongoing.
  • Began in 2008 as preliminary Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR) baseline monitoring. Yearly reports can be found on the Marine Species Monitoring Web site.
  • Monitoring will continue for FY16 and beyond but plans have not been finalized yet.
  • Title: Mid-Atlantic Humpback Whale Monitoring
  • Location: VACAPEs Range Complex.
  • Objectives: Assess occurrence, habitat use, and baseline behavior of humpback whales in the mid-Atlantic region
  • Methods: Focal follow observational methods, photo ID, biopsy sampling
  • Performing Organizations: HDR Inc.
  • Timeline: 2014 through 2017—anticipated 3 field seasons.
  • This project will establish baseline occurrence and behavior data for humpback whales in the Hampton Roads Mid-Atlantic region through boat surveys, photo ID, and biopsy sampling New start (FY14).
  • First field season winter 2015.
  • Comment 2: A private citizen wrote against NMFS issuing the LOA to the Navy because of concerns that marine mammals will be killed.

    Response 2: As described in detail in the proposed rule (80 FR 2636; January 20, 2015), the Navy's proposed JLOTS training activities would only result in Level B behavioral harassment of bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins. No injury or mortality is expected, and none is authorized.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities

    There are six marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction with possible or known occurrence in the Navy's JLOTS training area at the JEB Little Creek-Fort Story in Virginia and at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, as indicated in Table 2. Four marine mammal species are listed under the Endangered Species Act: North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, sei whale, and fin whale.

    Table 2—Marine Mammal Occurrence Within the JLOTS Training Areas Off the Atlantic Coast Common name Scientific name Status ESA MMPA Stock(s) Stock abundance best (CV)/Min Density in Activity Area 2
  • (per km2)
  • JEB Little Creek-Fort Story Camp Lejeune
    Mysticetes fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E strategic; depleted Western North Atlantic 3,522 (0.27)/2,817 0.00 humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E depleted Gulf of Maine 823 (0)/823 0.000034 0.00009 North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis E strategic; depleted Western North Atlantic 444 (0)/(444) 0.000033 sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E strategic; depleted Nova Scotia 357 (0.52)/236 0.000101 Odontocetes Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella frontalis Western North Atlantic 26,798 (0.66)/16,151 0.0007728 0.153 bottlenose dolphin.3 Tursiops truncatus strategic Northern North Carolina Estuarine System 950 (0.23)/785 0.159 0.169871 strategic Southern North Carolina Estuarine System 2,454 (0.53)/1,614 strategic; depleted Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal 12,482 (0.32)/9,591 * E = endangered under the ESA.

    NMFS has reviewed the information compiled by the Navy on the abundance, status, and distribution of marine mammal species in the waters of the JLOTS training areas of the North Atlantic coast, which was derived from peer reviewed literature, the Navy Marine Resource Assessments, and NMFS Stock Assessment Reports. NMFS considers this information to be the best available. This information may be viewed in the Navy's LOA application and the Navy's EA (see Availability). Additional information is available in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports, which may be viewed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.

    Fin whales, North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, and sei whale are considered rare in the JLOTS training areas. These mysticete whales tend to be distributed in offshore areas. Occurrences of these species in the inshore waters off JEB Little Creek-Fort Story or near shore waters off Camp Lejeune are expected to be rare. Due to their extremely rare occurrence within the training areas where pile driving and removal occur, the Navy and NMFS do not anticipate any take of fin, North Atlantic right, humpback, or sei whales. Therefore, these species are not addressed further in this document.

    Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    When considering the effects of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data. From this, Southall et al. (2007) designated “functional hearing groups” for marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below. It should be noted that animals are less sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and most sensitive to sounds of frequencies towards the middle of their functional hearing range:

    • Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz;

    • Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;

    • High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz;

    • Phocid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz; and

    • Otariid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.

    As mentioned previously in this document, only bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin are likely to occur in the JLOTS training areas. Both of these two species are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007). Because their hearing frequency range overlaps with the frequencies associated with pile driving, the Navy and NMFS determined that in-water pile removal and pile driving during the JLOTS training activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment.

    Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the reduction of hearing sensitivity in the frequency ranges of the sound source (Kastak et al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002; 2005). TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case the reduction of hearing sensitivity is unrecoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's reduction of hearing sensitivity will recover over time (Southall et al. 2007). Since marine mammals depend on acoustic cues for vital biological functions, such as orientation, communication, finding prey, and avoiding predators, hearing impairment could result in the reduced ability of marine mammals to detect or interpret important sounds. Repeated noise exposure that causes TTS could lead to PTS.

    Experiments on a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) showed that exposure to a single watergun impulse at a received level of 207 kPa (or 30 psi) peak-to-peak (p-p), which is equivalent to 228 dB (p-p) re 1 μPa, resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within 4 minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al. 2002). No TTS was observed in the bottlenose dolphin. Although the source level of one hammer strike for pile driving is expected to be much lower than the single watergun impulse cited here, animals being exposed for a prolonged period to repeated hammer strikes could receive more noise exposure in terms of sound exposure level (SEL) than from the single watergun impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1 μPa2-s) in the aforementioned experiment (Finneran et al. 2002).

    Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al. 2009). Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by other sounds, often at similar frequencies. Masking generally occurs when sounds in the environment are louder than, and of a similar frequency as, auditory signals an animal is trying to receive. Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals, such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired.

    Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize. Since noise generated from in-water pile removal and driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have little effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, the lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect the detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds, such as surf and prey noise. The noises may also affect communication signals when those signals occur near the noise band, and thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al. 2009), cause modification in vocalization patterns (e.g., Foote et al. 2004; Holt et al. 2009), and cause increased stress levels (Rolland et al. 2012).

    Masking can potentially impact the species at community, population, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels in the world's oceans have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 3 times, in terms of SPL) from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic noise sources, such as those from vessel traffic and pile removal and driving, contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels, thus intensifying masking.

    The sum of noise from the Navy's JLOTS training activities is confined to a limited area and is temporary and intermittent; therefore, the noise generated is not expected to contribute to increased ocean ambient noise. In addition, due to shallow water depths in the training area, underwater sound propagation of low-frequency sound (which is the major noise source from pile driving) is expected to be poor.

    Finally, in addition to TS and masking, exposure of marine mammals to certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al. 1995), such as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities, such as socializing or feeding; visible startle response or aggressive behavior, such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping; and avoidance of areas where noise sources are located.

    The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant at the population level if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Some of these types of significant behavioral modifications include:

    • Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to be causing beaked whale strandings due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);

    • Extended habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and

    • Extended cessation of feeding or social interaction.

    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography), and is therefore difficult to predict (Southall et al. 2007). In order to give rise to significant/population level effects we would expect that exposures would have to be prolonged and over a large area.

    Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    No permanent impacts to marine mammal habitat are anticipated to occur as a result of the training activities. The Navy's JLOTS training activities would not modify the existing habitat. Therefore, no restoration of the habitat would be necessary. A temporary, small-scale loss of foraging habitat may occur for marine mammals, if the marine mammals leave the area during pile extraction and driving activities.

    Acoustic energy created during pile driving and removal work would have the potential to disturb fish within the vicinity of the training areas. As a result, the affected areas could temporarily lose foraging value to marine mammals. During pile driving, high noise levels may exclude fish from the vicinity of the pile driving. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish will relocate to avoid areas of damaging noise energy. If fish leave the area of disturbance, the affected area may have a temporarily decreased foraging value during impact hammering and vibratory removal of piles.

    The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown. However, the affected area represents an extremely small portion of the total foraging range of marine mammals that may be present in and around the project area.

    Because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or marine mammal populations.

    Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the “permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.”

    The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. The training activities described in the JLOTS LOA application are considered military readiness activities. Details of the mitigation measures are provided below. They have not changed from the mitigation we proposed in the proposed rule.

    Impact Pile Driving Ramp-Up

    Soft starts are performed during impact installation each day. During a soft start, an initial set of strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy is performed before the hammer is able to be operated at full power and speed. The energy reduction of an individual hammer cannot be quantified because they vary by individual driver. Also, the number of strikes will vary at reduced energy because raising the hammer at less than full power and then releasing it results in the hammer “bouncing” as it strikes the pile resulting in multiple “strikes.” A benefit of a soft start is that marine species in the vicinity are provided a “warning,” giving them an opportunity to leave the area at the first occurrence of the noise, prior to full capacity operation. This is expected to reduce any potential exposures to underwater noise levels that could cause behavioral disturbance or injury.

    Mitigation Zone and Shutdown Measure

    The Navy will establish a mitigation zone of 60 yards (55 m) around the pile being driven. Visual observation will be conducted starting 30 minutes prior to, during, and until 30 minutes after the exercise within the mitigation zone. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (Sargassum) are observed in the mitigation zone.

    Pile driving will cease if a marine mammal is visually detected within the mitigation zone. Pile driving may re‐commence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes.

    Marine Species Awareness Training

    Consistent with current requirements, all personnel standing watch on the bridge, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, and Lookouts will successfully complete the Marine Species Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a Lookout. The training is designed to improve the effectiveness of visual observations for marine resources, including marine mammals. The training provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures.

    Vessels

    Vessels will avoid approaching marine mammals head on and will maneuver to maintain a mitigation zone of 500 yards (457 m) around observed whales and 200 yards (183 m) around all other marine mammals (except bow riding dolphins), providing it is safe to do so.

    North Atlantic Right Whale Mid-Atlantic Migration Corridor

    A North Atlantic right whale migratory route is located off the mid-Atlantic coast of the United States. When transiting within the following areas from November 1 through April 30, which correspond to the portions of the JLOTS study area where a vessel speed limit applies to non-federal vessels, the Navy will practice increased vigilance, exercise extreme caution, and proceed at the slowest speed that is consistent with safety, mission, and training objectives:

    • Chesapeake Bay: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 37°00′36.9″ North/075°57′50.5″ West.

    • Morehead City, North Carolina: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 34°41′32.0″ North/076°40′08.3″ West.

    • Wilmington, North Carolina, through South Carolina, and to Brunswick, Georgia: Within a continuous area 20 nautical miles from shore and west back to shore bounded by 34°10′30″ North/077°49′12″ West; 33°56′42″ North/077°31′30″ West; 33°36′30″ North/077°47′06″ West; 33°28′24″ North/078°32′30″ West; 32°59′06″ North/078°50′18″ West; 31°50′00″ North/080°33′12″ West; 31°27′00″ North/080°51′36″ West.

    Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. No additional mitigation measures were recommended during the public comment period on the rule. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

    • The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;

    • The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and

    • The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:

    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of noise, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of noise, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of noise, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

    NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

    Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for LOAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.

    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

    1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below.

    2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of noise that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS.

    3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:

    a. Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information).

    b. Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information).

    c. Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli.

    4. An increased knowledge of the affected species.

    5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

    Monitoring Measures (1) Standard Watch Personnel

    Ships operated by or for the Navy shall have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the water (underway). Watch personnel shall undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent, including on-the-job instruction and a formal Personal Qualification Standard program (or equivalent program for supporting contractors or civilians), to certify that they have demonstrated all necessary skills (such as detection and reporting of floating or partially submerged objects). Watch personnel are composed of officers, enlisted men and women, and civilian equivalents. Their duties may be performed in conjunction with other job responsibilities, such as navigating the ship or supervising other personnel. While on watch, personnel employ visual search techniques, including the use of binoculars, using a scanning method in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. After sunset and prior to sunrise, watch personnel employ night visual search techniques, which could include the use of night vision devices.

    A primary duty of watch personnel is to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance. Per safety requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted that have the potential to be in the direct path of the ship as a standard collision avoidance procedure. Because watch personnel are primarily posted for safety of navigation, range clearance, and man-overboard precautions, they are not normally posted while ships are moored to a pier. When anchored or moored to a buoy, a watch team is still maintained but with fewer personnel than when underway.

    While underway, Navy ships greater than 65 ft. (20 m) in length have at least two watch personnel; Navy ships less than 65 ft. (20 m) in length and contractor ships have at least one watch person. While underway, watch personnel are alert at all times and have access to binoculars. Due to limited manning and space limitations, small boats and some craft transferring cargo from ship to shore do not have dedicated watch personnel, and the boat crew is responsible for maintaining the safety of the boat.

    All vessels use extreme caution and proceed at a “safe speed” so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

    (2) Lookouts

    Lookouts perform similar duties to standard watch personnel, and are also responsible for satisfying mitigation requirements. The Navy will have one Lookout positioned on the platform (which could include a small boat, the elevated causeway, or the shore) that will maximize the potential for sightings during pile driving and pile removal.

    The Lookout positioned on the elevated causeway or the shore will be dedicated solely to diligent observation of the air and surface of the water. They will have multiple observation objectives, which include but are not limited to detecting the presence of biological resources and recreational or fishing boats, observing the mitigation zone, and monitoring for equipment and personnel safety concerns. Due to small boat manning and space restrictions, a Lookout positioned on a small boat may include a member of the boat crew, and may be responsible for tasks in addition to observing the air or surface of the water (e.g., navigation of a rigid hull inflatable boat). However, a boat Lookout will, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with safety and training requirements, comply with the observation objectives described above for a Lookout positioned on the elevated causeway or the shore.

    Lookouts will also perform visual observation starting 30 minutes prior to, during, and until 30 minutes after the exercise within a mitigation zone of 60 yards (55 m) around the pile being driven.

    Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program

    The Navy will use the existing Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) and its new “study-based” approach to satisfy monitoring requirements for the JLOTS MMPA authorization. To ensure efficient implementation of the program and maintain consistency with how the program is currently being implemented for the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) MMPA authorization, Navy will use the same AFTT adaptive management process and reporting deadlines for the JLOTS authorization.

    The ICMP is intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions where the Navy trains and tests and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort for each range complex (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010). Originally, the Navy monitoring program was composed of a collection of “range-specific” monitoring plans, each developed individually as part of Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act compliance processes as environmental documentation was completed. These individual plans established specific monitoring requirements for each range complex and were collectively intended to address the ICMP top-level goals. More information is provided in the Federal Register notice for the propose rule (80 FR 2636; January 20, 2015).

    Past and Current Monitoring in the Navy JLOTS Training Areas

    NMFS has not previously issued incidental take authorizations to the Navy concerning its JLOTS training on the Atlantic coast. Therefore, no past and current monitoring is available.

    Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. Reports from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, publications, and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring projects will be posted to the U.S. Navy Marine Species Monitoring web portal as they become available. For the Navy's JLOTS LOA, NMFS requires the following reporting measures to be implemented:

    (1) General Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

    Navy personnel will ensure that NMFS (regional stranding coordinator) is notified immediately (or as soon as clearance procedures allow) if an injured or dead marine mammal is found during or shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy training exercise. The Navy will provide NMFS with species identification or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photographs or video (if available).

    (2) Annual Monitoring and Exercise Report

    As noted above, reports from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, publications, and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring projects would be posted to the Navy's Marine Species Monitoring web portal as they become available. Progress and results from all monitoring activity conducted within the JLOTS training area would be summarized in an annual report. This report shall detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.

    Draft reports should be combined with the Navy's Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing exercise and monitoring reports and submitted to NMFS for review by February 13 (for exercises) and April 1 (for monitoring) each year. NMFS would review the report and provide comments for incorporation within 3 months.

    Estimated Take of Marine Mammals

    In the potential effects section, NMFS' analysis identified a variety of impacts that could potentially result from exposure to noise during the Navy's JLOTS training activities. In this section, we will relate the potential effects to marine mammals from these sound sources to the MMPA definitions of Level A and Level B Harassment and attempt to quantify the effects that might occur from the specific training activities that the Navy proposes in the JLOTS training areas.

    Definition of Harassment

    As mentioned previously, with respect to military readiness activities, section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].

    As discussed above, in-water pile removal and pile driving (vibratory and impact) generate loud noises that could potentially harass marine mammals in the vicinity of the Navy's JLOTS training activities.

    Currently, NMFS uses 120 dB re 1 μ Pa and 160 dB re 1 μ Pa at the received levels for the onset of Level B harassment from non-impulse (vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulse sources (impact pile driving) underwater, respectively. Table 3 summarizes the current NMFS marine mammal take criteria.

    Table 3—Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria for Non-Explosive Sound Underwater Criterion Criterion definition Threshold Level A Harassment (Injury) Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) (Any level above that which is known to cause TTS) 180 dB re 1 μ Pa (cetaceans) 190 dB re 1 μ Pa (pinnipeds) root mean square (rms). Level B Harassment Behavioral Disruption (for impulse noises) 160 dB re 1 μ Pa (rms). Level B Harassment Behavioral Disruption (for non-impulse noise) 120 dB re 1 μ Pa (rms). Methods for Estimating Takes

    The methods for estimating the number and types of exposure are described in the sections below, followed by the method for quantifying exposures of marine mammals to sources of energy exceeding those threshold values. Exposure of each was determined by:

    • The potential of each species to be impacted by the acoustic sources as determined by acoustic criteria for marine mammals.

    • The potential presence of each species and their estimated density inside the range to effect.

    • The range to effect for impact installation and vibratory extraction (estimated by taking into account the source levels, propagation loss, and thresholds at which each acoustic criterion is met).

    Potential exposures were calculated by multiplying the density of each marine mammal species potentially present by the total impacted area for each threshold value, rounding the result to the closest integer, and then multiplying that result by the potential number of days of pile driving.

    Underwater Sound From Pile Driving

    Sound levels produced by pile driving are greatly influenced by factors including pile type, driving method, and the physical environment in which the activity takes place. A number of studies have examined sound pressure levels recorded from underwater pile driving projects in California and Washington, creating a large body of data for impact driving of steel pipe piles.

    To determine the most appropriate sound pressure levels for this project, data from studies which met the following parameters were considered:

    • Pile size and type: 24-inch diameter steel pipe piles

    • Installation and removal method: Vibratory and/or impact hammer

    • Physical environment: Water depth, sediment type

    Details of the physical characteristics of the waters and substrate off the JLOTS locations were taken into consideration for determining the size of ensonified zones. Source levels were selected from NAVFAC Atlantic's comprehensive dataset based on similarity to site conditions at JEB Little Creek-Fort Story (sand with shell debris sediments, average depth 1-5 meters), and Camp Lejeune (lower sedimentation with hard-bottom in some areas, depth around 7 meters), equipment (i.e., diesel hammer), and lack of conditions that might introduce extra noise into the measurements (e.g., riverine environments). Calculated averages of selected source levels used as proxies for modeling are summarized in Table 4.

    Table 4—Summary of Source Levels Method Location dB re 1μ Pa rms Impact Installation JEB Little Creek-Fort Story 188 Camp Lejeune 189 Vibratory Removal JEB Little Creek-Fort Story 160 Camp Lejeune Take Zone Size Calculation

    Modeling sound propagation is useful in evaluating noise levels at various distances from the pile driving activity. The decrease in acoustic intensity as a sound wave propagates outward from a source is known as transmission loss (TL). The formula for transmission loss is:

    TL = B * log10(R1/R2) + C * R1, Where: B = logarithmic (predominantly spreading) loss C = linear (scattering and absorption) loss R1 = range from source in meters R2 = range from driven pile to original measurement location (generally 10 m for pile driving activities)

    The amount of linear loss (C) is proportional to the frequency of a sound. Due to the low frequencies of sound generated by impact and vibratory pile driving, this factor was assumed to be zero for all calculations in this assessment and transmission loss was calculated using only logarithmic spreading. Therefore, using practical spreading (B = 15), the revised formula for transmission loss is TL = 15 log10 (R1/10).

    The practical spreading loss model (TL = 15 log10 (R1/10)) discussed above was used to calculate the underwater propagation of pile driving sound in and around the three locations. A total of 30 days of pile driving were modeled for JEB Little Creek-Fort Story and Camp Lejeune; 20 days of impact driving, and 10 days of vibratory extraction. No noise mitigation methods (bubble curtains, cofferdams, etc.) are proposed and therefore no attenuation was included in the acoustic model.

    Impact driving of each pile is expected to last no more than 15 minutes. Typically, 6 piles would be installed each day, for up to 20 days. Generally, two pile drivers are used, but not simultaneously: While one is installing a pile, the other is being repositioned for the next pile. For vibratory extraction, the acoustic model assumed that 12 piles would be extracted each day, lasting 6 minutes each, over the course of 10 days.

    The range to effects (Table 5) for underwater noise is assumed to take a circular shape around the notional pile bring driven at the furthest offshore point of the ELCAS (M) (approximately 1,500 ft. [457 m] from shore). Zones with radii larger than 1,500 ft. (457 m) will be truncated by the shoreline, and were modeled as semicircles extending to the west, north, and east in the case of JEB Little Creek-Fort Story; and north, east, and south at Camp Lejeune since the beaches at each of the locations would represent the boundary for underwater propagation. The calculated ranges assume no obstructions, and sounds will attenuate as they encounter land or other solid obstacles. As a result, the distances calculated may not actually be attained at the two installations.

    Table 5—Calculated Range to Effects and Zones of Influence for Marine Mammals During Pile Driving Driving method Threshold Range JEB Little Creek-Fort Story Camp Lejeune Area JEB Little Creek-Fort Story Camp Lejeune Impact Pile Drive Injury: 180 dB re 1 μ Pa rms 37 yds (34 m) 44 yds (40 m) 0.001 mi 2 (0.0037 km 2) 0.002 mi 2 (0.005 km 2). Behavioral: 160 dB re 1 μ Pa rms 805 yds (736 m) 938 yds (858 m) 0.328 mi 2 (0.85 km 2) 0.446 mi 2 (1.156 km 2). Vibratory Pile Removal Injury: 180 dB re 1 μ Pa rms n/a n/a. Behavioral: 120 dB re 1 μ Pa rms 5,077 yds (4,642 m) 13.07 mi 2 (33.84 km 2). Note: All sound levels expressed in dB re 1 μ PA rms; dB = decibel; rms = root mean square; m = meter; mi2 = square mile; km2 = square kilometer; behavioral zones of influence are semi-circles based on notional distance from shore of the pile being driven; injury zones of influence are circular since they will not extend to and therefore be attenuated by land. Take Number Requested

    Based on the size of the areas in which pile driving and extraction may exceed established thresholds, the Navy applied estimated densities for the bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted dolphin and the number of active pile driving days. The result shows that approximately 50 Northern North Carolina estuarine system and 60 Southern North Carolina estuarine system bottlenose dolphins and 50 Western North Atlantic spotted dolphins could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment annually from sound in the water, with a total of 250 Northern North Carolina estuarine system and 300 Southern North Carolina estuarine system bottlenose dolphins and 250 Western North Atlantic spotted dolphins taken by Level B behavioral harassment from sound in the water during the five-year period of the rule (Table 6). No Level A takes is expected and none is authorized due to the low sound intensity from the proposed JLOTS activities. The annual percentage of takes of these species/stocks is less than 6% of each population.

    Table 6—Species-specific Level B Incidental Takes for JLOTS Training Activities Species Stock Annual Percent of population Total
  • (5 years)
  • Bottlenose dolphin Northern North Carolina Estuarine System 50 5.26 250 Southern North Carolina Estuarine System 60 2.44 300 Atlantic spotted dolphin Western North Atlantic 50 0.18 250
    Analysis and Determinations Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

    To avoid repetition, the following discussion applies to Northern North Carolina estuarine system and Southern North Carolina estuarine system bottlenose dolphins and Western North Atlantic spotted dolphins, given that the best available information indicates that effects of the specified activity on individuals of those odontocete stocks will be similar, and there is no information about the population size, status, structure, or habitat use of the areas to warrant separate discussion.

    The Navy's JLOTS training activity would involve pile driving and removal activities during the training exercise. Elevated noise levels are expected to be generated as a result of these activities. However, the source levels generated by the pile driving and removal activities are expected be low due to the low-power hammer being used. In addition, given the standard operating procedure of soft starts and required mitigation and monitoring such as shutdown measures when marine mammals are sighted approaching the mitigation zone, no injuries (Level A harassment) or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of the Navy's JLOTS training activities, and none are authorized. As described above, marine mammals in the area would not be exposed to activities or sound levels which would result in hearing impairment (TTS or PTS) or non-auditory physiological effects.

    In-water construction activities would occur in nearshore shallow waters at the JEB Little Creek-Fort Story in Virginia and at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The training areas are not considered significant habitat for marine mammals. Marine mammals approaching the action area would likely be traveling or opportunistically foraging. There are no rookeries or major haul-out sites nearby, foraging hotspots, or other ocean bottom structure of significant biological importance to marine mammals that may be present in the marine waters in the vicinity of the training areas. The training areas are not prime habitats for marine mammals, nor are they considered areas frequented by marine mammals. Therefore, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic noise associated with the JLOTS training activities are expected to affect only relatively small numbers of marine mammals on an infrequent basis. Although it is possible that some individual marine mammals may be exposed to sounds from in-water pile driving activities more than once, the duration of these multi-exposures is expected to be low since animals would be constantly moving in and out of the area and in-water pile driving activities would not occur continuously throughout the day.

    Marine mammals may be temporarily impacted by noise from pile driving and pile removal activities. These low intensity, localized, and short-term noise exposures may cause brief startle reactions or short-term behavioral modifications by the animals. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside quickly when the exposures cease. Moreover, marine mammals are expected to avoid the area during in-water construction because animals generally move away from active sound sources, thereby reducing exposure and impacts. In addition, through soft starts, a standard operating procedure, marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious, and detection of marine mammals by lookouts would enable the implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality. In-water pile driving and pile removal are expected to occur for about 20 days and 10 days total annually at each location, respectively. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of a stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness to those individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable impact through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the project area while the activity is occurring.

    The training areas overlap with habitat of Northern North Carolina estuarine system and Southern North Carolina estuarine system bottlenose dolphins, and are considered to be biologically important areas to these bottlenose dolphin stocks. However, the brief duration and rare occurrence of the Navy's JLOTS activities are expected to affect only a small number of marine mammals on an infrequent and limited basis.

    Based on the application and subsequent analysis, the impact of the described in-water pile driving activities may result in, at most, short-term modification of behavior by small numbers of marine mammals within the action area. No injury, serious injury, or mortality is expected to occur and due to the nature, degree, and context of the Level B harassment anticipated, the activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival.

    Accordingly, based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total per-stock taking of marine mammals from the Navy's JLOTS training activity will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks will not have any unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    No species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by pile driving activities in the JLOTS training area. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.

    NEPA

    NMFS has participated as a cooperating agency on the JLOTS EA, which was published on March 6, 2015. The JLOTS EA is posted on NMFS' Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. NMFS has reviewed the EA and concluded that the EA includes alternatives relevant to NMFS' action of an incidental take authorization and the environmental consequences analyzed reflect NMFS' action. Therefore, NMFS determined to adopt the Navy's EA and prepared its own Finding of No Significant Impact. Accordingly, an EIS is not required and will not be prepared for this action.

    Classification

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification was published with the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the economic impact of this final rule. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and one was not prepared.

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that there is good cause under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of the measures contained in this rule. A 30-day delay in the effective date of the rule from the date of publication in the Federal Register would cause an impracticable interruption to the U.S. Navy's scheduled training events. Congress has mandated that the Chief of Naval Operations organize, train, and equip all naval forces for combat (10 U.S.C. 5062). In order to meet the congressional mandate, the U.S. Navy must continually train to maintain its ability to operate in challenging at-sea environments and conduct military operations. The training requirements analyzed in the JLOTS EA will be implemented immediately into the training cycle to reinstate Naval Beach Group TWO's certification for the construction of the Elevated Causeway System—Modular. This training must occur in order for the Naval Beach Group TWO to be able report if directed to an overseas theater of operations. Based on the preceding discussion, it is impracticable to delay implementation of this rule for 30 days. This agency finds good cause for excepting the 30-day delay. The measures contained in this rule will become effective upon publication.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 218

    Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental take, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Sonar, Transportation.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is amended as follows:

    PART 218—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 1. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    2. Subpart B is added to part 218 to read as follows: Subpart B—Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) Training Activities in Virginia and North Carolina Sec. 218.10 Specified activity and region. 218.11 Effective dates. 218.12 Permissible methods of taking. 218.13 Prohibitions. 218.14 Mitigation. 218.15 Requirements for monitoring and reporting. 218.16 Applications for Letters of Authorization. 218.17 Letters of Authorization. 218.18 Modifications to Letters of Authorization. Subpart B—Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) Training Activities in Virginia and North Carolina
    § 218.10 Specified activity and region.

    (a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities described in paragraph (c) of this section.

    (b) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is only authorized if it occurs within the JLOTS training areas, which is in nearshore shallow waters at the Joint Expeditionary Base (JEB) Little Creek-Fort Story in Virginia and at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

    (c) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is only authorized if it occurs incidental to the JLOTS training activities in the JLOTS training areas, which may occur any time of year, but not more than once annually at JEB Little Creek-Fort Story, and once annually at Camp Lejeune.

    § 218.11 Effective dates.

    Regulations in this subpart are effective June 2, 2015, through June 2, 2020.

    § 218.12 Permissible methods of taking.

    (a) Under Letters of Authorization (LOAs) issued pursuant to § 218.17, the Holder of the Letter of Authorization may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals by sound in the water from pile driving activities within the area described in § 218.10, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations and the appropriate LOA.

    (b) The activities identified in § 218.10(c) must be conducted in a manner that minimizes, to the greatest extent practicable, any adverse impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.

    (c) The incidental take of marine mammals under the activities identified in § 218.10(c) is limited to Level B behavioral harassment:

    (1) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)/Northern North Carolina Estuarine System: 250 (50 per year);

    (2) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)/Southern North Carolina Estuarine System: 300 (60 per year); and

    (3) Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis)/Western North Atlantic: 250 (50 per year).

    § 218.13 Prohibitions.

    Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 218.12 and authorized by an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.17, no person in connection with the activities described in § 218.10 may:

    (a) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 218.12(c);

    (b) Take any marine mammal specified in § 218.12(c) other than by incidental take as specified in § 218.12(c);

    (c) Take a marine mammal specified in § 218.12(c) if a finding is made that such taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or

    (d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations or an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.17.

    § 218.14 Mitigation.

    (a) When conducting training and testing activities identified in § 218.10, the mitigation measures contained in the LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.17 must be implemented. These mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:

    (1) Establishing mitigation zone. (i) A mitigation zone of 60 yards (55 m) around the pile being driven must be established.

    (ii) Visual observation must be conducted starting 30 minutes prior to, during, and until 30 minutes after the ELCAS (M) exercise within the mitigation zone. The exercise must not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (Sargassum) are observed in the mitigation zone.

    (2) Soft starts. (i) Soft starts, or gradually ramping up the power of pile driving hammer, must be performed during impact installation each day.

    (ii) During a soft start, an initial set of strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy are performed before it is able to be operated at full power and speed.

    (3) Shutdown measures. (i) Pile driving must cease if a marine mammal is visually detected within or approaching the mitigation zone.

    (ii) Pile driving may resume if any one of the following conditions is met:

    (A) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone,

    (B) The animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or

    (C) The mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes.

    (b) Marine species awareness training. (1) All personnel standing watch on the bridge, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, and Lookouts must successfully complete the Marine Species Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a Lookout.

    (2) The Marine Species Awareness Training must be designed to improve the effectiveness of visual observations for marine resources, including marine mammals.

    (3) The training must provide information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures.

    (c) Vessels. Vessels must avoid approaching marine mammals head on and must maneuver to maintain a mitigation zone of 500 yards (457 m) around observed whales and 200 yards (183 m) around all other marine mammals (except bow riding dolphins), providing it is safe to do so.

    (d) North Atlantic Right Whale Protection. When transiting within the following areas between November 1 and April 30, the Navy must practice increased vigilance, exercise extreme caution, and proceed at the slowest speed that is consistent with safety, mission, and training objectives:

    (1) Chesapeake Bay: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 37°00′36.9″ North/075°57′50.5″ West.

    (2) Morehead City, North Carolina: Within a 20 nm radius of the following (as measured seaward from the COLREGS lines): 34°41′32.0″ North/076°40′08.3″ West.

    (3) Wilmington, North Carolina, through South Carolina, and to Brunswick, Georgia: Within a continuous area 20 nautical miles from shore and west back to shore bounded by 34°10′30″ North/077°49′12″ West; 33°56′42″ North/077°31′30″ West; 33°36′30″ North/077°47′06″ West; 33°28′24″ North/078°32′30″ West; 32°59′06″ North/078°50′18″ West; 31°50′00″ North/080°33′12″ West; 31°27′00″ North/080°51′36″ West.

    § 218.15 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

    (a) Monitoring measures—(1) Standard watch personnel. (i) Ships operated by or for the Navy must have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the water.

    (ii) Watch personnel must undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent, including on-the-job instruction and a formal Personal Qualification Standard program (or equivalent program for supporting contractors or civilians), to certify that they have demonstrated all necessary skills (such as detection and reporting of floating or partially submerged objects).

    (iii) While on watch, watch personnel must employ visual search techniques, including the use of binoculars, using a scanning method in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent.

    (iv) After sunset and prior to sunrise, watch personnel must employ night visual search techniques, which could include the use of night vision devices.

    (v) A primary duty of watch personnel is to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance.

    (vi) Per safety requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted that have the potential to be in the direct path of the ship as a standard collision avoidance procedure. Because watch personnel are primarily posted for safety of navigation, range clearance, and man-overboard precautions, they are not normally posted while ships are moored to a pier.

    (vii) When anchored or moored to a buoy, a watch team is still maintained but with fewer personnel than when underway.

    (viii) When moored or at anchor, watch personnel may maintain security and safety of the ship by scanning the water for any indications of a threat.

    (ix) While underway, Navy ships (with the exception of submarines) greater than 65 ft. (20 m) in length have at least two watch personnel; Navy ships less than 65 ft. (20 m) in length, surfaced submarines, and contractor ships have at least one watch person. While underway, watch personnel are alert at all times and have access to binoculars. Due to limited manning and space limitations, small boats and some craft transferring cargo from ship to shore do not have dedicated watch personnel, and the boat crew is responsible for maintaining the safety of the boat and surrounding environment.

    (x) All vessels use extreme caution and proceed at a “safe speed” so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

    (2) Lookouts. (i) Lookouts must perform similar duties to standard watch personnel, and are also responsible for satisfying mitigation requirements.

    (ii) The Navy must have one Lookout positioned on the platform (which could include a small boat, the elevated causeway, or the shore) that must maximize the potential for sightings during pile driving and pile removal.

    (iii) The Lookout positioned on the elevated causeway or the shore must be dedicated solely to diligent observation of the air and surface of the water. They must have multiple observation objectives, which include but are not limited to detecting the presence of biological resources and recreational or fishing boats, observing the mitigation zone, and monitoring for equipment and personnel safety concerns.

    (iv) A Lookout positioned on a small boat may include a member of the boat crew, and may be responsible for tasks in addition to observing the air or surface of the water (e.g., navigation of a rigid hull inflatable boat). However, a boat Lookout must, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with safety and training requirements, comply with the observation objectives described above for a Lookout positioned on the elevated causeway or the shore.

    (v) Lookouts must also perform visual observation starting 30 minutes prior to, during, and 30 minutes after the exercise within a mitigation zone of 60 yards (55 m) around the pile being driven.

    (3) Integrated comprehensive monitoring program. (i) The Navy must use the existing Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) and its new “study-based” approach.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Reporting measures—(1) General notification of injured or dead marine mammals. (i) Navy personnel must ensure that NMFS (regional stranding coordinator) is notified immediately (or as soon as clearance procedures allow) if an injured or dead marine mammal is found during or shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy training exercise.

    (ii) The Navy must provide NMFS with species identification or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photographs or video (if available).

    (2) Annual monitoring and exercise report. (i) Reports from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, publications, and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring projects must be posted to the Navy's Marine Species Monitoring web portal as they become available.

    (ii) Progress and results from all monitoring activity conducted within the JLOTS training area must be summarized in an annual report. This report must detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.

    (iii) Draft reports should be combined with the Navy's Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing exercise and monitoring reports and submitted to NMFS for review by February 13 (for exercises) and April 1 (for monitoring) each year. NMFS will review the report and provide comments for incorporation within 3 months.

    § 218.16 Applications for Letters of Authorization.

    To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations in this subpart, the U.S. Navy must apply for and obtain either an initial LOA in accordance with § 218.17.

    § 218.17 Letters of Authorization.

    (a) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, must be valid for a period of time not to exceed the period of validity of this subpart.

    (b) Each LOA must set forth:

    (1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;

    (2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses (i.e., mitigation); and

    (3) Requirements for mitigation, monitoring and reporting.

    (c) Issuance of the LOA will be based on a determination that the total number of marine mammals taken by the activity as a whole must have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stock of marine mammal(s).

    § 218.18 Modifications to Letters of Authorization.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no substantive modification (including withdrawal or suspension) to the LOA by NMFS, issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.17 and subject to the provisions of this subpart must be made until after notification and an opportunity for public comment has been provided.

    (b) If the Assistant Administrator determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in § 218.12(c), an LOA issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.17 may be substantively modified without prior notification and an opportunity for public comment. Notification will be published in the Federal Register within 30 days subsequent to the action.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13350 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 105 Tuesday, June 2, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 [Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0024] RIN 1904-AC79 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Residential Furnaces and Boilers AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Reopening of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 11, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes to revise its test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers established under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (80 FR 12876). DOE published this NOPR so stakeholders can review and provide input on these proposed revisions. The comment period for the NOPR pertaining to the subject residential furnaces and boilers test procedure was scheduled to end May 26, 2015. After receiving a request for additional time to comment, DOE has decided to reopen the comment period for the NOPR pertaining to the test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers until July 10, 2015.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking no later than July 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Instructions: All comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Test Procedures for Residential Furnaces and Boilers, and provide docket number EERE-2012-BT-TP-0024 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC79. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected] Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in Word Perfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form on encryption.

    3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” section of the March 11, 2015 NOPR. 80 FR 12876.

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

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-T-TP-0024. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V, “Public Participation,” of the March 11, 2015 NOPR for further information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.

    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email: [email protected]

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

    For information on how to submit or review public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE published a NOPR in the Federal Register to make available and invite public comments on its proposed revisions to the test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers. 80 FR 12876 (March 11, 2015). The document set a deadline for the submission of written comments by May 26, 2015. The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) requested an extension of the public comment period, stating that additional time is necessary to conduct product testing and review supporting information in order to prepare and submit comments. After careful consideration of the request, DOE has determined that reopening the comment period to allow additional time for interested parties to submit comments is appropriate based on the foregoing reasons. DOE believes that reopening the comment period by 45 days will provide the public with sufficient time to submit comments responding to DOE's proposed test procedure revisions. Accordingly, DOE is reopening the comment period to midnight of July 10, 2015 and will deem any comments received (or postmarked) by that date to be timely submitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13356 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2013-1059; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-36-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-14-02, which applies to certain Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PW120, PW121, PW121A, PW124B, PW127, PW127E, PW127F, PW127G, and PW127M turboprop engines. AD 2014-14-02 requires removal of the O-ring seal from the fuel manifold fitting. Since we issued AD 2014-14-02, we received reports of fuel seepage past the metal-to-metal sealing surfaces of the fuel nozzle and fuel manifold flow adapter. This proposed AD would require replacement of the fuel nozzle and the fuel manifold flow adapter. We are proposing this AD to prevent in-flight fuel leakage, engine fire, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 3, 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 Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800-268-8000; fax: 450-647-2888; Web site: www.pwc.ca. 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-2013-1059; 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:

    Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7146; 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 proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2013-1059; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-36-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

    On June 30, 2014, we issued AD 2014-14-02, Amendment 39-17896 (79 FR 39958, July 11, 2014), (“AD 2014-14-02”), for certain P&WC PW120, PW121, PW121A, PW124B, PW127, PW127E, PW127F, PW127G, and PW127M turboprop engines. AD 2014-14-02 requires removal of the O-ring seal from the fuel manifold fitting. AD 2014-14-02 resulted from reports of fuel leaks at the interface between the fuel manifold and the fuel nozzle that resulted in engine fire. We issued AD 2014-14-02 to prevent in-flight fuel leakage, engine fire, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2014-14-02 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2014-14-02, we have received reports of fuel seepage past the metal to metal sealing surfaces of the fuel nozzle and fuel manifold flow adapter. The manufacturer has since redesigned the fuel manifold flow adapter to prevent in-flight fuel leakage. This redesign incorporates new internal diameters on the fuel manifold adapters and the fuel nozzles.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed P&WC SB No. PW100-72-21861, dated November 21, 2014, which identifies the final fuel nozzle configuration. 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 NPRM.

    Other Related Service Information

    P&WC SB No. PW100-72-21861, dated November 21, 2014, refers to the following additional SBs that provide the final fuel nozzle configuration: P&WC SB No. PW100-72-21803, Revision No. 5, dated November 21, 2014, P&WC SB No. PW100-72-21860, Revision No. 2, dated November 21, 2014, and P&WC SB No. PW100-72-21841, Revision No. 3, dated December 22, 2014. This service information is available by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    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 replacement of the fuel nozzle and the fuel manifold flow adapter.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 150 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2.5 hours per engine to perform the replacement required by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. The cost of a fuel nozzle manifold replacement is $146,594. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $22,020,975.

    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 have 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 that the 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-14-02, Amendment 39-17896 (79 FR 39958, July 11, 2014), and adding the following new AD: Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.: Docket No. FAA-2013-1059; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-36-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 3, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-14-02, Amendment 39-17896 (79 FR 39958, July 11, 2014).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PW120, PW121, and PW121A turboprop engines with post SB 21610 configuration; PW124B, PW127, PW127E, and PW127F turboprop engines with post SB 21607 configuration; PW127E and PW127F turboprop engines with serial numbers (S/Ns) PCE-EB0366 and earlier; PW127G turboprop engines with S/Ns PCE-AX0275 and earlier; and PW127M turboprop engines with S/Ns PCE-ED0810 and earlier.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fuel seepage past the metal-to-metal sealing surfaces of the fuel nozzle and fuel manifold flow adapter. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight fuel leakage, engine fire, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Within 1,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, or at the next engine shop visit, whichever occurs first:

    (1) Remove the O-ring seal from the fuel manifold fitting,

    (2) Remove fuel manifold flow adapter, part number (P/Ns) 3059754-01, 3059757-01, and 3059760-01; and

    (3) Install a fuel nozzle gasket and fuel manifold flow adapter that are eligible for installation in accordance with paragraphs 3.A, 3.B, and 3.C of P&WC SB No. PW100-72-21861, dated November 21, 2014.

    (f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, fuel manifold adapter, P/Ns 3059754-01, 3059757-01, and 3059760-01, and fuel manifold gasket, P/N 3079354-01, are not eligible for installation in any engine.

    (g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, 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. 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 to 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 Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7146; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD CF-2014-41, dated November 26, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-1059.

    (3) P&WC SB No. PW100-72-21861, dated November 21, 2014; P&WC SB No. PW100-72-21803, Revision No. 5, dated November 21, 2014; P&WC SB No. PW100-72-21860, Revision No. 2, dated November 21, 2014; and P&WC SB No. PW100-72-21841, Revision No. 3 dated December 22, 2014, can be obtained from Pratt & Whitney Canada, using the contact information in paragraph (i)(4) of this AD.

    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin Blvd., Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1; phone: 800-268-8000; fax: 450-647-2888; Web site: www.pwc.ca.

    (5) 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 19, 2015. Carlos A. Pestana, Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-12768 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 32 RIN 3038-AE26 Trade Options AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 7, 2015, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (the “Trade Options Proposal”) to amend the limited trade option exemption in part 32 of its regulations. The Commission is extending the comment period for the Trade Options Proposal in light of the Commission's recent interpretation concerning forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the Trade Options Proposal published on May 7, 2015, at 80 FR 26200, is extended until June 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AE26, by any one of the following methods:

    CFTC Web site: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Comments Online process on the Web site.

    Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one of these methods.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that may be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the CFTC's regulations, 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse, or remove any or all of a submission from www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the rulemaking will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David N. Pepper, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, at (202) 418-5565 or [email protected]; or Elise Pallais, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 418-5577 or [email protected]; Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 7, 2015, the Commission published a proposal to amend the trade option exemption in part 32 of its regulations in the following subject areas: (1) Reporting requirements for trade option counterparties that are not swap dealers or major swap participants; (2) recordkeeping requirements for trade option counterparties that are not swap dealers or major swap participants; and (3) certain non-substantive amendments.1 Generally, these proposed amendments are intended to facilitate use of trade options by commercial market participants to hedge against commercial and physical risks.

    1Trade Options, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 26200 (May 7, 2015).

    On May 18, 2015, the Commission published its final interpretation regarding forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality.2 The interpretation identifies when an agreement, contract, or transaction would fall within the forward contract exclusions from the “swap” and “future delivery” definitions in the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), notwithstanding that it allows for variations in the delivery amount (i.e., contains “embedded volumetric optionality”).

    2Forward Contracts with Embedded Volumetric Optionality, 80 FR 28239 (May 18, 2015). In accordance with section 712(d)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the interpretation was issued jointly with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission after consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Although the interpretation was issued jointly, it is an interpretation solely of the CFTC and does not apply to the exclusion from the swap and security-based swap definitions for security forwards or to the distinction between security forwards and security futures products.

    In light of the recent publication of the Commission's interpretation on forward contracts with embedded volumetric optionality, the Commission is extending the comment period for the Trade Options Proposal until June 22, 2015.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2015, by the Commission. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Note:

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendix to Trade Options Extension of Comment Period—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Wetjen, Bowen, and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13347 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 625 [Docket No. FHWA-2015-0003] [RIN 2125-AF67] Design Standards for Highways AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NRPM); request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The FHWA requests comments on a proposed revision to design standards and standard specifications that applies to new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the National Highway System (NHS). The proposed rule would incorporate by reference the latest versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625, and would remove the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications. The proposed rule also would make technical changes to the regulatory text consistent with updated Federal Register procedures.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2015. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by the docket number FHWA-2015-0003 by any one of the following methods:

    Fax: 1-202-493-2251;

    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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 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; or Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking (2125-AF67). Note that all comments received will be posted without change to: http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20950, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Michael Matzke, Office of Program Administration (HIPA-20), (202) 366-4658, or via email at [email protected], or Mr. Robert Black, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-1373, or via email at [email protected]. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing

    This document may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available on the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days this year. Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register and the Government Publishing Office's Web site at: http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. The DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be viewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    Background

    The FHWA proposes to modify its regulations governing new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the NHS (including the Interstate system), by incorporating by reference the current versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR 625.4, and removing the outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications. Several of these design standards and standard specifications were established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Welding Society (AWS) and were previously adopted by FHWA through rulemaking. The new standards or specifications replace previous versions of these documents and represent the most recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted. After review of the various standards and specifications, FHWA proposes to adopt them for NHS projects.

    The proposed revisions include referencing the 2011 edition of the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, commonly referred to as the Green Book. The proposed revisions also include referencing the current version of AASHTO's Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications; LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications; and Standard Specifications for Structural Supports of Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. In addition, the proposed revisions would reference the current version of the AWS Bridge Welding Code and the Structural Welding Code—Reinforcing Steel.

    The AASHTO is an organization that represents 52 State highway and transportation agencies (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). Its members consist of the duly constituted heads and other chief officials of those agencies. The Secretary of Transportation is an ex-officio member, and DOT staff participates in various AASHTO activities as nonvoting representatives. Among other functions, AASHTO develops and issues standards, specifications, policies, guides and related materials for use by the States for highway projects. Many of the standards, policies, and standard specifications that were approved by FHWA and incorporated into 23 CFR part 625 were developed and issued by AASHTO.

    The proposed revisions also include updated versions of welding codes published by AWS. The AWS is a nonprofit organization known for its code and certification procedures, providing industry standards for welding, including in the transportation field. The AWS reports about 66,000 members worldwide and develops updated materials for welding professionals and other interested parties, including those related to bridge welding and structural welding. While these adopted standards and specifications apply to all projects on the NHS (including the Interstate system), FHWA encourages the use of flexibility and a context-sensitive approach to consider a full range of project and user needs and the impacts to the community and natural and human environment. The FHWA encourages State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) and local agencies to consider using design exceptions to achieve a design that balances project and user needs, performance, cost, environmental implications, and community values. These adopted design standards provide a range of acceptable values for highway features, and FHWA encourages the use of this flexibility to achieve a design that best suits the desires of the community while satisfying the purpose for the project and needs of its users.

    At a minimum, State DOTs and local agencies should select design values based on an evaluation of the context of the facility, needs of all the various project users, safety, mobility (i.e., traffic performance), human and natural environmental impacts, and project costs. For most situations, there is sufficient flexibility within the range of acceptable values to achieve a balanced design. However, when this is not possible, a design exception may be appropriate. State and local agencies may consider designs that deviate from the design standards when warranted based on the conditions, context, and consequences of the proposed projects. Additional information on FHWA's adopted design standards and design exceptions is available electronically at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/standards and in FHWA's publication titled Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/fhwa_sa_07011.pdf.

    The proposed rule also would make technical changes to the regulatory text consistent with updated Federal Register procedures, including updating mailing addresses and including telephone and Web site addresses in 23 CFR 625.4(d) pertaining to the availability of documents incorporated by reference.

    Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The documents FHWA proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs and local agencies carrying out Federal-aid highway projects. These documents represent the most recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted and are currently in use by the transportation industry. The documents are also available for review at the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Transportation Library, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), or may be obtained from AASHTO or AWS. The specific standards are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this preamble.

    Section by Section Discussion of the Proposed Changes to 23 CFR Part 625

    The FHWA proposes to revise § 625.4(a)(1) to replace the reference to the 2001 edition of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Policy) with the 2011 edition. The AASHTO 2011 edition incorporates the latest research and current industry practices, with the basic criteria identified for geometric design standards remaining essentially the same. This Policy is a comprehensive manual to assist State DOTs and local agencies in administrative, planning, and educational efforts pertaining to design formulation. The Policy includes design guidelines for freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads in both urban and rural locations. The Agency considers the changes made in the 2011 version minor in nature. Most notably, the changes include improved methods for determining stopping and passing site distance and clarifications of inconsistencies between the Policy and AASHTO's Roadside Design Guide.

    The FHWA proposes to strike § 625.4(a)(4) because the referenced document, Erosion and Sediment Control on Highway Construction Projects, is guidance only. Accordingly, the document does not carry the force and effect of law, and incorporation by reference in the Agency's regulations is unnecessary. The proposed rule would redesignate existing §§ 625.4(a)(5)-(8) as §§ 625.4(a)(4)-(7), respectively.

    With respect to the design standards and standards specifications for bridges and structures under § 625.4(b), FHWA generally proposes to adopt the current versions of the standards and specifications it has previously adopted from AASHTO and AWS. The updated documents contain changes that represent discoveries or improvements in the state-of-the-knowledge and practices of State DOTs and local agencies that have occurred since the previous standards and specifications were incorporated by reference into 23 CFR part 625.

    The NPRM would revise § 625.4(b)(1) to reference the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, AASHTO adopted in 2002 instead of the 15th edition adopted in 1992. The updates incorporated into the 17th Edition are minor in nature. They include the incorporation of the interim specifications of 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and other minor updates. However, FHWA proposes that with respect to proposed modifications to existing bridges, the standard specifications for design may be those that were used for the original design of the bridge.

    The FHWA proposes to strike paragraphs (2) through (4) of § 625.4(b) pertaining to interim specifications for bridges and LRFD bridge design specifications. In their place, the NPRM would insert new paragraph (2). Proposed paragraph (2) would incorporate by reference the current version of the revised AASHTO specifications entitled “LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 3rd Edition, with the 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014 Interim Revisions.” The AASHTO previously included these specifications in its Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, but these specifications are now in a stand-alone document. The LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications are intended to complement the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, which the FHWA proposes to include under a new paragraph (3).

    The FHWA proposes to strike paragraphs (5) and (6) of § 625.4(b) and insert a new paragraph (3). Proposed paragraph (3) would incorporate by reference AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, AASHTO 2014. This change would replace the bridge design specifications AASHTO adopted in 1994 that are currently incorporated by reference under paragraphs (5) and (6). The 7th Edition updates are minor in nature and include clearer direction on seismic isolation design. The FHWA required the use of the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications on all new and total replacement bridge designs after 2007.1 As such, the LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications rely on extensive use of the same statistical modeling methods as the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, but set forth the results in a manner readily usable by bridge designers and analysts.

    1 FHWA Policy Memorandum, “Clarification of LRFD Policy Memorandum,” January 22, 2007, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/012207.cfm.

    The FHWA proposes to strike § 625.4(b)(7) and add a new paragraph (4) to incorporate by reference the current version of the LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2007, and the Interim Revisions that AASHTO adopted in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015. This change would replace bridge design specifications adopted by AASHTO in 1994. Changes in the 2nd Edition are minor and include the treatment of precast concrete component and clarification on prequalified details and essential variables for fillet welds.

    The FHWA proposes to strike § 625.4(b)(8) and add a new paragraph (5) to incorporate by reference the current version of the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2010 Bridge Welding Code, 6th Edition; AASHTO, 2010 and the Interim Revisions that AASHTO adopted in 2011 and 2012. This code and interim revisions replace those previously adopted by AASHTO. Changes in the 6th Edition are minor in nature and include consolidation of tables, clarifications for several types of welding, and addition of new steel grades to the code.

    The FHWA proposes to strike § 625.4(b)(9) and add a new paragraph (6) to incorporate by reference the current version of the D1.4/D1.4M: 2011 Structural Welding Code—Reinforcing Steel that the American Welding Society adopted in 2011. This code will replace the code AASHTO previously adopted in 1992. The changes consist primarily of conversion from International System of Units (known as SI) to United States customary units.

    The FHWA proposes to strike § 625.4(b)(10) and add a new paragraph (7) to incorporate by reference the current version of the Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Sign, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition, AASHTO, 2013. This edition of the standard specifications will replace those that were previously adopted by AASHTO in 1994. Changes in the 6th Edition are minor in nature and include new figures for welding of connections, updates to hand-hole welds, and updated design methods for support structures.

    Finally, FHWA proposes to redesignate section 625.5(b)(11) as paragraph (8), continuing to incorporate by reference navigational clearances for bridges under 23 CFR part 650, subpart H.

    Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period and after DOT has had the opportunity to review the comments submitted.

    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this action does not constitute a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. The proposed amendments would update several industry design standards and standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625 and would remove the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications. The proposed rule also would make technical changes to the regulatory text consistent with updated Federal Register procedures.

    In addition, this action complies with the principles of Executive Order 13563. After evaluating the costs and benefits of these proposed amendments, FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. These changes are not anticipated to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. These updated standards and specifications represent the most recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted, and are currently in use by the transportation industry. The FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on small entities, such as local governments and businesses. Based on the evaluation, FHWA anticipates that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendments would update several industry design standards and standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625. The FHWA believes the projected impact upon small entities that utilize Federal-aid highway program funding for the development of highway improvement projects on the NHS would be negligible. Therefore, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The FHWA has determined that this NPRM would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The actions proposed in this NPRM would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143.1 million or more in any one year (when adjusted for inflation) in 2012 dollars for either State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The FHWA will publish a final analysis, including its response to public comments, when it publishes a final rule. In addition, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    The FHWA has analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. This Executive Order applies because State and local governments would be directly affected by the proposed regulation, which is a condition on Federal highway funding. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the human and natural environment because it only would make technical changes and incorporate by reference the latest versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625 and would remove the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications. The proposed rule qualifies as a categorical exclusion to NEPA under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).

    Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and would not preempt Tribal law. This proposed rule would not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian Tribal governments nor would it have any economic or other impacts on the viability of Indian Tribes. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use. The FHWA has determined that this proposed action is not a significant energy action under the Executive Order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this proposed action would effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action 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.

    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this proposed action would not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    The Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has determined that this rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.

    Regulation Identifier Number

    A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 625

    Design standards, Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference.

    Issued on: May 21, 2015. Gregory G. Nadeau, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to revise 23 CFR part 625 as follows:

    PART 625—DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HIGHWAYS 1. The authority citation for part 625 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 109, 215, and 402; Sec. 1073 of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2012; 49 CFR 1.48(b) and (n).

    2. In § 625.4, revise paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 625.4 Standards, policies, and standard specifications.

    (a) Roadway and appurtenances. (1) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO 2011.

    (2) A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System, AASHTO, January 2005.

    (3) The geometric design standards for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on NHS highways other than freeways shall be the procedures and the design or design criteria established for individual projects, groups of projects, or all non-freeway RRR projects in a State, and as approved by the FHWA. The other geometric design standards in this section do not apply to RRR projects on NHS highways other than freeways, except as adopted on an individual State basis. The RRR design standards shall reflect the consideration of the traffic, safety, economic, physical, community, and environmental needs of the projects.

    (4) Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Flood Plains, refer to 23 CFR part 650, subpart A.

    (5) Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, refer to 23 CFR part 772.

    (6) Accommodation of Utilities, refer to 23 CFR part 645, subpart B.

    (7) Pavement Design, refer to 23 CFR part 626.

    (b) Bridges and structures. (1) For existing bridges originally designed to any edition of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, modifications may be designed to the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, AASHTO 2002, or to the standards and specifications that are listed in § 625.4(b). [See § 625.4(d)(1)]

    (2) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 3rd Edition, with 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 Interim Revisions, AASHTO. [See § 625.4(d)(1)]

    (3) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, AASHTO 2014. [See § 625.4(d)(1)]

    (4) AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd Edition, including 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015 Interim Revisions, AASHTO 2007. [See § 625.4(d)(1)]

    (5) AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2010 Bridge Welding Code, 6th Edition, with 2011 and 2012 Interim Revisions, AASHTO 2011. [See § 625.4(d)(1)]

    (6) D1.4/D1.4M: 2011Structural Welding Code-Reinforcing Steel, American Welding Society, 2011. [See § 625.4(d)(2)]

    (7) Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition, AASHTO 2013. [See § 625.4(d)(1)]

    (8) Navigational Clearances for Bridges, refer to 23 CFR part 650, subpart H.

    (d) Documents incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The documents listed in § 625.4 are incorporated by reference and available for inspection at the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Transportation Library at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (800) 853-1351. The documents also are available for inspection 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Copies of these documents may be obtained from the following organizations:

    (1) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Suite 249, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001; www.transportation.org; or (202) 624-5800.

    (i) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO 2011.

    (ii) A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System, AASHTO, January 2005.

    (iii) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, AASHTO 2002.

    (iv) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 3rd Edition, with 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 Interim Revisions.

    (v) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, AASHTO 2014.

    (vi) AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd Edition, including 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015 Interim Revisions, AASHTO 2007.

    (vii) AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2010 Bridge Welding Code, 6th Edition, with 2011 and 2012 Interim Revisions, AASHTO 2011.

    (viii) Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition, AASHTO 2013.

    (2) American Welding Society (AWS), 8669 NW 36 Street, # 130 Miami, FL 33166-6672; www.aws.org; or (800) 443-9353 or (305) 443-9353.

    (i) D1.4/D1.4M: 2011 Structural Welding Code—Reinforcing Steel, American Welding Society, 2011.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2015-13097 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 888 [Docket No. FR-5855-A-01] RIN 2501-AD74 Establishing a More Effective Fair Market Rent (FMR) System; Using Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs) in Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of the Current 50th Percentile FMRs; Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA) requires HUD to publish Fair Market Rents (FMRs) periodically, but not less than annually, adjusted to be effective on October 1 of each year. Some examples of uses of FMRs are to determine payment standard amounts for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, to establish a limit on the amount of rent to owner for project-based vouchers, to determine initial and renewal rents for some new and expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, to determine initial rents for housing assistance payment (HAP) contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program (Mod Rehab), and to serve as a rent ceiling in the HOME rental assistance program.

    This document announces HUD's intention to amend HUD's FMR regulations applicable to the HCV program (24 CFR part 888) to provide HCV tenants with subsidies that better reflect the localized rental market, including subsidies that would be relatively higher if they move into areas that potentially have better access to jobs, transportation, services, and educational opportunities. Specifically, this document requests public comments on the use of small area FMRs (SAFMRs) for the HCV program within certain metropolitan areas. Small areas FMRs vary by ZIP code and support a greater range of payment standards than can be achieved under existing regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments to the Office of the General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0001. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title and should contain the information specified in the “Request for Comments” section. There are two methods for submitting public comments.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at all federal agencies, however, submission of comments by mail often results in delayed delivery. To ensure timely receipt of comments, HUD recommends that comments submitted by mail be submitted at least two weeks in advance of the public comment deadline.

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

    Note:

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

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

    Public Inspection of Comments. All comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available, for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at (202) 708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marie L. Lihn, Senior Economist, Economic Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-5866; email: [email protected] Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may use the Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TTY) by contacting the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. (Other than the “800” TTY number, telephone numbers are not toll free.)

    Electronic Data Availability. This Federal Register notice will be available electronically from the HUD User page at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html. Federal Register notices also are available electronically from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html, the U.S. Government Publishing Office Web site. SAFMRs based on Final Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Metropolitan Area Rents are available in Microsoft Excel format at the same HUD web address http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    HUD's HCV program helps low-income households obtain standard rental housing and reduces the share of their income that goes toward rent. Vouchers issued under the HCV program provide subsidies that allow individuals and families to rent eligible units in the private market. A key parameter in operating the HCV program is the FMR.

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

    HUD establishes FMRs for different geographic areas. Because payment standards are based on FMRs, housing assistance payments on behalf of the voucher household are limited by the geographic area in which the voucher household resides. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, and safe rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. In addition, all rents subsidized under the HCV program must meet rent reasonableness standards. Rent reasonableness is determined by PHAs with reference to rents for comparable unassisted units.

    Currently, HUD calculates FMRs for all nonmetropolitan counties and metropolitan areas. The same FMR is applicable throughout a nonmetropolitan county or metropolitan area, which generally is comprised of several metropolitan counties. FMRs in a metropolitan area represent the 40th percentile (or in special circumstances the 50th percentile) gross rent for typical non-substandard rental units occupied by recent movers in a local housing market.1

    1 See http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/USHMC/winter98/summary-2.html.

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

    For eligible areas, HUD establishes the FMR at the 50th percentile rather than at the 40th percentile of gross rent. For an FMR area to qualify to use the 50th percentile FMR, the following conditions must be met (see 24 CFR 888.113(c)):

    1. Minimum Area Size—the FMR area must be a metropolitan area containing at least 100 Census tracts;

    2. Concentration of Participants—25 percent or more of voucher program participants in the FMR area must be located in the 5 percent of Census tracts with the highest number of voucher participants; and

    3. Concentration of Affordable Units—70 percent or fewer of the FMR area's Census tracts containing 10 or more rental units have at least 30 percent of rental units at or below the 40th percentile FMR.

    The main objective of the 50th percentile program was to provide a broad range of housing opportunities that would enable voucher holders to de-concentrate from low opportunity areas. However, research indicates that 50th percentile FMRs are not an effective tool in increasing HCV tenant moves from areas of low opportunity to higher opportunity areas; specifically, it appears that much of the benefit of increased FMRs simply accrues to landlords in lower rent submarket areas in the form of higher rents rather than creating an incentive for tenants to move to units in communities with more and/or better opportunities. To determine the 50th percentile program's effectiveness, HUD must measure the reduction in concentration of HCV tenants (measure 2 above) presumably from high poverty areas, over a three-year period. If there is no measureable reduction in the concentration of HCV tenants, the FMR area loses the use of 50th percentile FMRs for a three-year period. A large number of areas have been disqualified from the program for failure to show measurable reduction in voucher concentration of HCV tenants 2 since 2001 when the program started, strongly suggesting that the de-concentration objective is not being met.

    2 Areas may subsequently requalify for 50th percentile status after a three-year period.

    Since the establishment of the 50th percentile program, HUD has developed SAMFRs to reflect rents in ZIP code-based areas with a goal to improve HCV tenant outcomes. SAFMRs have been shown to be a more direct approach to encouraging tenant moves to housing in lower poverty areas by increasing the subsidy available to support such moves.3 Since 2010, when the Census Bureau made available data collected over the first 5 years of the American Community Survey (ACS), HUD has considered various methodologies that would set FMRs at a more granular level. HUD's goal in pursuing the SAFMR methodology is to create more effective means for HCV tenants to move into higher opportunity, lower poverty areas by providing them with subsidy adequate to make such areas accessible and to thereby help reduce the number of voucher families that reside in areas of high poverty concentration. Toward this end, on May 18, 2010, at 75 FR 27808, HUD announced a SAFMR demonstration project to ascertain the efficacy of FMRs which are published using U.S. Postal Service ZIP codes as FMR areas within metropolitan areas. On August 4, 2010, at 75 FR 46958, HUD mandated the use of SAFMRs in place of metropolitan-area-wide-FMRs to settle litigation in the Dallas, TX, HUD Metro FMR Area. HUD began a SAFMR demonstration on November 20, 2012, at 77 FR 69651, with the following PHAs: the Housing Authority of the County of Cook (IL), the City of Long Beach (CA) Housing Authority, the Chattanooga (TN) Housing Authority, the Town of Mamaroneck (NY) Housing Authority, and the Housing Authority of Laredo (TX).

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

    Based on HUD's research and experience with the SAFMR demonstration, HUD believes that amending its current FMR regulation to enable adoption of the SAFMR methodology could provide HCV tenants greater access to higher opportunity, lower poverty neighborhoods. As a part of this change, HUD would eliminate the use of 50th percentile FMRs as a means to reduce HCV tenant concentration. Before publication of a proposed rule, however, HUD is soliciting public comment on several pivotal issues, as described in section IV of this notice. As described in this notice, HUD is only considering such a change in its tenant-based HCV program, but is also specifically seeking comments on whether using the SAFMRs for new project-based voucher (PBV) projects is advisable. All other programs that use FMRs would continue to use area-wide FMRs. HUD is also considering whether regulations governing the use the 50th percentile FMR for success rate payment standards (under 24 CFR 982.503(e)) should be eliminated or changed. Success rate payment standards, which are set between 90 and 110 percent of the 50th percentile rent, are established for the entire FMR area when that area is having considerable lease-up issues in areas, both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan, that do not have 50th percentile FMRs. HUD will use public comments received in response to this notice in developing a proposed rule.

    II. Methodology for SAFMRs

    In general, SAFMRs are calculated using a rent ratio determined by dividing the median gross rent across all standard quality units for the small area (a ZIP code) by the similar median gross rent for the metropolitan area (the Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA)) of the ZIP code. ZIP codes were chosen because they localize rental rates, and a unit's ZIP code is easily identified by both PHAs and tenants.

    The rent ratio is calculated using median gross rents provided by the Census Bureau for both the small area and its encompassing metropolitan area. HUD restricts the use of ZIP code level median gross rents to those areas for which the margin of error of the ACS estimate is smaller than the estimate itself. The rent relationship is calculated in the following manner for those ZIP codes within the metropolitan area that have a sufficiently small margin of error:

    Rental Rate Ratio = Median Gross Rent for ZIP Code Area/Median Gross Rent for CBSA

    The rent relationship is capped at 150 percent for areas that would otherwise be greater. This cap was instituted as a mechanism for ensuring that HCV program funds are used as judiciously as possible. At the time of the institution of the SAFMR demonstration program, 2000 Census data showed that only one percent of all metropolitan ZIP codes had rents above this 150 percent.

    If the gross rent estimate for a ZIP code within the CBSA has a margin of error that is greater than the estimate, then the median gross rent for the county within the state containing the ZIP code is divided by the similar median gross rent for the CBSA of the ZIP code; the rent relationship is calculated as:

    Rental Rate Ratio = Median Gross Rent of the County/Median Gross Rent of the CBSA

    For metropolitan areas, FMRs will be calculated and published for each small area.

    HUD multiplies this rent ratio by the current estimate of the 40th percentile two-bedroom rent for recent movers into standard quality units for the entire metropolitan area containing the small area to estimate the current year two-bedroom rent for the small area. For FY 2015 SAFMRs, HUD continues to use the rent ratios developed in conjunction with the calculation of FY 2013 FMRs based on 2006-2010 5-year ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) median gross rent data. The Census Bureau requires the use of ZCTAs to report data for ZIP codes, because ZCTAs are a standard Census geography. In addition to ZCTAs defined by the Census Bureau, HUD produces SAFMR estimates for ZIP codes obtained from the U.S. Postal Service where the number of residential addresses is greater than zero. The rent ratio set for these ZIP codes is based on the county-to-metropolitan relationship for the ZIP code in question.

    To set the floor for SAFMRs in a metropolitan area, HUD compares two-bedroom SAFMR estimates to the state nonmetropolitan minimum two-bedroom rent for the state in which the area is located that is established as a floor for all FMRs. If the ZIP code rent determined using the rental rate ratio is less than the state minimum, the ZIP code rent is set at this state nonmetropolitan minimum. SAFMRs for bedroom counts other than two-bedroom are based on the bedroom-size relationships estimated for the metropolitan area. The final calculated rents are then rounded to the nearest $10. SAFMRs for all metropolitan areas are available for viewing and download on the Internet at (http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html). There are also detailed calculations for each ZIP code area in participating jurisdictions at this Web site.

    III. Current Problems With 50th Percentile FMR Areas and Proposed Replacement With Small Area FMRs

    The 50th percentile FMR allows payment standards set between 90 percent and 110 percent of the 50th percentile FMR across the entire qualifying area, whereas Small Area FMRs better differentiate between higher and lower rent areas within a metropolitan area. As mentioned earlier, the use of 50th percentile FMRs has several limitations with respect to the goal of providing tenants more choice in the neighborhoods where they can rent and reducing HCV household concentration.

    There is a regulatory requirement to reevaluate the designations after three years to gauge progress in alleviating HCV tenant concentration in the designated FMR area. If an area does not show an improvement in its voucher tenant concentration level after a three-year period, then the area loses its 50th percentile FMR for a period of three years. After the three-year period, these areas may, and generally do, return to the 50th percentile FMR. While there are a couple of FMR areas that graduated from the 50th percentile FMRs (which means they no longer have at least 25 percent of the voucher holders living in the five percent of the Census tracts with the most voucher participants), most of the remaining FMR areas have cycled in and out of the 50th percentile FMR program at least once. Originally, in 2001, there were 39 areas that qualified to use 50th percentile FMRs. With the change in FMR area definitions and the use of 2000 Decennial Census data to determine the concentration of affordable units (criteria 3), only 21 FMR areas remained eligible, while an additional 10 areas became newly eligible. In FY 2008, there were 28 50th percentile FMR areas, the most since FY 2006. Only three of the original and two of the new areas have never lost the use of 50th percentile FMRs; most of the remaining areas lost the 50th percentile FMR for failure to de-concentrate, though a few have cycled in and out as they hover around the HCV tenant concentration threshold (three areas) and a few areas have only had reporting issues (two areas), meaning that their exclusion from the program is reassessed annually instead of every 3 years. The cycling in and out of the 50th percentile FMRs over a three year period for failure to reduce HCV concentration by the majority of program participant areas shows that the program is not meeting its de-concentration goals. In addition, a loss of 50th percentile FMRs is disruptive both to the HCV program and to other non-HCV programs (where payment standard flexibility to modify assistance payments does not exist), such as the Shelter Plus Care program, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, and other state and local programs tied to HUD's FMRs.

    HUD's analysis of the FY 2015 FMRs indicates that the 50th percentile FMRs provide a rent that is on average, weighted by population, 7.3 percent higher than the 40th percentile FMR for those sixteen areas that currently use 50th percentile FMRs. Even with the use of a 110 percent payment standard authority, the FMR in 50th percentile areas would not reach a gross rent that is 120 percent above the 40th percentile rent (it would on average be 110 percent of 1.073 or 118 percent higher). This average 50th percentile FMR rent differential is generally not high enough to provide HCV households with access to higher opportunity neighborhoods. Also, by providing the same FMR for the entire FMR area, 50th percentile FMRs fail to provide tenants sufficient means to move to areas of higher opportunity while also unnecessarily raising subsidies in neighborhoods with lower rents.

    Alternatively, SAFMRs may provide voucher families with subsidies that better reflect the localized rental market, including subsidies that would be relatively higher if they move into areas that potentially have better access to jobs, transportation, services, and educational opportunities. More importantly, SAFMRs vary within an FMR area, and they can go as high as 165 percent of the 40th percentile FMR (using 110 percent payment standard authority when the SAFMR is at 150 percent of the metropolitan area rent).

    A third issue with the current 50th percentile FMRs is that they only measure the degree to which vouchers are concentrated in a small share of neighborhoods but do not take poverty rates into account. In moving to SAFMRs, HUD will have an opportunity to reconsider the criteria for identifying areas with undue voucher concentration and make sure the SAFMRs are also available in areas where vouchers are concentrated in high-poverty areas. Measuring whether vouchers are concentrated in high-poverty areas will enable HUD to target SAFMRs to areas where voucher concentration likely has the most severe adverse effects.

    In addition, HUD would limit application to FMR areas where there are a substantial number of units in neighborhoods where SAFMRs are significantly above or below the 40th percentile FMR. This will ensure that the SAFMR program is targeted to FMR areas where PHAs' normal authority to set payment standards between 90 and 110 percent of the FMR would not allow access to opportunity areas but SAFMRs would.

    IV. Request for Public Comments on Replacing the 50th Percentile FMRs With the Use of Small Area FMRs

    This notice seeks comments on the use of SAFMRs to provide HCV tenants with access to better housing and better neighborhoods and to reduce poverty concentration. The SAFMRs would be limited to metropolitan areas with significant rent differentials in areas with adequate housing, since these are the areas in which SAFMRs have the greatest potential to improve the housing options available to HCV-assisted households. HUD plans to limit the use of SAFMRs to the HCV program only and to a limited number or percentage of vouchers, especially now while the demonstration program is under way. HUD also wants to eliminate the cycling in and out of FMR areas; once an area qualifies for the use of SAFMRs, the area would not be subject to losing the use of SAFMRs. To assist HUD in framing the issues involved in moving to SAFMRs, HUD seeks public comment on this topic, but specifically on the following questions:

    1. Measurement of undue voucher concentration: What poverty rate and concentration level should be used in determining the criteria for selecting SAFMR areas? Measuring the extent to which vouchers are concentrated in high-poverty areas will enable HUD to target SAFMRs to areas where voucher concentration likely has the most severely adverse effects. Poverty concentration levels of 20 percent and 40 percent have been identified as particularly significant thresholds for adverse impacts.4 However, simply measuring the share of voucher holders in areas with poverty rates above these levels may be inadequate since this share will tend to be higher in metropolitan areas with generally high poverty rates regardless of the performance of the voucher program. Should the Department attempt to target areas where concentration of voucher tenants in high-poverty census tracts, however defined, is generally higher than the concentration of rental units? Should the Department target some higher threshold of relative poverty concentration?

    4 Thresholds, or tipping points, also prove important. In a recent review of research, Galster notes that studies suggest “that the independent impacts of neighborhood poverty rates in encouraging negative outcomes for individuals like crime, school leaving, and duration of poverty spells appear to be nil unless the neighborhood exceeds about 20 percent poverty, whereupon the externality effects grow rapidly until the neighborhood reaches approximately 40 percent poverty; subsequent increases in the poverty population appear to have no marginal effect.” George C. Galster, “The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications.” Presentation at the ESRC Seminar, St. Andrews University, Scotland, UK, 4-5 February 2010 as footnoted in the HUD publication at: http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/em/winter11/highlight2.html.

    2. SAFMR effectiveness: What percentage of an area's rental stock should be above and below the FMR? SAFMRs will only be an effective means of reducing HCV tenant concentration in high-poverty neighborhoods in metropolitan areas where there are sufficient numbers of rental units in ZIP codes with rents substantially above or below metropolitan area-wide FMRs. PHAs may establish voucher payment standards up to 10 percent above or below the FMR, so SAFMRs must be substantially above or below this range. What is the appropriate “sufficient” threshold proportion of units in ZIP codes with rents substantially different from metropolitan-area-wide FMRs? What is the appropriate threshold for defining “substantial” variation in SAFMRs above and below the 90 to 110 payment standard basic range around metropolitan area-wide FMRs?

    3. Program scale: In terms of number or percentage of metropolitan-area vouchers (which is roughly 1.9 million), what should be the size of the SAFMR program? Based on rental housing stock limitations, SAFMR estimations are limited to metropolitan areas. Because SAFMRs are more complex to administer for PHAs serving a territory containing many ZIP codes, HUD does not wish to impose too high an administrative burden on PHAs by moving to SAFMRs in place of 50th percentile FMRs. The current 50th percentile FMRs account for about 10 percent of the vouchers in all metropolitan areas, or less than 175,000 vouchers, and affect about 150 PHAs. For areas that have ever been 50th percentile areas, the number of vouchers shows a program size of just over 350,000 vouchers, with more than 300 PHAs serving these vouchers. Would SAFMRs of similar size (in terms of number of vouchers used) to the current or the maximum (ever) 50th percentile FMR be appropriate? Note that the selection of the thresholds described in 1 and 2 above will necessarily affect the size of the SAFMR program in terms of the number of voucher holders or PHAs that administer the program, and that the selected areas will not necessarily include areas currently statistically eligible for the 50th percentile FMR.

    4. PHA or metropolitan-wide: Should SAFMRs apply to all PHAs in a metropolitan area, or only to PHAs that display a pattern of HCV tenant concentration in high-poverty census tracts? Limiting the application of SAFMRs to individual PHAs would reduce overall administrative burden; however, might it be too confusing to have PHAs that service the same area not use the same set of FMRs. HUD seeks comments on the relative value of limiting the use of SAFMRs to those agencies exhibiting a pattern of HCV tenant concentration in high-poverty areas versus using SAFMRs for all PHAs servicing an area where HCV tenants are concentrated in high-poverty areas.

    5. Voluntary participation: Should a PHA be allowed to use SAFMRs even if the PHA or the underlying metropolitan area would not qualify for the use of SAFMRs? Qualification thresholds as discussed above will invariably result in “near misses” of areas or PHAs falling just below qualification thresholds, but where PHAs may see value in the SAFMR approach for addressing voucher concentration, or providing better access to opportunity. HUD seeks comment on whether the choice to use SAFMRs should be entirely up to individual PHAs, or if participation should be limited in some way.

    6. PBV Use of SAFMRs: Should SAFMRs be applied to PBVs at least for future PBV projects? HUD seeks comment on whether the SAFMRs should be applied to PBV assistance as well as tenant-based rental assistance. Under the PBV program, one of the limitations on the amount of subsidy that may be paid is that the rent to owner may not exceed 110 percent of the applicable FMR (or an exception payment standard approved by the Secretary) for the unit bedroom size minus any utility allowance. As a result, the use of SAFMRs for future PBV projects could potentially increase the number of PBV units that are located in areas of opportunity, because the SAFMRs would recognize the higher rents that are prevalent in more desirable neighborhoods, rather than applying the same 110 percent FMR limitation to all PBV projects throughout the entire metro area, regardless of the project's location.

    Because the 110 percent FMR rent limitation applies not only to the initial rent to owner but also to the re-determined rent to owner during the term of the HAP contract, a change to SAFMRs could impact the rents for existing PBV projects and could have an adverse impact on some PBV projects. Should the applicability of SAFMRs to PBV be limited to future PBV projects (or limited in some other manner) so that the change would not potentially impact the rents of existing PBV projects?

    7. Success Rate Payment Standards: In addition to using Small Area FMRs as a tool to alleviate concentrations of voucher tenants in high poverty areas, should Small Area FMRs also be used in areas that qualify for success rate payment standards? HUD seeks comment on whether the Success Rate Payment Standard regulations (24 CFR 982.503(e)) should continue to use 50th percentile FMRs or if these areas would also benefit from operating under Small Area FMRs. Raising the level of rents across an entire FMR area to the 50th percentile may be necessary in areas where current success rates are low; consequently, the Department could continue to produce 50th percentile rents for this purpose. Such an area may not have enough of a rent differential and/or may not be in a metropolitan area and may benefit from the higher payment standard, up to 110 percent of the 50th percentile rent.

    8. Relevant PHA Experience: What information do PHAs currently using SAFMRs (Dallas area and SAFMR Demonstration PHAs), or other PHAs that have used SAFMRs for helping set Housing Choice Voucher payment standards (such as PHAs in the Moving to Work Demonstration) have regarding their use of Small Area FMRs? HUD is seeking information about the impacts of implementing Small Area FMRs, including (but not limited to) administrative burden, tenant outcomes and landlord participation.

    Environmental Impact

    A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4374) is unnecessary, since the Housing Choice Voucher Program is categorically excluded from the Department's National Environmental Policy Act procedures under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(d).

    Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking was reviewed by OMB and determined to likely result in a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and potentially an “economically significant action,” as provided in section 3(f)(1) of that Order.

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

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Katherine M. O'Regan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13430 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Secretary 31 CFR Part 1 RIN 1505-AC50 Privacy Act; Implementation AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) amends this part to partially exempt a new Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) system of records entitled “Treasury/CC .800—Office of Inspector General Investigations System” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Please use the title “Proposed Rule for New Privacy Act System of Records” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.

    Fax: (571) 465-4326.

    Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and the docket number in your comment. In general, OCC will enter all comments received into the docket without change, including any business or personal information that you provide such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this notice by appearing personally to inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and to submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristin Merritt, Special Counsel, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the head of an agency may promulgate rules to exempt a system of records from certain provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a if the system is investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes. Treasury is hereby giving notice of a proposed rule to exempt “Treasury/CC .800-Office of Inspector General Investigations System” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). The proposed exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) is from provisions (c)(3), (d)(1)-(4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G)-(I), and (f) because the system contains investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes. The following are the reasons why this system of records maintained by the OCC is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) of the Privacy Act of 1974:

    (1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3). This provision of the Privacy Act provides for the release of the disclosure accounting required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(1) and (2) to the individual named in the record at his/her request. The reasons for exempting this system of records from the foregoing provision are:

    (i) The release of disclosure accounting would put the subject of an investigation on notice that an investigation exists and that such person is the subject of that investigation.

    (ii) Such release would provide the subject of an investigation with an accurate accounting of the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure and the name and address of the person or agency to which disclosure was made. The release of such information to the subject of an investigation would provide the subject with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation and could result in the alteration or destruction of documentary evidence, the improper influencing of witnesses, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.

    (iii) Release to the individual of the disclosure accounting would alert the individual as to which agencies were investigating the subject and the scope of the investigation and could aid the individual in impeding or compromising investigations by those agencies.

    (2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(1)-(4), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (f). These provisions of the Privacy Act relate to an individual's right to be notified of:

    (i) The existence of records pertaining to such individual;

    (ii) Requirements for identifying an individual who requested access to records;

    (iii) The agency procedures relating to access to and amendment of records;

    (iv) The content of the information contained in such records; and

    (v) The civil remedies available to the individual in the event of an adverse determination by an agency concerning access to or amendment of information contained in record systems.

    The reasons for exempting this system of records from the foregoing provisions are that notifying an individual (at the individual's request) of the existence of an investigative file pertaining to such individual or granting access to, or the right to amend, such an investigative file pertaining to such individual could allow individuals to learn whether they have been identified as suspects or subjects of an investigation. Such knowledge would impair and interfere with the OCC's, the OIG's, and other agencies' investigative, enforcement, or criminal proceedings because individuals could:

    (i) Take steps to avoid detection;

    (ii) Inform associates than an investigation is in process;

    (iii) Learn the nature of the investigation;

    (iv) Begin, continue, or resume illegal conduct upon learning that they are not identified in the system of records;

    (iv) Destroy evidence needed to prove the violation;

    (v) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of others;

    (vi) Disclose the identity of confidential sources and reveal confidential information supplied by such sources; or

    (vii) Disclose investigative techniques and procedures.

    (3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1). This provision of the Privacy Act requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute or executive order. The reasons for exempting this system of records from the foregoing requirements is that: At the time that the OCC collects information it often lacks sufficient time to determine whether the information is relevant and necessary to accomplish the purposes of an investigation. Therefore, what appears relevant and necessary when first received may subsequently be determined to be irrelevant or unnecessary. It is only after the information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established with certainty.

    (4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I). This provision of the Privacy Act requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The reasons for claiming an exemption from this provision are as follows:

    (i) Revealing categories of sources of information could disclose investigative techniques and procedures.

    (ii) Revealing categories of sources of information could cause sources who supply information to investigators to refrain from giving such information because of fear of reprisal, or fear of breach of promises of anonymity and confidentiality.

    (iii) Revealing categories of sources could cause informers to refuse to give full information to investigators for fear of having their identities as sources disclosed.

    Treasury will publish the notice of the proposed new system of records separately in the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, does not require a regulatory impact analysis. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply.

    The regulation will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, it is hereby certified that these regulations will not significantly affect a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule imposes no duties or obligations on small entities.

    List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 1

    Privacy.

    Part 1, subpart C of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

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

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 31 U.S.C. 321. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552 as amended. Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    2. Section 1.36 paragraph (g)(1)(iii) is amended by adding the following text to the table in numerical order.
    § 1.36 Systems exempt in whole or in part from provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a and this part.

    (g) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    Number Name of system *    *    *    *    * CC .800 Office of Inspector General Investigations System. *    *    *    *    *
    Dated: May 12, 2015. Helen Goff Foster, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, and Records.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13166 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-33-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0824; FRL-9928-34-Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Part 3 Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Part 3 rules into the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). On December 13, 2013, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted to EPA for approval revisions to Part 3, Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Particulate Matter (PM), for open burning and electro-static precipitators (ESPs). The revisions for open burning eliminate specific provisions to allow household waste burning, and add a provision to allow for burning of fruit and vegetable storage bins for pest or disease control with specific location limitations. The SIP request also removes rule 330 dealing with operation parameters for electrostatic precipitators because of redundancy, and rule 349 dealing with compliance dates for coke ovens because it is now obsolete. EPA is approving this SIP revision because it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0824, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.

    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Final Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)353-8290, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 18, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13119 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA-R10-RCRA-2015-0307; FRL-9928-38-Region 10] Idaho: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Idaho has applied to the EPA for final authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. RCRA allows the EPA to authorize State hazardous waste management programs if the EPA finds that such programs are equivalent to and consistent with the Federal program and provide adequate enforcement of compliance. The EPA has reviewed Idaho's application, has preliminarily determined these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is proposing to authorize the State's changes.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2015-0307 by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected].

    Mail: Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop AWT-150, Seattle, Washington 98101.

    Hand Delivery: Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop AWT-150, Seattle, Washington 98101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the normal business hours of operation; special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2015-0307. The 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 the 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 the 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 through www.regulations.gov, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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 the EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    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 EPA Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, First Floor Lobby, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA Region 10 Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. PST Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Region 10 Library telephone number is (206) 553-1289.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop AWT-150, Seattle, Washington 98101, email: [email protected] or phone number (206) 553-2416.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Proposed Authorization Revision A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize their changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

    B. What decisions have we made in this proposed rule concerning authorization?

    The EPA has preliminarily determined that Idaho's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we are proposing to grant Idaho final authorization to operate its hazardous waste management program with the changes described in the authorization application. Idaho will have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA, and which are not less stringent than existing requirements, take effect in authorized States before the States are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

    C. What will be the effect if Idaho is authorized for these changes?

    If Idaho is authorized for these changes, a facility in Idaho subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements to comply with RCRA. Additionally, such facilities will have to comply with any applicable Federal requirements, such as, for example, HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for which the State has not received authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State requirements. Idaho continues to have enforcement authorities and responsibilities under its State hazardous waste management program for violations of the requirements of this program. However, the EPA retains authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, the authority to:

    • Conduct inspections; which may include but are not limited to requiring monitoring, tests, analyses, and/or reports;

    • Enforce RCRA requirements which may include but are not limited to suspending, terminating, modifying and/or revoking permits; and

    • Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.

    The action to approve these revisions will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Idaho is requesting authorization are already effective under State law and are not changed by the act of authorization.

    D. What happens if the EPA receives comments on this action?

    If the EPA receives comments on this action, we will address those comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you should do so at this time.

    E. What has Idaho previously been authorized for?

    Idaho initially received final authorization for its hazardous waste management program effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March 26, 1990). Subsequently, the EPA authorized revisions to the State's program effective June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April 12, 1995), January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March 10, 2004), July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005), February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8283, February 26, 2007), December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78647, December 23, 2008) and July 11, 2012 (77 FR 34229, June 11, 2012).

    F. What changes are we proposing?

    On February 11, 2015, Idaho submitted a program revision application to the EPA requesting authorization for all delegable Federal hazardous waste regulations codified as of July 1, 2012, incorporated by reference in IDAPA 58.01.05.000 et seq., which were adopted and effective in the State of Idaho on April 4, 2013. This authorization revision request includes the following federal rules for which Idaho is being authorized for the first time: Removal of Saccharin and its Salts from the Lists of Hazardous Constituents, Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Substances, 75 FR 78918, December 17, 2010; Technical Corrections to the Academics Lab Rule, 75 FR 79304, December 20, 2010; Revisions to the Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes, 76 FR 34147, June, 13, 2011; Hazardous Waste Manifest Printing Specifications Corrections, 76 FR 36363, June 22, 2011; and Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule, 77 FR 22229, April 13, 2012. The EPA proposes to revise the state's authorized hazardous waste program in its entirety through July 1, 2013. There were no final federal RCRA hazardous waste regulations promulgated by the EPA from July 1, 2012 to July 1, 2013. Notice and an opportunity for the public to comment on this proposed authorization revision is being provided at this time.

    G. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    Under RCRA section 3009, the EPA may not authorize State law that is less stringent than the Federal program. Any State law that is less stringent does not supplant the Federal regulations. State law that is broader in scope than the Federal program requirements is not authorized. State law that is equivalent to, and State law that is more stringent than, the Federal program may be authorized, in which case those provisions are enforceable by the EPA. This section discusses certain rules where the EPA has made the finding that Idaho's program is more stringent and will be authorized, and discusses certain portions of the Federal program that are not delegable to the State because of the Federal government's special role in foreign policy matters and because of national concerns that arise with certain decisions.

    The EPA does not authorize States to administer Federal import and export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Even though States do not receive authorization to administer the Federal government's import and export functions, found in 40 CFR part 262, subparts E, F and H, State programs are required to adopt the Federal import and export provisions to maintain their equivalency with the Federal program. Idaho amended its import and export laws to include the Federal rule on Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Requirements; Export Shipments of Spend Lead-Acid Batteries (75 FR 1236, January 8, 2010). The State's rule is found at IDAPA 58.01.05.006. The EPA will continue to implement those requirements directly through the RCRA regulations.

    The EPA has found that Idaho's Emergency Notification Requirements, (IDAPA 58.01.05.006.02), are more stringent than the Federal program. This is because the State's regulations require that the State Communications Center be contacted along with the Federal Center. The EPA has found the State's statutory requirement requiring hazardous waste generators and commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities to file annual hazardous waste generation reports, Idaho Code Section 39-4411(4) and 39-4411(5), to be more stringent than the Federal program. As the EPA can authorize rules that are determined to be more stringent than the Federal program, this requirement is authorized.

    H. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Idaho will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. If the EPA issued permits prior to authorizing Idaho for these revisions, these permits would continue in force until the effective date of the State's issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste permit, at which time the EPA would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an earlier date, terminate the existing EPA permit for cause, or allow the existing EPA permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those facilities located in Indian Country. The EPA will not issue new permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which Idaho is authorized after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Idaho is not authorized.

    I. How would authorizing Idaho for these revisions affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Idaho?

    Idaho is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:

    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within or abutting the State of Idaho;

    2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and

    3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation, that qualifies as Indian country. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. The EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these lands.

    II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed rule seeks to revise the State of Idaho's authorized hazardous waste program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This proposed rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

    A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    This action will authorize revisions to the federally approved hazardous waste program in Idaho. This type of action is exempt from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This proposed rule does not establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as codified in the Small Business Size Regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The EPA has determined that this proposed action will not have a significant impact on small entities because the proposed rule will only have the effect of authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. After considering the economic impacts of this action, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, the EPA did consult with officials of the State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality in developing this action. In the spirit of E.O. 13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules. Thus, the EPA has determined that Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. The EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed action does not involve technical standards. Therefore the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

    The EPA has determined that this proposed action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules which are equivalent to, and no less stringent than, existing federal requirements.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority

    This proposed action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: May 18, 2015. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2015-12932 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 435 [EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598; FRL-9928-58-OW] RIN 2040-AF35 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule, extension of the public-comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received requests for an extension of the period for providing comments on the proposed rule entitled “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category,” published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2015. EPA extends the comment period in order to provide the public additional time to submit comments and supporting information.

    DATES:

    Comments: The public comment period for the proposed rule published April 7, 2015, (80 FR 18557, is being extended to July 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments: Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to the EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the proposal (80 FR 18557) for the addresses and detailed instructions.

    Docket. Publically available documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. The EPA has established the official public docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Biddle, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone: 202-566-0350; email: [email protected]

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 435

    Environmental protection, Pretreatment, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Unconventional oil and gas extraction.

    Dated: May 21, 2015. Kenneth J. Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13414 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Part 2 [FAR Case 2015-019; Docket No. 2015-0019; Sequence No. 1] RIN 9000-AM96 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Definition of Multiple-Award Contract AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to define multiple-award contract.

    DATES:

    Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addresses shown below on or before August 3, 2015 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2015-019 by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2015-019”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2015-019.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Comment Now” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2015-019” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR Case 2015-019, in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Mahruba Uddowla, Procurement Analyst, at 703-605-2868, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2015-019.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On October 2, 2013, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule establishing new policies and procedures for multiple-award contracts and task and delivery orders in the Federal Register at 78 FR 61114. The final rule implemented several provisions of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public Law 111-240. Section 1311 of Public Law 111-240 (15 U.S.C. 632(v)) added a definition of “multiple award contract”. The SBA final rule included a definition of “multiple award contract” at 13 CFR 125.1(k).

    II. Proposed FAR Change

    The purpose of the proposed FAR change is to define multiple-award contract. The proposed FAR change would add a definition of multiple-award contract to FAR subpart 2.1, Definitions.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The change is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is summarized as follows:

    DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to define multiple-award contract. On October 2, 2013, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule (78 FR 61114) to implement various sections of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240) by establishing new policies and procedures for multiple-award contracts and task and delivery orders. SBA's final rule included a definition of multiple-award contract. This proposed rule defines multiple-award contract to implement that part of SBA's final rule in the FAR.

    The objective of this proposed rule is to implement a statutory requirement. The authorizing legislation is Section 1311 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240).

    This rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The proposed rule applies to all entities who do business with the Federal Government, but it is not expected to have a significant impact.

    This rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

    DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2015-019), in correspondence.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    List of Subject in 48 CFR Part 2

    Government procurement.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. William Clark, Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

    Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR part 2 as set forth below:

    PART 2—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

    2. Amend section 2.101 in paragraph (b) by adding, in alphabetical order, the definition “Multiple-award contract”, to read as follows:
    2.101 Definitions.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    Multiple-award contract means a contract that is—

    (1) A Multiple Award Schedule contract issued by GSA (e.g., GSA Schedule Contract) or agencies granted Multiple Award Schedule contract authority by GSA (e.g., Department of Veterans Affairs) as described in FAR part 38;

    (2) A multiple-award task-order or delivery-order contract issued in accordance with FAR subpart 16.5, including Governmentwide acquisition contracts; or

    (3) Any other indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract entered into with two or more sources pursuant to the same solicitation.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13424 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No: 110907562-5455-02] RIN 0648-BB40 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus Amendment To Simplify Vessel Baselines AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to approve an Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the Northeastern United States to simplify vessel baselines. This Omnibus Amendment to Simplify Vessel Baselines, which was submitted by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, would eliminate the one-time limit on vessel upgrades and remove gross and net tonnages from the vessel baseline specifications that are considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes. Implementing these measures would reduce the administrative burden to permit holders and NMFS and would have little effect on fleet capacity.

    This proposed rule would also remove the requirement for vessels to send in negative fishing reports (i.e., “did not fish” reports) during months or weeks when fishing did not occur. NMFS no longer needs these reports due to improved trip-level matching. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to remove this requirement to simplify the regulations and reduce reporting burdens for the industry.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213, by either of the following methods:

    ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213,

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields,

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Copies of the Omnibus Amendment to Simplify Vessel Baselines, and of the draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The EA/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at: www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

    To review Federal Register documents referenced in this rule, you can visit: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/mediacenter/ongoing/omnibus_amendment_to_simplify_vessel_baselines.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9233.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each Regional Fishery Management Council to submit any Fishery Management Plan (FMP) amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) approved this Baseline Amendment, which would simplify vessel baseline requirements, at their November 18, 2014, and October 8, 2014, meetings, respectively. Following these approvals and on behalf of the Councils, NMFS prepared additional analyses for the amendment based on the preferred alternatives and, once those were completed, declared a transmittal date of May 12, 2015. Both Councils have reviewed the proposed Baseline Amendment regulations as drafted by NMFS, and deemed them necessary and appropriate, as specified in section 303(c) of the MSA. If approved by NMFS, this amendment would simplify the specifications considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes.

    Background

    The MAFMC developed the first limited entry program in 1977 for the surfclam/quahog fishery, which included restrictions on replacement vessels. This program required that a replacement vessel be of “substantially similar capacity” in an effort to maintain but not increase the harvest capacity of the fleet at that time. Over the following two decades, the MAFMC and NEFMC implemented additional limited entry programs. By 1998, there were four different sets of vessel upgrade and replacement restrictions among the various FMPs. The upgrade restrictions became confusing for fishing industry members with more than one limited access permit, because different vessel upgrade regulations could apply to each permit. In addition, some vessels added limited access permits that originally qualified on another vessel that was a different size and/or horsepower. This results in a vessel having multiple baselines. Thus, in 1999, the MAFMC and NEFMC, in consultation with NMFS, developed the Amendment to Achieve Regulatory Consistency on Permit Related Provisions for Vessels Issued Limited Access Federal Fishery Permits (64 FR 8263, February 19, 1999) (Consistency Amendment) to streamline and make consistent baseline provisions and upgrade restrictions across FMPs.

    The Consistency Amendment standardized definitions and restrictions for vessel baselines, upgrades, and replacements across all limited access fisheries. It simplified regulations for vessel replacements, permit transfers, and vessel upgrades, making them consistent and less restrictive in order to facilitate business transactions. Although the Consistency Amendment did standardize the vessel baseline requirements for the fisheries of the northeast, some burdensome requirements remain. Under current restrictions, a vessel baseline is defined by vessel length overall, gross tonnage, net tonnage, and horsepower. We determine the baseline for a limited access permit based on the size (length, gross tonnage, and net tonnage) and horsepower of the first vessel issued a limited access permit for that fishery or, for fisheries that adopted baseline restrictions through the Consistency Amendment, the permitted vessel at the time the final rule became effective.

    Current baseline regulations require that a replacement vessel or an upgrade made to an existing vessel with a limited access permit be within 10 percent of the size and 20 percent of the horsepower of the permit's baseline vessel. To respect the NEFMC and the MAFMC's intended baseline restrictions of individual fisheries, for vessels with multiple baselines, we use the most restrictive of the baselines to judge the approval of a replacement vessel or upgrade, unless the permit holder chooses to relinquish the more restrictive permit. In addition, current baseline regulations limit permit holders to a one-time upgrade of the vessel size and horsepower specifications. For example, we limit a vessel owner that has a 60-ft (18.3-m) baseline length to upgrading to a vessel of up to 66 ft (20.1 m). However, if he moves his permit to a 62-ft (18.9-m) vessel for any reason, it would constitute his one-time size upgrade and he would lose the ability to upgrade to a vessel of 66 ft (20.1 m). He would only be able to move his permit to a vessel of 62 ft (18.9 m) or less. Because he used his one-time size upgrade, he would not be able upgrade the vessel's tonnages. He would still be able use his horsepower upgrade to upgrade his horsepower by 20 percent, but only once.

    The Baseline Amendment would:

    1. Eliminate gross and net tonnage from the baseline specifications considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes. Both the Councils and NMFS consider tonnages the most variable of vessel baseline specifications and, therefore, they have little effect on limiting vessel capacity when compared to length and horsepower restrictions. There is more than one acceptable method of determining tonnages, and the tonnages of a vessel can vary significantly depending on whether an exact measurement or simplified calculation is used. In addition, vessel owners can circumvent net tonnage limits by modifying internal bulkheads. Eliminating tonnages would simplify the vessel baseline verification and replacement process. In addition, it could reduce the cost burden on the industry if they only need horsepower verification because this would eliminate the need for a marine survey prior to any permit transactions.

    2. Remove the one-time limit on vessel upgrades. Eliminating the one-time upgrade limit would provide more flexibility for vessel owners in the selection of replacement vessels and upgrades to existing vessels. Some vessel owners have been constrained by the one-time limit because they or a previous owner did not maximize the one-time upgrade with a previous vessel replacement, due to cost or availability or for other reasons, and have since been unable to further upgrade the vessel. Eliminating the one-time limit would also simplify the baseline verification and vessel replacement process for vessel owners and NMFS by eliminating the need to research and document whether a vessel owner used the one-time upgrade during the vessel's entire limited access history.

    This rule proposes to remove the requirement for vessels to send in negative fishing reports (i.e., “did not fish” reports) during months or weeks when fishing did not occur. This was not part of the Baseline Amendment, but is the result of an internal review of the trip-level reporting requirements conducted by the joint Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office-Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fishery Dependent Data Committee (FDDC) during the past year. The division of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responsible for the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), in the interest of reducing compliance costs for small businesses, noted a potential cost savings for fishermen if we remove the DNF report and asked that we investigate the possibility of removing it. As a result of that review, the FDDC has recommended that the negative fishing reports are no longer necessary because the ability to determine if a vessel has engaged in fishing activity and submitted required trip reports has increased in recent years due to improved trip-level data matching and the expansion of other monitoring systems (e.g., Vessel Monitoring Systems). Therefore, in order to simplify the regulations and reduce reporting burdens for the industry, we are proposing to eliminate the negative fishing reports requirement in this action under the Secretary's authority at section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Vessel owners would still be required to report all fishing trip activity on a monthly or weekly basis, depending on the requirements associated with their vessel permits.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the MAFMC and the NEFMC have deemed the proposed regulations, with the exception of those noted above as proposed under the Secretary's authority at § 305(d), to be necessary and appropriate for the purpose of implementing the Baseline Amendment.

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Baseline Amendment, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    A notice of availability of the Draft EA/RIR, which analyzed the impacts of all the measures under consideration in the Baseline Amendment, was published at 80 FR 28217, May 18, 2014.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The proposed action would apply to all federally permitted fishing vessels operating in the Northeast Region subject to one or more of the affected FMPs (Black Sea Bass, Summer Flounder, Scup, Atlantic Herring, Illex Squid, Longfin Squid, Atlantic Mackerel, Mahogany Quahog, Monkfish, Northeast Multispecies, Atlantic Sea Scallop, and Red Crab). The proposed rule, if finalized, would eliminate the one-time limit on vessel upgrades and remove gross and net tonnages from vessel baseline specifications considered when determining a vessel's baseline for replacement purposes. It would also remove the requirement for vessels to send in negative fishing reports (i.e., “did not fish” reports) during months or weeks when fishing did not occur. Implementing these measures would reduce the administrative burden to permit holders, leading to increased profits for the regulated community.

    Removing tonnages from vessel baselines may also simplify or eliminate the need for a permit holder to hire a naval architect to determine and document tonnage if it was not previously established. NMFS estimates the resulting average cost savings of as much as $375 per survey. Removing tonnages and upgrades may negate the need for a permit holder to hire a third party to research the permit's history and prepare the replacement application. Estimates of the costs for these third party services were not available, but NMFS estimates that permit holders spend an average of 3 hours, or $270 in labor costs, preparing vessel replacement applications.

    Removing the one-time upgrade limit would also simplify administration of vessel baselines by eliminating the need for permit holders and NMFS to determine whether a permit already used its one-time upgrade or an upgrade to tonnage at some point in its history. This research can be a substantial time and cost burden for a permit holder, especially if the permit has changed hands several times.

    In addition, removing the requirement to send in negative fishing reports would relieve a substantial time and cost burden for permit holders. The relief of burden estimates for removing this requirement applies to all federally permitted vessels. In 2014, NMFS received approximately 78,000 did not fish reports. We estimated public reporting burden for submitting these reports to average 2 min per response with an associated cost of $0.45. Therefore, 78,000 did not fish reports would reduce total compliance costs by $35,100, and reduce reporting burden by 2,600 hours annually.

    Because there are cost savings resulting from this proposed rule, the impact on small entities would be a positive one. Therefore, this rule would not impose significant costs or burdens on any small entities. No small entities would be placed at a competitive disadvantage to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce the profit for any small entities. Because this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    The proposed action contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The request to remove the collection burden for vessel gross and net tonnages, vessel upgrades, and did not fish report requirements will be submitted to OMB for approval under the NMFS Northeast Region Scallop Report Family of Forms (OMB Control No. 0648-0202 and 0648-0212).

    Vessels would no longer be required to send in negative fishing reports (i.e., “did not fish” reports) during months or weeks when fishing did not occur. Vessel owners would still be required to report all fishing trip activity on a monthly or weekly basis, depending on the requirements associated with their vessel permits. The collection of negative fishing reports is no longer needed to determine if a vessel has engaged in fishing activity and submitted required trip reports due to improved trip-level data matching and the expansion of other monitoring systems (e.g., Vessel Monitoring Systems).

    The relief of burden estimates for removing this requirement applies to all federally permitted vessels. In 2014, NMFS received approximately 78,000 did not fish reports. We estimated public reporting burden for submitting these reports to average 2 min per response with an associated cost of $0.45.

    Therefore, 78,000 did not fish reports would reduce total compliance costs by $35,100, and reduce reporting burden by 2,600 hr annually.

    Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed reduction in collection of information is appropriate for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the forgone information would still have practical utility; the accuracy of the reduction in burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the Regional Administrator (See ADDRESSES above), and email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

    This action contains no other compliance costs. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal law.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: May 27, 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 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    § 648.2 [Amended]
    2. In § 648.2, remove the definition of “Substantially similar harvesting capacity.” 3. In § 648.4, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(E)(1), (a)(1)(i)(E)(2), (a)(1)(i)(F)(1), (a)(1)(i)(F)(2), (a)(1)(i)(H), (a)(3)(i)(H), (a)(13)(i)(E)(1), (a)(13)(i)(F), and (a)(13)(i)(H) to read as follows:
    § 648.4 Vessel permits.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (E) * * *

    (1) The replacement vessel's horsepower may not exceed the horsepower of the vessel's baseline specifications by more than 20 percent, as applicable.

    (2) The replacement vessel's length overall may not exceed the length overall of the vessel's baseline specifications by more than 10 percent, as applicable.

    (F) * * *

    (1) The upgraded vessel's horsepower may not exceed the horsepower of the vessel's baseline specifications by more than 20 percent, as applicable.

    (2) The upgraded vessel's length overall may not exceed the vessel's baseline length overall by more than 10 percent, as applicable.

    (H) Vessel baseline specifications. The vessel baseline specifications in this section are the respective specifications (length, horsepower) of the vessel that was initially issued a limited access permit as of the date the initial vessel applied for such permit.

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (H) Vessel baseline specifications. The vessel baseline specifications in this section are the respective specifications (length, horsepower) of the vessel as of March 22, 1999, unless the vessel is in the process of construction or rerigging or under agreement or written contract for construction or rerigging, as of the effective baseline specification date in which case the baseline specifications will be established no later than February 19, 2000.

    (13) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (E) * * *

    (1) To be eligible for a limited access permit under this section, the replacement vessel's length overall may not exceed the vessel's baseline length overall by more than 10 percent. The replacement vessel must also meet any other applicable criteria under paragraph (a)(13)(i)(F) of this section.

    (F) Upgraded vessel. A vessel may be upgraded, whether through refitting or replacement, and be eligible to retain or renew a limited access permit, provided that the new length overall of the upgraded vessel does exceed the vessel's baseline length overall by more than 10 percent, as applicable.

    (H) Vessel baseline length. The vessel baseline length in this section is the overall length of the vessel indicated on the vessel's initial limited access permit as of the date the initial vessel applies for such permit.

    4. In § 648.7, revise paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (f)(2)(i) to read as follows:
    § 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) The owner or operator of any vessel issued a valid permit or eligible to renew a limited access permit under this part must maintain on board the vessel, and submit, an accurate fishing log report for each fishing trip, regardless of species fished for or taken, on forms supplied by or approved by the Regional Administrator. If authorized in writing by the Regional Administrator, a vessel owner or operator may submit reports electronically, for example by using a VMS or other media. With the exception of those vessel owners or operators fishing under a surfclam or ocean quahog permit, at least the following information and any other information required by the Regional Administrator must be provided: Vessel name; USCG documentation number (or state registration number, if undocumented); permit number; date/time sailed; date/time landed; trip type; number of crew; number of anglers (if a charter or party boat); gear fished; quantity and size of gear; mesh/ring size; chart area fished; average depth; latitude/longitude (or loran station and bearings); total hauls per area fished; average tow time duration; hail weight, in pounds (or count of individual fish, if a party or charter vessel), by species, of all species, or parts of species, such as monkfish livers, landed or discarded; and, in the case of skate discards, “small” (i.e., less than 23 inches (58.42 cm), total length) or “large” (i.e., 23 inches (58.42 cm) or greater, total length) skates; dealer permit number; dealer name; date sold, port and state landed; and vessel operator's name, signature, and operator's permit number (if applicable).

    (f) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) For any vessel not issued a NE multispecies; Atlantic herring permit; or any Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, or butterfish permit; fishing vessel log reports, required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, must be postmarked or received by NMFS within 15 days after the end of the reporting month. For any vessel issued a NE multispecies permit; Atlantic herring permit; or any Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, or butterfish permit; fishing vessel log reports must be postmarked or received by midnight of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week. For the purposes of this paragraph (f)(2)(i), the date when fish are offloaded will establish the reporting week or month the VTR must be submitted to NMFS, as appropriate.

    5. In § 648.14, revise paragraphs (b)(4) and (k)(2)(i) to read as follows:
    § 648.14 Prohibitions.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Fish for, possess, or land species regulated under this part with or from a vessel that is issued a limited access or moratorium permit under § 648.4(a) and that has had the horsepower or length overall of such vessel or its replacement upgraded or increased in excess of the limitations specified in § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(E) and (F).

    (k) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Fish for, possess, or land NE multispecies with or from a vessel that has had the length overall of such vessel, or its replacement, increased or upgraded in excess of limitations specified in § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(E) and (F).

    6. In § 648.82, revise paragraphs (l)(1)(ii) and (l)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 648. 82 Effort-control program for NE multispecies limited access vessels.

    (l) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) NE multispecies DAS may be transferred only to a vessel with a baseline main engine horsepower rating that is no more than 20 percent greater than the baseline engine horsepower of the transferor vessel. NE multispecies DAS may be transferred only to a vessel with a baseline length overall that is no more than 10 percent greater than the baseline length overall of the transferor vessel. For the purposes of this program, the baseline horsepower and length overall are those associated with the permit as of January 29, 2004. Upon approval of the transfer, the baseline of the transferee vessel would be the smaller baseline of the two vessels or the vessel owner could choose to adopt the larger baseline of the two vessels provided such an upgrade is consistent with provisions of this paragraph (l)(1)(ii). A vessel that has executed a one-time downgrade of a DAS Leasing Program baseline in accordance with paragraph (k)(4)(xi) is subject to the restrictions of paragraph (k)(4)(xi)(C) of this section.

    (iii) The transferor vessel must transfer all of its Federal limited access permits for which it is eligible to the transferee vessel in accordance with the vessel replacement restrictions under § 648.4, or permanently cancel such permits. When duplicate permits exist, i.e., those permits for which both the transferor and transferee vessel are eligible, one of the duplicate permits must be permanently cancelled.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13349 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P.
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 150506428-5468-01] RIN 0648-BF07 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Jonah Crab Fishery; Control Date for Jonah Crab Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a control date that may limit or restrict access into the Jonah crab fishery in Federal waters. This action is necessary to inform fishery participants that we are considering future action. We intend for this notice to promote awareness of possible future rulemaking, and discourage speculative entry into and/or investment in the Jonah crab fishery.

    DATES:

    June 2, 2015 is established as the “control date” for the Jonah crab fishery, and may be used as a reference date for future management measures related to the Jonah crab fishery, consistent with applicable Federal laws and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's recommendations. Written comments must be received on or before July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0065 by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0065, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Jonah crab Control Date.”

    Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered. We may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. 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.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9122.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Jonah crab (Cancer borealis), also known locally as rock crab, is not currently managed under Federal regulations or a coastwide Interstate Fishery Management Plan. Some individual Atlantic states do have management measures or permit requirements for Jonah crab. In May 2014, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's American Lobster Management Board initiated the development of an Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Jonah Crab, throughout the species range within United States waters. The Board's development of a formal management plan was based on its concern about potential impacts to the Jonah crab resource with recent increases in landings. At its May 2015 meeting, the Board voted to approve a draft Jonah crab Interstate Fishery Management Plan for public comment. The draft Plan includes options for a limited access program for the fishery, such as an option that would limit Jonah crab fishing only to those fishermen who could document Jonah crab landings occurring before a certain date, known as a control date.

    Also during the May 2015 meeting, the Commission requested that we establish a control date for the Jonah crab fishery that may be used to affect future participation in the Jonah crab fishery in Federal waters. The control date communicates to fishermen that participation and landing history after the date of publication may not be treated the same as participation and landings history that occurred prior to the control date. New entrants into the Jonah crab fishery after the control date could potentially be restricted from harvesting Jonah crab depending on the management options ultimately chosen by the Commission.

    This notification establishes June 2, 2015 as a control date for potential use in determining historical or traditional participation for the Jonah crab fishery. Consideration of a control date does not commit us to develop any particular management program or criteria for participation in the fishery. We may choose a different control date; or may choose a management program that does not make use of such a date. We may also choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the Jonah crab fishery. Any action we take will be taken pursuant to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, will be discussed at Commission and Board meetings, and will make have additional Federal rulemaking, including opportunity to comment.

    This notification gives the public notice that interested Jonah crab fishery participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the fishery. This notification and control date do not impose any legal obligations, requirements, or expectation.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13408 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 105 Tuesday, June 2, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comments requested.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Business and Cooperative Programs' intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the program for the Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by August 3, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ginger Allen, Business and Industry Division, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 3224, telephone (202) 690-0309, or email [email protected] The Federal Information Relay service on (800) 887-8339 is available for TDD users.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program.

    OMB Number: 0570-0014.

    Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2015.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection and recordkeeping requirements.

    Abstract: The collected information is submitted to the B&I loan official by loan applicants and commercial lenders for use in making program eligibility, financial feasibility determinations, and loan security determinations as required by the Con Act.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response.

    Respondents: Individuals, rural businesses, for profit businesses, non-profit businesses, Indian tribes, public bodies, and cooperatives.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 40.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 80.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 600 hours.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, at (202) 692-0040.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of Business and Cooperative Programs, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of Business and Cooperative Programs estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Lillian E. Salerno, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13179 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. II), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1612), and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 108-447). Additional information concerning the Board, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Board's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/blackhills/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Mystic Ranger District, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota. Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Jacobson, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 605-673-9216, or by email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to provide:

    (1) Forest Health Working Group Update; and

    (2) Governor's Task Force on 2014 Farm Bill; and

    (3) 75th Sturgis Motorcycle Rally Planning; and

    (4) Black Hills National Forest Social Media Presentation; and

    (5) Plan for August Field Trip; and

    (6) September Board Elections.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by June 1, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 605-673-9208.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Jerry Krueger, Deputy Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13336 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Eastern Idaho Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Eastern Idaho Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://fs.usda.gov/ctnf.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held June 30, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the large confrence room at the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Supervisor's Office at 1048 N. 3400 E. Idaho Falls, ID 83401.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Caribou-Targhee National Forest at 1048 N. 3400 E., Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynn Ballard, Eastern Idaho Resource Advisory Coordinator by phone at 1-208-557-5765 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is:

    1. The purpose of the meeting is for the Eastern Idaho Resource Advisory Committee members to review and vote on which proposed projects will be recommended for approval by the Designated Federal Officer.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 23, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Lynn Ballard, Eastern Idaho Resource Advisory Committeee Coordinator, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1048 N. 3400 E., Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401; or by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 1-208-557-5827.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Garth Smelser, Designated Federal Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13332 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public Meetings AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for public meetings of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on June 23 from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and June 24 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting on June 23 will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Research Library (Room 1894), Washington, DC 20230. The meeting on June 24 will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Research Library (Room 1894), Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, International Trade Administration. (Phone: (202) 482-1135 or Email: [email protected])

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Committee was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). It provides advice to the Secretary of Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and provides advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. For more information about the Committee visit: http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/.

    Matters To Be Considered: Committee members are expected to continue to discuss the major competitiveness-related topics raised at the previous Committee meetings, including trade and competitiveness; freight movement and policy; information technology and data requirements; regulatory issues; finance and infrastructure; and workforce development. The Committee's subcommittees will report on the status of their work regarding these topics. The agenda's may change to accommodate Committee business. The Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services will post the final detailed agenda's on its Web site, http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/, at least one week prior to the meeting. The meetings will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or [email protected] five (5) business days before the meeting.

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 11014, Washington, DC, 20230, or email to [email protected]

    For consideration during the meetings, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meetings, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on June 15, 2015. Comments received after June 15, 2015, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meetings. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee Web site within 60 days of the meeting.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. David Long, Director, Office of Supply Chain and Professional & Business Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13433 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting by teleconference.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board) will hold an open call on Wednesday, June 17, 2015. The Board was re-chartered in August 2013, to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the travel and tourism industry.

    During this call, the Board will deliberate recommendations related to the national goal on the international arrivals process. The agenda may change to accommodate Board business. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Board at http://trade.gov/ttab, at least one week in advance of the call.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, June 17, 2015, 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meetings, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5 p.m. EDT on June 10, 2015. Register by sending an email to [email protected]

    ADDRESSES:

    Via teleconference.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Niara Phillips, the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-4501, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry.

    Public Participation: The call will be open to the public. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption, and will receive upon registering a copy of the draft letter to be deliberated.

    There will be 15 minutes of time allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the call. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the item for public comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration along with a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Board's affairs at any time before or after the call. Comments may be submitted to Niara Phillips at the contact information indicated above.

    To be considered during the call, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on June 10, 2015, to ensure transmission to the Board prior to the call. Comments received after that deadline will be distributed to the members but may not be considered on the call. A recording will be available within 90 days of the call.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Brandie Baggatts, Executive Secretary, United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13154 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration District Export Council Nomination Opportunity AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of opportunity for appointment to serve as a District Export Council member.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce is currently seeking nominations of individuals for consideration for appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to serve as members of one of the 60 District Export Councils (DECs) nationwide. DECs are closely affiliated with the U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs) of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS), and play a key role in the planning and coordination of export activities in their communities.

    DATES:

    Nominations for individuals to a DEC must be received by the local USEAC Director by close of business on July 15, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please contact the Director of your local USEAC for more information on DECs and the nomination process. You may identify your local USEAC by entering your zip code online at http://export.gov/usoffices/index.asp. For general program information, contact Michelle Sylvester-Jose, National DEC Liaison, US&FCS, at (202) 482-1901.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    District Export Councils support the mission of US&FCS by facilitating the development of an effective local export assistance network, supporting the expansion of export opportunities for local U.S. companies, serving as a communication link between the business community and US&FCS, and assisting in coordinating the activities of trade assistance partners to leverage available resources. Individuals appointed to a DEC become part of a select corps of trade experts dedicated to providing international trade leadership and guidance to the local business community and assistance to the Department of Commerce on export development issues.

    Selection Process: Each DEC has a target membership of 30. Approximately half of the positions are open on each DEC for the four-year term from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2019. The local USEAC Director receives nominations for membership, and after ensuring that nominees meet the membership criteria outlined below, makes recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the local DEC Executive Committee. After completion of a vetting process, the Secretary selects nominees for appointment to local DECs. DEC members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce.

    Membership Criteria: Appointment is based upon an individual's international trade leadership in the local community, ability to influence the local environment for exporting, interest in export development, and willingness and ability to devote time to DEC activities. Members include exporters, export service providers and others whose profession supports U.S. export promotion efforts. DEC member appointments are made without regard to political affiliation. DEC membership is open to U.S. citizens and permanent residents of the United States. As representatives of the local exporting community, DEC Members must reside in, or conduct the majority of their work in, the territory that the DEC covers. DEC membership is open to representatives of local and state governments. DEC membership is not open to federal government employees, or individuals representing foreign governments.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1501 et. seq., 15 U.S.C. 4721.

    Daniel O'Brien, Deputy National Field Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13436 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-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: Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0178.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (revision of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 400.

    Average Hours per Response: Stranding and disposition reports, 30 minutes each; human interaction form, 1 hour.

    Burden Hours: 3,000.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for revision of a currently approved information collection.

    The marine mammal stranding report provides information on strandings so that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can compile and analyze, by region, the species, numbers, conditions, and causes of illnesses and deaths (including health problems related to human interaction) in stranded marine mammals. NMFS requires this information to fulfill its management responsibilities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1421a). NMFS is also responsible for the welfare of marine mammals while in rehabilitation status. The data from the marine mammal rehabilitation disposition report are required for monitoring and tracking of marine mammals held at various NMFS-authorized facilities.

    Revision: The data from a new human interaction exam form are required for monitoring and tracking of illnesses, injury, and death related to human interaction. This information is will be submitted primarily by members of the marine mammal stranding networks which are authorized by NMFS.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13359 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD808 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Cruise Ship Terminal Project AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Huna Totem Corporation (HTC) of Hoonah, Alaska to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, nine species of marine mammals during construction activities associated with the re-development of the cruise ship terminal at Hoonah, Alaska.

    DATES:

    This authorization is effective from June 1, 2015 through October 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Availability

    An electronic copy of HTC's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

    Summary of Request

    On June 23, 2014 we received a request from HTC for the taking of marine mammals incidental to pile driving and falsework pile extraction associated with the re-development of the Icy Strait Point Cruise Ship Terminal in Hoonah, Alaska. HTC submitted a revised application on September 9, 2014. On February 26, 2015 the applicant submitted an addendum to the application describing modifications to the specified activity. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on February 27, 2015. HTC proposes to conduct in-water work that may incidentally harass marine mammals (i.e., pile driving and falsework removal). In addition, the project would include associated upland improvements, which are not anticipated to have the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals. This IHA would be valid from June 1 through October 31, 2015. However, all pile driving is expected to be completed by the end of September. October has been included only to cover any contingencies that may arise. Hereafter, use of the generic term “pile driving” may refer to both pile installation and falsework removal unless otherwise noted.

    The use of vibratory pile driving is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Species with the expected potential to be present during the project timeframe include the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Steller sea lion (Eumatopius jubatus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), killer whale (Orcinus orca), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), and Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens).

    Description of the Specified Activity Overview

    The project would construct a new cruise ship berth terminal and associated upland improvements at the existing facility in order to streamline cruise ship operations at the site by constructing a permanent cruise ship berth, renovating existing tourist facilities and constructing additional tourist facilities to support cruise ship terminal operations at the site. The existing facility requires the vessel to anchor offshore, and requires passengers to be lightered (ferried in a smaller boat) to shore, which causes a bottleneck in operations. The new terminal has been designed as a floating platform to disembark/embark passengers so that there is a fixed elevation between the dock surface and the ships gangways, and to provide passengers with direct access to shore.

    The project will require the installation of 104 steel pipe piles of varying diameters below the MHHW by impact driving, down-hole drilling and vibratory hammer. Piles will be set by vibratory hammer that will cease operation as soon as bedrock is encountered. Vibratory hammer time should be between 10 and 30 minutes per pile. It is estimated that each pile will need to be driven approximately 50 feet to hit bedrock. Piles will then be drilled into bedrock using a down-hole drilling system with an under reaming bit for approximately 15 feet. This process will take an estimated 3 hours. This is a low energy air-powered system that releases decreased acoustic energy compared to impact driving. Proofing or seating of the pile into the drilled socket would occur with either a vibratory or impact hammer depending on the rock encountered and will be selected in the field based on actual sub surface conditions.

    Dates and Duration

    In-water work, which is work occurring below the mean higher high water (MHHW) will be limited to pile installation and falsework pile extraction. These activities will be limited to the period between June 1 and October 31, 2015 to avoid the period (15 April to 31 May) when spawning herring are most likely to be present within the project area. HTC expects pile driving will occur on up to 103 days. However, all pile driving is expected to be completed by the end of September. October has been included only to cover any contingencies that may arise. The overall project, including work not anticipated to result in incidental take, was initiated in September 2014 and will run through May 2016.

    Specific Geographic Region

    The existing Icy Strait Point site is located in Hoonah, Alaska. The project site is located at the junction of Icy Strait and Port Frederick, in the Baranof-Chichagof Islands watershed (HUC #19010203). Please see Sheet 1 of Appendix A in the HTC application for details.

    Detailed Description of Activities

    We provided a detailed description of the proposed action in our Federal Register notice announcing the proposed authorization (80 FR 14945; March 20, 2015). Please refer to that document; we provide only summary information here. The proposed action would involve construction of a new cruise ship berth terminal and associated upland improvements at the existing facility. The existing facility is served by an approximately 100-foot by 25-foot excursion dock, with an approximately 140-foot walkway connecting to shoreline. There is also an existing 40-foot by 80-foot fishing pier which is connected to the shore by an approximately 120-foot walkway. The new terminal would consist of a floating pontoon, which would be connected to the shore via a new trestle and transfer span. The new terminal would also include two new mooring dolphins, two new breasting dolphins, and three or more new reaction dolphins. Each of these would be interconnected via pile-supported catwalks.

    In-water work (work below the MHHW) will be limited to pile installation. Over-water work will include construction and installation of the steel trestle and transfer span, construction of the over-water portions of the mooring, breasting, and reaction dolphins, and construction of the catwalk spans. The floating pontoon will be fabricated in a dry dock and floated into position.

    In-water and over-water components of the project would be constructed in areas with water depths ranging between MHHW and approximately -60 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). The majority of the in-water and over-water work including construction of the mooring, breasting, and reaction dolphins; catwalks, a portion of the transfer span and floating pontoon will be completed between approximately -25 feet and -60 feet MLLW. A detailed description of in-water and over-water project components may be found in Table 1 of the HTC Application.

    Comments and Responses

    A notice of HTC's proposal to issue an IHA was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2014 (80 FR 14945). During the 30-day public comment period, both the Marine Mammal Commission and the National Park Service submitted letters. These letters are available on the Internet www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. All comments specific to HTC's application that address the statutory and regulatory requirements or findings NMFS must make to issue an IHA are addressed in this section of the Federal Register notice.

    Comment 1: The Commission noted that NMFS did not provide estimated sound source levels and potential takings associated with the down-hole drilling system proposed by HTC. The Commission recommends that NMFS include the down-the-hole drilling system in its incidental harassment authorization and consult with either ME DOT or the associated NMFS analyst regarding the appropriate Level A and B harassment zones, which may have been updated with in-situ measurements and take a consistent approach for activities it proposes to authorize in the future, including the use of down-the-hole drilling systems and down-hole hammers.

    Response 1: Down-hole drilling is an uncommon activity that has not usually been included as part of IHA applications or authorizations. The ME DOT project referenced above utilized a down-hole hammer which is a separate and distinct methodology from down-hole drilling. While down‐hole drilling is a common pile installation methodology in cases where piles must be seated in difficult geologic substrates, there is no published literature NMFS is aware of regarding the underwater noise generated during this type of procedure. As part of a 2013 ESA consultation for a proposed Alaska Department of Transportation Kodiak Ferry Dock Reconstruction project (PCTS# AKR-2013-9277), NMFS estimated that underwater noise levels associated with down‐hole drilling would be analogous to use of a hydraulic hammer (hydro‐hammer), and estimated a maximum underwater noise generation of 165 dB (re: 1 μPa at 200 Hz) associated with these devices. However, this analysis did not take into account any additional noise‐attenuating conditions associated with the activity.

    The operation of the down‐hole drill at the Icy Strait point project area will occur within the enclosed pile at depths between 5 and 35 feet below the mudline and the pile interior will be filled with air which will further attenuate any underwater noise generation. Based on the best available information, NMFS concludes that down‐hole drilling is not expected to result in underwater noise that would result in Level B harassment of marine mammals and, therefore, need not be included as part of this incidental harassment authorization.

    NMFS is aware of in situ studies planned for the future which will include hydroacoustic sound measurement sound associated with down-hole drilling. As this data becomes available it will be consistently incorporated into future authorizations.

    Comment 2: The Commission expressed concern that the most pertinent in-situ source level information was not used as part of the exposure analysis. It was noted more recent data from the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) may be applicable to this proposed authorization.

    Response 2: NMFS has reviewed the available information and is satisfied that the referenced measurements from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adequately represent the project and site characteristics. The Commission freely acknowledged that the extent of the Level B harassment zone will not likely be affected by use of a greater source level, given that the zone is constrained by surrounding land before reaching its maximum extent. Since the Level B harassment zone would remain unchanged, NMFS does not believe additional analysis is warranted.

    Comment 3: The Commission and NPS noted that older data were used to estimate the numbers of marine mammals that would be taken during the proposed activities. However, the Commission and NPS believe that more recent sources of data are available, and these sources should be considered. Further, to provide a more accurate assessment of the numbers of marine mammals that could potentially be harassed in the area, the Commission and NPS recommended that NMFS re-estimate the numbers of takes for humpback whales, Steller sea lions, harbor porpoises, harbor seals, killer whales, and Dall's porpoises.

    Response 3: NMFS has reviewed the more recent data and has revised its take estimates for the humpback whale, Steller sea lion, harbor porpoise, killer whale, and Dall's porpoise. See “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section below. NMFS thanks NPS and the Commission for the information and will include the information when evaluating future IHA applications and issuing authorizations.

    Comment 4: The Commission noted that the numbers of takes were estimated for a four-month work window with pile driving occurring on only 20 days. However, a modification of the scheduling plan now shows that pile driving may occur on up to 103 days. The Commission expressed concern that, while some of the take estimates may be reasonable for 20 days of pile driving, 103 days of driving would result in vastly underestimated take estimates.

    Response 4: The proposed notice of authorization published on March 20, 2015 (80 FR 14945) indicated that in-water down-hole drilling and pile driving would occur on an estimated 20 days during the four month authorization period. It was estimated that there would be a maximum of 100 hours of vibratory drilling time and 10 hours of impact hammer time for a total in-water work time of 110 hours. The applicant modified its schedule, resulting in up to 103 in-water work days. This means that the amount of drilling per day could range from 5.5 hours for 20 days of drilling to 1.07 hours over 103 days. However, the potential exposure time over the course of the project remains unchanged at 110 hours. Note that in this case, potential takes were assessed on the basis of the number of animals reasonably believed to be potentially present in the region during the planned four-month period. So, takes were not assessed on basis of 20 days and, therefore, an expansion to 103 days does not change the calculus.

    Comment 5: The Commission wrote that in situations where the estimated takes are less than the mean group size, takes should be increased to a minimum of mean group size. This approach is most pertinent to take estimates for gray whales and pacific white-sided dolphins.

    Response 5: NMFS agrees with this assessment and has revised the section containing take estimates accordingly.

    Comment 6: The Commission recommends NMFS review recent sightings and group size data for killer whales and Dall's porpoises and increase the number of takes for these two species appropriately.

    Response 6: NMFS agrees with the recommendation and has made revisions in the section containing updated take estimates.

    Comment 7: In the proposed authorization, NMFS required observers to monitor the Level A and B harassment zones 20 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile driving and removal. It also required that operators implement delay, power-down, or shut-down procedures during pile removal or driving if an animal approaches the Level A harassment zone. The Commission recommends that NMFS require HTC to (1) monitor the harassment zones at least 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after the proposed pile-driving and -removal activities and (2) that after a delay, power down, or shutdown, not resume activities until the marine mammal (a) is observed to have left the Level A harassment zone or (2) has not been seen or otherwise detected within the Level A harassment zone for 15 minutes for small odontocetes and 30 minutes for large and medium-sized whales.

    Response 7: NMFS agrees and has incorporated these changes into the section below on Mitigation and Monitoring.

    Comment 8: The proposed marine mammal monitoring protocol states: “If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' ability to make observations within the marine mammal buffer zone (the 100 meter radius) (e.g., excessive wind or fog), impact pile installation will cease until conditions allow the resumption of monitoring.” NPS notes that there is no similar allowance to cease operations if sea conditions/wind/visibility restrict observers' ability to make observations in the Level B harassment zone, and that observers may be unable to document Level B takes accurately if conditions are too poor to see the animal.

    Response 8: Level A harassment is not authorized in this case, and is practicably preventable under conditions where the sea-state does not restrict the ability to make observations. Therefore, we cannot allow impact driving to occur when a reasonably observable zone cannot be observed because of conditions. Given the sizable Level B harassment zone, there is no expectation that all Level B harassment would be observable or observed even under favorable sea-state conditions. Furthermore, shutting down operations every time a marine mammal is sighted in the larger Level B harassment zone is likely to significantly extend the length of certain projects, especially those situated in areas that frequently feature inclement weather and extension of a project timeline may expose marine mammals to additional risk of both Level A and Level B harassment.

    Comment 9: NPS notes that the Central North Pacific Stock of humpback whales is estimated at 10,103 individuals. This is the best estimate for Hawaii only and should be revised.

    Response 9: NMFS has incorporated the correct number (5,833) of humpback whales in the revised section on take estimates. where necessary.

    Comment 10: NPS notes that HTC's monitoring plan calls for a third observer who will “monitor from a boat that is conducting a transect along the 2,150 meter limit of the Level B harassment zone,” However, Appendix B, Fig B-3 of the Huna Totem application shows the boat transect covering a much broader area (all the way to the mouth of Excursion Inlet, also including Homeshore and all of Port Frederick). Why will the vessel-based observer monitor this broad area? It extends beyond the project area and may detract from the observer's ability to detect animals within the project area.

    Response 10: The Level B harassment zone for impact driving is 2,154 m while the same zone for vibratory driving extends to 21.5 km. Figure B-2 accurately depicts the Level B harassment zone boundary for impact pile driving activities.

    Comment 11: NPS states that there is no data source, analysis, or modelling used to reach NMFS' conclusion that the potential for increased vessel interaction or collisions associated with the proposed action are expected to be insignificant.

    Response 11: There is little data available that could be used to model vessel interactions and strikes and these statements were provided as background information. The IHA is specifically concerned with only the proposed activity (in-water construction). Discussion of long-term increased potential for strike due to increased cruise ship traffic at the new terminal is outside the scope of analysis here.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    There are nine marine mammal species known to occur in the Icy Strait region of SE Alaska during the project's timeframe. These include the humpback whale, Steller sea lion, harbor seal, Dall's porpoise, gray whale, harbor porpoise, killer whale, minke whale, and Pacific white-sided dolphin.

    We have reviewed HTC's detailed species descriptions, including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to Section 3 of HTC's application as well as the proposed incidental harassment authorization published in the Federal Register (80 FR 14945) instead of reprinting the information here. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts which provide information regarding the biology and behavior of the marine resources that occur in SE Alaska. We provided additional information for the potentially affected stocks, including details of stock-wide status, trends, and threats, in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 14945, March 20, 2015). Note that the estimated population of humpback whales has been updated from 10,103 to 5,833 to reflect more recent stock assessment report data.

    Table 1 lists the twelve marine mammal stocks that could occur in the vicinity of Icy Strait Point during the project timeframe and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. Taxonomically, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2014). Please see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance.

    Table 1—List of Marine Mammal Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction That Occur in the Vicinity of the HTC Cruise Ship Terminal Re-Development Project * Common name Stock Scientific name ESA status;
  • strategic Y/N 1
  • Stock abundance
  • (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance
  • survey) *
  • Relative
  • occurrence
  • Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Eschrichtiidae Gray whale Eastern North Pacific Stock Eschrichtius robustus Not listed/N 19,126 (0.071; 18,017; 2007) Uncommon. Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) Humpback whale Entire Central North Pacific Stock Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered/Y 5,833 Common. Minke whale Gulf of Alaska and Western Aleutians Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Not listed/N 1,233 Uncommon. Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family Delphinidae Pacific white-sided dolphin Entire North Pacific Stock Lagenorhynchus obliquidens Not listed/N 26,880 (N/A; N/A; 1990) Uncommon. Killer whale AK Resident Stock Orcinus orca Not listed/N 2,347 (N/A; 2,347; 2012) Common. GOA, Bering Sea, Aleutian Transient Stock 587 (N/A; 587; 2012) Uncommon. West Coat Transient Stock 354 (N/A; 243; 2009) Uncommon. Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) Harbor porpoise Southeast Alaskan Stock Phocoena phocoena Not listed/S 11,146 (0.242; 9,116; 1997) Common. Dall's porpoise Alaska Phocoenoides dalli Not listed/NS 83,000 (0.097; N/A; 1993) Common. Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) Steller Sea Lion Eastern DPS Eumatopius jubatus Not Listed 2/S 60,131-74,448 (36,551; 2013) Common. Western DPS Endangered/S 55,422 (48,676; 2013) Common. Family Phocidae (earless seals) Harbor seal Glacier Bay/Icy Strait Stock Phoca vitulina Not listed/NS 5,042 (4,735; 2007) Common. * Estimated abundance numbers come primarily from NMFS 2014 Draft Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (Allen and Angliss 2014), with the exception of the abundance data for gray whale, which comes from the Draft 2013 Pacific Region Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et al. 2013). 1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds potential biological removal (PBR) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 The eastern distinct population segment of the Steller sea lion, previously listed under the ESA as threatened, was delisted on December 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140; November 4, 2013). This delisting action implies that the stock is no longer designated as depleted or as a strategic stock under the MMPA.
    Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    The Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 14945, March 20, 2015), incorporated here by reference, provides a general background on sound relevant to the specified activity as well as a detailed description of marine mammal hearing and of the potential effects of these construction activities on marine mammals.

    Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    We described potential impacts to marine mammal habitat in detail in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 14945, March 20, 2015). In summary, the project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations

    Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses.

    Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment”). ZOIs are often used to establish a mitigation zone around each pile (when deemed practicable) to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals, and also provide estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur. ZOIs may vary between different diameter piles and types of installation methods. In addition to the measures described later in this section, HTC will employ the following standard mitigation measures:

    (a) Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and HTC staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.

    (b) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (using, e.g., standard barges, tug boats, barge-mounted excavators, or clamshell equipment used to place or remove material), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This type of work could include the following activities: (1) Movement of the barge to the pile location or (2) positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile).

    Monitoring and Shutdown for Pile Driving

    The following measures apply to HTC's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:

    Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving activities, HTC will establish a shutdown zone. Shutdown zones are intended to contain the area in which SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB rms acoustic injury criteria, with the purpose being to define an area within which shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus preventing injury of marine mammals. For vibratory driving, HTC's activities are not expected to produce sound at or above the 180 dB rms injury criterion (see “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment”). As described above, HTC would, however, implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius for all marine mammals around all vibratory pile driving and removal activity and 100 m radius around impact pile driving activity. These precautionary measures are intended to further reduce the unlikely possibility of injury from direct physical interaction with construction operations.

    Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones are the areas in which SPLs equal or exceed 120 dB rms (for continuous sound) for pile driving installation and removal. Disturbance zones provide utility for monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area but outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring is for documenting incidents of Level B harassment; disturbance zone monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see “Monitoring and Reporting”). Nominal radial distances for disturbance zones are shown in Table 2. Given the size of the disturbance zone for vibratory pile driving, it is impossible to guarantee that all animals would be observed or to make comprehensive observations of fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound. We discuss monitoring objectives and protocols in greater depth in “Monitoring and Reporting.”

    In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile and the estimated ZOIs for relevant activities (i.e., pile installation and removal). This information may then be used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of actual total takes.

    Time Restrictions—Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. In addition, all in-water construction will be limited to the period between June 1 and October 31, 2015. However, all pile driving is expected to be completed by the end of September. October has only been included to cover any contingencies that may arise.

    Soft Start—The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in “bouncing” of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in multiple “strikes.” The project will utilize soft start techniques for both impact and vibratory pile driving. We require HTC to initiate sound from vibratory hammers for fifteen seconds at reduced energy followed by a thirty-second waiting period, with the procedure repeated two additional times. For impact driving, we require an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of pile driving of 20 minutes or longer (specific to either vibratory or impact driving).

    Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring would be conducted before, during, and after pile driving and removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven. Observations made outside the shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile segment would be completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving activities would be halted. Monitoring will take place from thirty minutes prior to initiation through thirty minutes post-completion of pile driving activities. Pile driving activities include the time to remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes. Please see the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm), developed by HTC with our approval, for full details of the monitoring protocols.

    The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:

    (1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:

    (a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;

    (b) Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher required);

    (c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);

    (d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

    (e) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

    (f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and

    (g) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

    (2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for 30 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own volition) and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The shutdown zone may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, when the entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise during impact pile driving that is already underway, the activity would be halted.

    If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed for small odontocetes and pinnipeds and 30 minutes have passed for large and medium-sized whales without re-detection of the animal. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile.

    (3) The area within the Level B harassment threshold for impact driving (shown in Figure B-2 of Appendix B of the revised marine mammal monitoring plan) will be monitored by the field monitor stationed either on the pile driving rig or in the vicinity, and by a second qualified field monitor stationed on or in the vicinity of Halibut Island near the 2,154 meter limit of the Level B harassment zone for impact driving. A third qualified observer will also monitor from a boat that is conducting a transect along the 21,500 meter limit of the Level B harassment zone for vibratory driving. Marine mammal presence within this Level B harassment zone, if any, will be monitored, but impact pile driving activity will not be stopped if marine mammals are found to be present. Any marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment zone during impact driving would constitute a Level B take (harassment), and will be recorded and reported as such.

    Mitigation

    We have carefully evaluated the HTC's proposed mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

    Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:

    (1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

    (2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).

    (3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).

    (4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).

    (5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

    (6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

    Based on our evaluation of HTC's proposed measures, including information from monitoring of implementation of mitigation measures very similar to those described here under previous IHAs from other marine construction projects, we have determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

    Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.

    Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:

    (1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;

    (2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;

    (3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:

    Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

    Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

    Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;

    (4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and

    (5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

    HTC submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application for this project, which can be found on the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.

    Visual Marine Mammal Observations

    • Three individuals meeting the minimum qualifications identified in Appendix B of the monitoring plan submitted by HTC will monitor the Level A and B harassment zones during impact pile driving, and the Level B harassment zone during vibratory pile driving.

    • During impact pile driving, the area within 100 meters of pile driving activity will be monitored and maintained as marine mammal buffer area in which pile installation will not commence or will be suspended temporarily if any marine mammals are observed within or approaching the area of potential disturbance. This area will be monitored by one qualified field monitor stationed either on the pile driving rig or in the immediate vicinity.

    • The area within the Level B harassment threshold for impact driving (shown in Figure B-2 of Appendix B of the revised marine mammal monitoring plan) will be monitored by the field monitor stationed either on the pile driving rig or in the vicinity, and by a second qualified field monitor stationed on or in the vicinity of Halibut Island near the 2,150 meter limit of the Level B harassment zone. A third qualified observer will also monitor from a boat that is conducting a transect along the 2,154 meter limit of the Level B harassment zone. Marine mammal presence within this Level B harassment zone, if any, will be monitored, but impact pile driving activity will not be stopped if marine mammals are found to be present. Any marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment zone during impact driving would constitute a Level B take (harassment), and will be recorded and reported as such.

    • During vibratory pile driving, the area within 10 meters of pile driving activity will be monitored and maintained as a marine mammal buffer area in which pile installation will not commence or will be suspended temporarily if any marine mammals are observed within or approaching the area of potential disturbance. The Level B harassment area will be monitored by three qualified observers (Figure B-3). One individual will be stationed either on the pile driving rig or in the immediate vicinity, a second individual will be stationed on either Halibut Island or a location in the vicinity, and a third observer will be located on a vessel that is conducting meander transects throughout the Level B harassment zone. The monitoring staff will record any presence of marine mammals by species, will document any behavioral responses noted, and record Level B takes when sightings overlap with pile installation activities.

    • The individuals will scan the waters within each monitoring zone activity using binoculars (Vector 10X42 or equivalent), spotting scopes (Swarovski 20-60 zoom or equivalent), and visual observation.

    • The area within which the Level A harassment thresholds could be exceeded (the 100 meter radius) will be maintained as a marine mammal exclusion zone, in which impact pile driving will be shut down immediately if any marine mammal is observed with the area.

    • The area within which the Level B harassment thresholds could be exceeded during impact pile driving (Figure B-2) and vibratory pile driving (Figure B-3) will also be monitored for the presence of marine mammals during all impact and vibratory pile driving. Marine mammal presence within these zones, if any, will be monitored but pile driving activity will not be stopped if marine mammals were found to be present. Any marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment zone will constitute a Level B take, and will be recorded and used to document the number of take incidents.

    • If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' ability to make observations within the marine mammal buffer zone (the 100 meter radius) (e.g. excessive wind or fog), impact pile installation will cease until conditions allow the resumption of monitoring.

    • The waters will be scanned for 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after any and all pile driving and removal activities.

    • If marine mammals enter or are observed within the designated marine mammal buffer zone (the 100m radius) during or 30 minutes prior to pile driving, the monitors will notify the on-site construction manager to not begin until the animal has moved outside the designated radius.

    • If a marine mammal approaches the Level A harassment zone, HTC must implement delay, power-down, or shut-down procedures during pile driving and removal. After a delay, power down, or shutdown, pile driving and removal activities will not resume until the marine mammal (a) is observed to have left the Level A harassment zone or (b) has not been seen or otherwise detected within the Level A harassment zone for 15 minutes for small odontocetes and pinnipeds and 30 minutes for large and medium-sized whales.

    • The waters will continue to be scanned for at least 30 minutes after pile driving has completed each day, and after each stoppage of 30 minutes or greater.

    Data Collection

    We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, HTC will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, HTC will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:

    • Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;

    • Construction activities occurring during each observation period;

    • Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);

    • Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);

    • Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;

    • Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;

    • Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;

    • Locations of all marine mammal observations; and

    • Other human activity in the area.

    Reporting

    HTC would provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the proposed construction work. This report will detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

    Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

    All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from impact and vibratory pile driving/removal and involving temporary changes in behavior. Injurious or lethal takes are not expected due to the expected source levels and sound source characteristics associated with the activity, and the planned mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to further minimize the possibility of such take.

    If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (e.g., through relatively minor changes in locomotion direction/speed or vocalization behavior), the response may or may not constitute taking at the individual level, and is unlikely to affect the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on animals or on the stock or species could potentially be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound.

    This practice potentially overestimates the numbers of marine mammals taken because it is often difficult to distinguish between the individuals harassed and incidences of harassment. In particular, for stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., because of foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence presented by the harassing activity.

    HTC has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of humpback whale, Steller sea lion, harbor seal, Dall's porpoise, gray whale, harbor porpoise, killer whale (Orcinus orca), minke whale, and Pacific white-sided dolphin near Icy Strait Point that may result from vibratory and impact pile driving during construction activities associated with the re-development of the cruise ship terminal described previously in this document.

    In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidences of take. We provided detailed information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals as well as describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidences of take, in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (80 FR 14945; March 20, 2015). Due to more recent population and abundance estimates pointed out by the Commission and NPS, some of the take estimates have been revised and are described below (see also “Comments and Responses” above).

    Table 2—Distances to Relevant Sound Thresholds * Distance to threshold 190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 120 dB Vibratory Driving n/a 21.5 km Impact Driving 21.5 m 100 m 2,154 m * SPLs used for calculations were: 195 dB for impact driving, 170 dB for vibratory diving.

    According to the Caltrans (2012) compendium, there is an average sound pressure level of 195 dB rms for impact driving of 60-in pile and 170 dB rms reported for 72-in steel pipe pile vibratory driving. Based on the formula listed above, it has been determined that the 190 dB rms Level A harassment (injury) threshold for underwater noise for pinniped species could be exceeded at a distance of up to approximately 22 meters during impact pile driving activities, and the 180 dB rms Level A harassment (injury) threshold for cetacean species could be exceeded at a distance of up to approximately 100 meters during impact pile driving activities. Additionally, the 160 dB rms Level B harassment (behavioral disruption) threshold for impulsive source underwater noise for pinniped and cetacean species could be exceeded at a distance of up to approximately 2,150 meters during impact pile driving and the 120 dB Level B harassment threshold could be exceeded at 21,544 meters during vibratory driving as is shown in Table 2.

    Note that the actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is significantly constrained by local topography relative to the threshold radius depicted in Table 2. This is represented in in the monitoring plan submitted by HTC in Appendix B, Figure B-1.

    The estimated takes for several species has been revised after receiving comments from the Commission and NPS and these revisions are described below.

    Humpback whale—There are no density estimates of humpback whales available in the action area. The best available information on the distribution of these marine mammals in the study area is data obtained from a National Park Service humpback whale study. Neilson et al. (2014) documented a total of 237 individual humpback whales (including 10 mother-calf pairs) in Glacier Bay and adjacent waters of Icy Strait in the 2013 peak survey period between June and August. This is the highest yearly count of individual humpback whales since the survey began in 1985. Of these 237 whales, 148 were documented as remaining in the vicinity for a period greater than 20 days. One year later in the Icy Strait sub-area of the 2014 NPS survey, 202 humpback whales were counted. Because whales move freely back and forth between Glacier Bay and Icy Strait, NMFS used the higher total survey count of 237 whales from 2013, or an average of almost 79 whales per month, to estimate exposure. Given that the period of active pile driving will be up to four months (June through September), a worst-case estimate would predict that up to 316 (79*4) Level B takes of humpback whale could occur as a result of the proposed action. This estimate is likely conservative given that action area for this project is smaller than the overall survey area and smaller than the portion of the survey conducted in Icy Strait.

    Steller sea lion—Womble et al. (2009) conducted mean monthly counted of Steller sea lions at multiple haulout sites in Southeast Alaska between 2001 and 2004. The haulout site nearest to Hoonah was Rocky Island which featured monthly averages of 2 sea lions or less for June, July and August while 174 were sighted in September. Barlow et al. (in press) reported number of sightings, numbers of individuals, and sightings per unit effort data from opportunistic marine mammal surveys conducted in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait between 2005 and 2014. Steller sea lions were observed at relatively high densities around Point Adolphus and other locations in Icy Strait and in various places inside Glacier Bay. The highest count of observed individuals was 395 sea lions between June and August of 2008, which equates to 132 sightings per month. Since the authorization period is four months, this estimate would mean that up to 528 (132*4) individual Level B takes of Steller sea lions could occur as a result of pile driving activities. This figure is within the range of findings published in the 2009 study by Womble et al.

    Harbor seal—A recent study by Barlow et al. (in press) of Glacier Bay and Icy Strait determined that an average of 26 sightings occurred each month between June and August of 2014. This would result in an estimated 104 takes during the July through August authorization period. While the harbor seal population has notably declined in the Glacier Bay area between 1992 and 2009 (Womble et al. 2013, 2010), these seals are not uncommon in the Icy Strait and Port Frederick area. As such, there exists the possibility of numerous repeated takes of the same animal. Therefore, NMFS believes that the original conservative estimate of 480 harbor seal takes is more realistic for this species.

    Dall's porpoise—The Barlow et al. (in press) study documented 9 individual Dall's porpoises in Glacier Bay across three months in 2007, for an average of 3 sightings per month. Based on this data, a worst-case estimate would mean that up to 12 (3*4) individual Level B takes of Dall's porpoise could occur as a result of pile driving activities. However, Dahlheim et al. (2008) recorded 346 sightings of Dall's porpoise in Southeast Alaska during the summer (June/July) of 2007, resulting in an average of 173 observations per month. Over a four-month activity period (4*173) this would result in an estimated 692 takes during the authorization period. Dahlheim et al. (2008) also reported that high concentrations of this porpoise were encountered in Icy Strait. Given the broader geographic focus of Barlow et al. (in press) and the high concentrations of Dall's porpoise reported in the Icy Strait area by Dahlheim et al. (2008), NMFS believes that an estimate of 692 takes of Dall's porpoise is based on the best available information and is appropriate for this authorization.

    Gray whale—Gray whales are not common in Icy Strait during the summer months. The Barlow et al. (in press) study documented only 3 whales, each occurring in a different year, over the course of the ten year study period. The Commission suggested NMFS increase allowed take to reflect the mean group size. Gray whales usually occur in groups of 1 to 3. NMFS will conservatively assume that during every month of the activity period a single group of 3 whales may occur in the Level B harassment zone (3*4), which would result in a conservative estimate of 12 gray whale takes during the Authorization.

    Harbor porpoise—Harbor porpoises are known to occur regularly in the Icy Strait area. Dahlheim (2015) indicated that 332 resident harbor porpoises occur in the Icy Strait area, and are known to use the Port Frederick area as part of their core range. The population has been declining across Southeast Alaska since the early 1990's (Dahlheim et al. 2012). During a 2014 survey Barlow et al. (in press) observed 462 harbor porpoises in the Glacier Bay and Icy Strait area during a three-month summer survey period. This was the highest number observed during the 10 year study, with an average of 154 porpoise per month. Given that harbor porpoise are known to frequent this area, NMFS has revised its take estimates. NMFS will assume that all 322 resident harbor porpoises will occur in the Level B harassment area each month (322*4) resulting in 1,288 takes.

    Killer whale—Killer whales occur commonly in the waters of the action area, and could include members of several designated stocks that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed project area. Whales are known to use the Icy Strait corridor to enter and exit inland waters and are observed in every month of the year, with certain pods being observed inside Port Frederick passing directly in front of Hoonah (Dahlheim 2015).

    NMFS examined only summer and fall (no spring) results from a line-transect survey by Dalheim et al. (2008) and determined the maximum number of combined resident and transient killer whales. During a single two-month survey period (September/October) of 1992, 173 resident whales were observed, or an average of 87 per month. The greatest number of transient sightings occurred in 1993 with 32 sightings over two months for an average of 16 sightings per month. Combining maximum resident and transient whales sighting per month (87+16) results in a monthly average of 103 and a total take estimate of (103*4) 412 killer whales over the 4 month activity period. Mean group size for resident killer whales in summer was greatest in 2004 at 45. For transients the mean group average also peaked during the same year at 15. Recent information provided by Dahlheim (2015) indicated that group sizes for specific resident killer whale pods found in the Icy Strait area ranged from 42 to 79. Using the best information available, NMFS has estimated take at 412 killer whales which allows for Level B take of several large pods of killer whales during the authorization period and also account for multiple repeated counts of pods.

    Minke whale—The original take estimate provided in the Federal Register (80 FR 14945) requesting public comments remains unchanged as no comments were received regarding Minke whales.

    Pacific white-sided dolphin—Dalheim et al. 2008 did not observe Pacific white-sided dolphins during the summer season during the final years (2006, 2007) of a survey run in the years 1991 through 2007. These dolphins were observed intermittently during the years 1992 and 1993 when there were 39 and 122 sightings, respectively. However, members of this species have not been observed in Frederick Strait since the early 1990's. The Commission recommended utilizing a mean group size when estimating take for this species if it is anticipated to be encountered in low numbers. The mean group size ranged from 19.5 (1992) to 152.5(1996). As part of a conservative approach, NMFS will authorize Level B take of 153 white-sided dolphins.

    Table 3—Estimated Numbers of Incidences That Marine Mammals May Be Exposed to Level B Harassment Species Total proposed authorized takes *** Abundance Percentage of total stock Humpback whale—CNP Stock (Southeast Alaska aggregation) 316 5,833 (2,251) 5.4 (14.0) Steller sea lion (Eastern DPS) 528 36,551 * 14.4 Steller sea lion (Western DPS) 48,676 * 1.1 Harbor seal 480 5,042 9.5 Dall's porpoise 692 83,400 <0.01 Gray whale 12 19,126 <0.01 Harbor porpoise 1288 11,146 11.5 Killer whale (AK Resident Stock; GOA, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea Transient Stock; West Coast Transient Stock) 412 ** 3,288 + 12.5 Minke whale 8 1,233 <0.01 Pacific white-sided dolphin 153 26,880 <0.01 * These percentages assume a worst-case, unlikely scenario in which all 528 estimated takes accrue to a single Steller sea lion DPSs. ** Combined populations of AK Resident Stock; GOA, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea Transient Stock; and West Coast Transient Stock. *** Note that these numbers assume that every modeled take happens to a different animal, which is unlikely, as both individuals and groups of marine mammals are observed utilizing the same geographic location repeatedly. + See Small Numbers section for further explanation. Analyses and Determinations Negligible Impact Analysis

    Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status of the species.

    To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 3, given that the anticipated effects of this pile driving project on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity, else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed.

    Pile driving activities associated with the cruise ship terminal re-development, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening.

    No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory hammers will be the primary method of installation, though impact driving may be used for brief, irregular periods. Vibratory driving does not have significant potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced (site-specific acoustic monitoring data show no source level measurements above 180 dB rms) and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. When impact driving is necessary, required measures (implementation of shutdown zones) significantly reduce any possibility of injury. Given sufficient “notice” through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious. The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high under the environmental conditions described for Icy Strait Point further enables the implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury, serious injury, or mortality.

    HTC's proposed activities are localized and of short duration. The entire project area is limited to the Icy Strait cruise ship terminal area and its immediate surroundings. The project will require the installation of a total of approximately 104 steel pipe piles of varying diameters below the MHHW. Piles that will be used include 24-inch, 30-inch, 42-inch, and 60-inch steel pipe piles. Total impact hammer time would not exceed 5 minutes per pile for 104 piles resulting in less than 10 hours of driving time. Total vibratory hammer time would not exceed 5 hours on any one given day over the course of an estimated 103 driving days, nor would it exceed more than 100 hours over a four-month period. These localized and short-term noise exposures may cause brief startle reactions or short-term behavioral modification by the animals. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside quickly when the exposures cease. Moreover, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to reduce potential exposures and behavioral modifications even further. Additionally, no important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be near the proposed action area. Therefore, the take resulting from the proposed HTC re-development of the Icy Strait Point Cruise Ship Terminal is not reasonably expected to and is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

    The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.

    Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; HDR, 2012; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only in association with impact pile driving. In response to vibratory driving, pinnipeds (which may become somewhat habituated to human activity in industrial or urban waterways) have been observed to orient towards and sometimes move towards the sound. The pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous construction activities conducted in other similar locations, which have taken place with no reported injuries or mortality to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness for the affected individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable impact through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the project area while the activity is occurring.

    In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any significant habitat within the project area, including rookeries, significant haul-outs, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; (4) the presumed efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from HTC's re-development of the Icy Strait Point Cruise Ship Terminal will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Small Numbers Analysis

    Table 3 demonstrates the number of animals that could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level B behavioral harassment for the proposed work associated with the re-development of the Icy Strait Point Cruise Ship Terminal in Hoonah, Alaska. The analyses provided represents between <0.01% to 14.4% of the stocks of humpback whale, Steller sea lion, harbor seal, Dall's porpoise, gray whale, harbor porpoise, minke whale, and Pacific white-sided dolphin that could be affected by Level B behavioral harassment. NMFS therefore concludes that small numbers of these stocks will be taken relative to the total populations of the affected species or stocks.

    As explained previously, we are proposing to authorize 412 takes (Level B harassment only) of killer whales from three stocks of killer whales that are known to occur in the Icy Strait area: (1) Alaska resident stock with an estimated population of 2,347; (2) Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock with an estimated population of 587; and (3) West Coast transient stock with an estimated population of 354. Given that all three stocks occur in the Icy Strait Area, the 412 proposed takes will most likely be apportioned among the three stocks. As described in the estimated take section, based on sightings data, NMFS expects approximately 348 takes (87 per month * 4 months) of the resident stock to occur and 64 (16 per month * 4 months) of the two transient stocks to occur. These numbers are small relative to the population sizes of the resident and transient stocks. Furthermore, NMFS notes that the number of takes proposed to be authorized represents the estimated incidents of take, not the number of individuals taken. More likely, fewer individuals would be taken, but a subset would be taken more than one time during the duration of the Authorization.

    Specific resident pods are frequently encountered throughout Icy Strait according to Dalheim (2015). These would be the AG pod numbering a minimum of 42 whales and the AF pod with a minimum count of 79 whales. Whales from these two pods have been seen in the area every month of the year and the Icy Strait corridor is a major route for them both entering and exiting inland waters. The AG pod, specifically, has been observed on numerous occasions inside Port Frederick, passing directly off shore of Hoonah. As such, many of the anticipated takes are likely to be repeated takes of the same animals from AG and AF pods. However, even in a worst-case scenario in which all 412 takes came from the resident stock, the number of takes would still be small compared to the population size (approximately 17.6%).

    As stated above, the anticipated number of takes attributable to the transient stocks (64) is small compared to the population sizes of both the West coast transient stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient stock. Further, NMFS also believes that small numbers of the West Coast transient stock would be taken based on the limited region of exposure in comparison with the known distribution of the transient stock. The West Coast transient stock ranges from Southeast Alaska to California while the proposed project activity would be stationary. As described in the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity section in our Federal Register notice announcing the proposed authorization (80 FR 14945; March 20, 2015), a notable percentage of West Coast transient whales have never been observed in Southeast Alaska. Only 155 West Coast transient killer whales have been identified as occurring in Southeast Alaska according to Dahlheim and White (2010). The same study identified three pods of transients, equivalent to 19 animals, that remained almost exclusively in the southern part of Southeast Alaska (i.e. Clarence Strait and Sumner Strait). This information indicates that only a small subset of the entire West Coast Transient stock would be at risk for take in the Icy Strait area because a sizable portion of the stock has either not been observed in Southeast Alaska or consistently remains far south of Icy Strait. Similarly, only a very small number of Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea transient killer whales have been observed in Southeast Alaska with sightings being an uncommon occurrence (Dalheim 2015). Whales from this stock occur mainly from Prince William Sound through the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea and are spread across a vast area.

    In summary, NMFS concludes that small numbers of each of the three stocks of killer whales known to occur in the Icy Strait region will be taken relative to the population sizes of the affected stocks. This conclusion is based on the small likelihood that all of the incidents of take would come from only one stock; the reduced percentage of transient stocks of killer whales likely to be found in the Icy Strait area due to the wide geographic distribution of these two stocks; and the likelihood of repeated exposures of both transient and resident whales, especially among the two resident pods identified as commonly frequenting the waters near the action area.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, which are expected to reduce the number of marine mammals potentially affected by the proposed action, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

    Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses

    There are no subsistence uses of marine mammals in the proposed project area; and, thus, no subsistence uses impacted by this action. The nearest locations where subsistence hunting may occur are at Eagle Point, located approximately 10 miles distant from the Icy Strait Cruise Terminal project site and at Flynn Cove, located approximately 7.5 miles from the project site. Peak subsistence hunting months are March, May, and October and the pile driving is slated to occur in the June to September timeframe. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are two marine mammal species that are listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area: humpback whale and Steller sea lion (Western DPS). NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division initiated consultation with NMFS' Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to HTC under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. NMFS' Protected Resources Division concluded that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect, but not likely to jeopardize these species.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which considered comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that process. The EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are posted at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.

    Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to HTC for conducting the described activities at Icy Strait Point, Alaska, from June 1, 2015 through October 31, 2015 provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: May 22, 2015. Perry Gayaldo, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13134 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Transshipment Requirements Under the WCPFC AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Tom Graham, Pacific Islands Regional Office, (808) 725-5032 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has issued regulations under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFCIA; 16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) to carry out the obligations of the United States under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Commission). The regulations include requirements for the owners and operators of U.S. vessels to: (1) Complete and submit a Pacific Transshipment Declaration form for each transshipment that takes place in the Convention Area of highly migratory species caught in the Convention Area, (2) submit notice to the WCPFC Executive Director containing specific information at least 36 hours prior to each transshipment on the high seas in the Convention Area, (3) in the event that a vessel anticipates a transshipment where an observer is required, provide notice to NMFS at least 72 hours before leaving port of the need for an observer, (4) submit a notice to the WCPFC Executive Director containing specific information six hours prior to entry or exit of the Eastern High Seas Special Management Area, (5) complete and submit a U.S. Purse Seine Discard form within 48 hours after any discard, and (6) submit a FAD Report within 24 hours at the end of each day that the vessel is on a fishing trip in the Convention Area.

    The information collected from these requirements is used by NOAA and the Commission to help ensure compliance with domestic laws and the Commission's conservation and management measures, and are necessary in order for the United States to satisfy its obligations under the Convention.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents must submit some of the information by mail or in person via paper forms, and must submit other information electronically by fax or email.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0649.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 211.

    Estimated Time per Response: Transshipment Report: 60 minutes; Notice for Transshipment: 15 minutes; Pre-trip Notification for Observer Placement: 1 minute; Notice of Entry or Exit for Eastern SMA: 15 minutes; Purse Seine Discard Report: 30 minutes; Daily FAD Report: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,260.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $11,116 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments are also requested on possible modifications to both the Pacific Transshipment Declaration form and the U.S. Purse Seine Discard form in order to enhance the convenience and usability of the forms. Recent versions of both forms can be found in the WCPFC Transshipping, Bunkering, Reporting and Purse Seine Discard Compliance Guide at http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/IFD/BA85-compliance-guide-IRC.pdf.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13338 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RIN 0648-XD933] Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR Procedural Workshop 7: SEDAR Data Best Practices.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR Procedural Workshop 7 will develop best practice recommendations for SEDAR Data Workshops. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR Procedural Workshop 7 will be held on June 22, 2015, from 1 p.m. until 6 p.m.; June 23-25, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m.; and June 26, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from, or completed prior to the time established by this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    The SEDAR Procedural Workshop 7 will be held at the Hyatt Regency Atlanta Hotel, 265 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30303; 404-577-1234.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing workshops and webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    SEDAR also coordinates procedural workshops which provide an opportunity for focused discussion and deliberation on topics that arise in multiple assessments. They are structured to develop best practices for addressing common issues across assessments. The seventh procedural workshop will develop best practice recommendations for SEDAR Data Workshops.

    Workshop objectives include developing an inventory of common or recurring data and analysis issues from SEDAR Data Workshops; documenting how the identified data and analysis issues were addressed in the past and identifying potential additional methods to address these issues; developing and selecting best practice procedures and approaches for addressing these issues in future, including procedures and approaches to follow when deviating from best practice recommendations; and identifying a process to address future revision and evaluation of workshop recommendations, considering all unaddressed data and analysis issues.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SEDAR office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13373 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities AGENCY:

    President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Office of Undersecretary, U.S. Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the agenda for the June 23, 2015, meeting of the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (PBA) and provides information to members of the public on submitting written comments and on the process as to how to request time to make oral comments at the meeting. The notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of the meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend.

    DATES:

    The PBA meeting will be held on June 23, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. C.S.T. at the Bennie G. Thompson Academic and Civil Rights Research Center, 500 West County Line Road, Tougaloo, MS 39174.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Department of Education, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202. The exact location of the meeting will be published in the Federal Register and on the Department's Web site at http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/whhbcu/policy/presidents-board-of-advisors-pba-on-hbcus/ by June 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sedika Franklin, Program Specialist, U.S. Department of Education, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20204; telephone: (202) 453-5634 or (202) 453-5630, fax: (202) 453-5632, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    PBA's Statutory Authority and Function: The President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (the Board) is established by E.O. 13532 (February 26, 2010) and subsequently continued by E.O. 13652, which was signed by the President on September 30, 2013. The Board is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), (Pub. L. 92-463; as amended, 5 U.S.C.A., Appendix 2) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The purpose of the Board is to advise the President and the Secretary of Education (Secretary) on all matters pertaining to strengthening the educational capacity of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

    The Board shall advise the President and the Secretary in the following areas: (i) improving the identity, visibility, and distinctive capabilities and overall competitiveness of HBCUs; (ii) engaging the philanthropic, business, government, military, homeland-security, and education communities in a national dialogue regarding new HBCU programs and initiatives; (iii) improving the ability of HBCUs to remain fiscally secure institutions that can assist the nation in reaching its goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020; (iv) elevating the public awareness of HBCUs; and (v) encouraging public-private investments in HBCUs.

    Meeting Agenda: In addition to its review of activities prior to June 23, 2015, the meeting agenda will include Chairman William R. Harvey's report on HBCU issues and concerns; Executive Director, George Cooper will provide an update on current priorities of the White House Initiative on HBCUs to include the 2015 HBCU Week Conference and an update on the 2013 Report to the President on the Results of the Participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in Federal Programs; David Johns, Executive Director of the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans will discuss the joint meeting requirement for the President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans and the Board; and Chairman Harvey will lead a conversation regarding the re-focus of Board subcommittees.

    Below is a list of agencies, invited to provide updates on fiscal year 2015 activities and outreach during the June 23, 2015 meeting:

    • U.S. Department of Education • U.S. Department of Defense • U.S. Department of Transportation

    Submission of requests to make an oral comment: There are two methods the public may use to make an oral comment at the June 23, 2015 meeting.

    Method One: Submit a request by email to the [email protected] mailbox. Please do not send material directly to PBA members. Requests must be received by June 17, 2015. Include in the subject line of the email request “Oral Comment Request: (organization name).” The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, telephone number, of the person(s) requesting to speak, and a brief summary (not to exceed one page) of the principal points to be made during the oral presentation. All individuals submitting an advance request in accordance with this notice will be afforded an opportunity to speak for three minutes.

    Method Two: Register at the meeting location on June 23, 2015, to make an oral comment during the PBA's deliberations concerning Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The requestor must provide his or her name, title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number. Individuals will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis. If selected, each commenter will have an opportunity to speak for three minutes.

    All oral comments made will become part of the official record of the Board. Similarly, written materials distributed during oral presentations will become part of the official record of the meeting.

    Submission of written public comments: The Board invites written comments to be read during the Public Comment segment of the agenda. Comments must be received by June 17, 2015, in the [email protected] mailbox, include in the subject line “Written Comments: Public Comment”. The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number, of the person(s) making the comment. Comments should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document or in a medium compatible with Microsoft Word (not a PDF file) that is attached to an electronic mail message (email) or provided in the body of an email message. Please do not send material directly to the PBA members.

    Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the PBA Web site 90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory committee Act (FACA), the public may also inspect the materials at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 453-5634 to schedule an appointment.

    Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice at least one week before the meeting date. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after that date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

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

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

    Authority:

    Presidential E.O. 13532, continued by E.O. 13652.

    Ted Mitchell, Under Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13353 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0037] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2016 and 2018 AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0037 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will only accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kudzdela, 202-502-7411.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2016 and 2018.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0761.

    Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,919.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,795.

    Abstract: The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) is a nationally representative survey of elementary and secondary school principals that serves as the primary source of school-level data on crime and safety in public schools. SSOCS is the only recurring federal survey collecting detailed information on the incidence, frequency, seriousness, and nature of violence affecting students and school personnel from the school's perspective. Data are also collected on frequency and types of disciplinary actions taken for select offenses; perceptions of other disciplinary problems, such as bullying, verbal abuse and disorder in the classroom; the presence and role of school security staff; parent and community involvement; staff training; mental health services available to students; and, school policies and programs concerning crime and safety. Prior administrations of SSOCS were conducted in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. This request is to conduct the 2016 and 2018 administrations of SSOCS.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13372 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-147-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of Beech Ridge Energy LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-507-001.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance Filing—Version 003 NAESB WEQ Business Practice Standards to be effective 5/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-768-001.

    Applicants: Baconton Power LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Supplement to Triennial Update to be effective 12/31/2014.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-980-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-05-27_SA 2740 Compliance ATC-WE FCA to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1785-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Attachment J, Section III Clean-up Filing to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1786-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 280—Certificate of Concurrence to BA Agreement with CAISO to be effective 5/22/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5076.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1787-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): DEF-Osprey Mitigation Tariff RS No. 222 to be effective 7/27/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5081.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1788-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of SA 4.335_Construction Agreement_IPC-NorthWestern to be effective 5/27/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1789-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Concurrence of EPE to APS Service Agreement No. 279 to be effective 5/21/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-20-000.

    Applicants: Cross-Sound Cable Company, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to April 28, 2015 Application For Authorization Under Section 204 Of The Federal Power Act of Cross-Sound Cable Company, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5154.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    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 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13310 Filed 6-1-15; 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 rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1246-012; ER10-1982-013; ER10-1253-012; ER10-1252-012.

    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Consolidated Edison, Inc., et al.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5034.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1927-001.

    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: PJM Transmission Owners submit compliance filing per 1/23/15 Order in ER13-1927 to be effective 1/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5270.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1930-004.

    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No 1000 SERTP-PJM 2d Interregional Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5213.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1940-005.

    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: M-3 Compliance Filing to be effective 5/27/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5227.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1941-004.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 Second Interregional Compliance Filing—SERTP-PJM Seam to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2721-002.

    Applicants: Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC Order No. 792 and 792-A Second Compliance Filing to be effective 8/4/2014.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5266.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2722-002.

    Applicants: Sagebrush, a California partnership.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Sagebrush, a California partnership Order No. 792 and 792-A Second Compliance Fi to be effective 8/4/2014.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2723-002.

    Applicants: Sky River LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Sky River LLC Order No. 792 and 792-A Second Compliance Filing to be effective 8/4/2014.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5268.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-977-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-05-27_SA 2737 Compliance ATC-WPSC PCA (James St.) to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5041.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1778-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service Agreement Nos. 4045 and 4138; Queue T94 to be effective 4/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5210.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1779-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SCPSA Interchange Contract Amendment Filing to be effective 4/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5230.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1780-000.

    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SCPSA Interchange Contract Amendment Filing to be effective 4/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5232.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1781-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SCPSA Interchange Contract Amendment Filing to be effective 4/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1782-000.

    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SCPSA Interchange Contract Amendment Filing to be effective 4/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5240.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1783-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-05-26 CPM Tariff Amendment to be effective 1/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5272.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1784-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Original WMPA Service Agreement No. 4156; Queue Z2-102 to be effective 5/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/27/15.

    Accession Number: 20150527-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-21-000.

    Applicants: Connecticut Light & Power Company, Western Massachusetts Electric Company.

    Description: Clarification to April 28, 2015 Application of The Connecticut Light and Power Company and Western Massachusetts Electric Company to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 5/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150526-5277.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/15.

    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 27, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13309 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365; FRL-9928-45-ORD] Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Meeting—June 2015 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 18, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and will continue on Friday, June 19, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Attendees should register by June 11, 2015. Requests for the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the meeting will be accepted up to one business day before the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the EPA's RTP Main Campus Facility, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: Send comments by electronic mail (email) to: [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365.

    Fax: Fax comments to: (202) 566-0224, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365.

    Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Docket, Mail Code: 2822T, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365. Note: this is not a mailing address. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365. The 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 the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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 the EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.

    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 Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Docket, EPA/DC, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Tim Benner, Mail Code 8104R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564-6769; via fax at: (202) 565-2911; or via email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    General Information: The meeting is open to the public. Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft agenda, attending the meeting, or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Tim Benner, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes. For security purposes, all attendees must provide their names to the Designated Federal Officer or register online at https://sites.google.com/site/epaboardofscientificcounselors/bosc-committees/air-climate-and-energy by June 11, 2015, and must go through a metal detector, sign in with the security desk, and show government-issued photo identification to enter the building. Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting to allow sufficient time for security screening. Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following: Overview of materials provided to the subcommittee; Overview of ORD; Overview of ORD's Air, Climate, and Energy Research Program; Poster session; and Subcommittee discussion.

    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tim Benner at (202) 564-6769 or [email protected] To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tim Benner, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: May 21, 2015. Fred Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13406 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0184; FRL-9927-92] Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or expired; and a periodic status report on any new chemicals under EPA review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document covers the period from April 1, 2015 to April 29, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific PMN number or TME number, must be received on or before July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0184, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Jim Rahai, IMD, 7407M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-564-8593; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that may apply to this action. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the PMNs addressed in this action.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from April 1, 2015 to April 29, 2015, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

    III. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 5 of TSCA requires that EPA periodical publish in the Federal Register receipt and status reports, which cover the following EPA activities required by provisions of TSCA section 5.

    EPA classifies a chemical substance as either an “existing” chemical or a “new” chemical. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory is classified as a “new chemical,” while those that are on the TSCA Inventory are classified as an “existing chemical.” For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/inventory.htm. Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish in the Federal Register periodic status reports on the new chemicals under review and the receipt of NOCs to manufacture those chemicals.

    IV. Receipt and Status Reports

    In Table I. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the PMN, the date the PMN was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN, the submitting manufacturer/importer, the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN, and the chemical identity.

    Table I—63 PMNs Received From 04/01/2015 to 04/29/2015 Case No. Received date Projected
  • notice end date
  • Manufacturer/
  • Importer
  • Use Chemical
    P-15-0311 2/23/2015 5/24/2015 CBI (G) Material for photosensitive resin (G) Triarylsulfonium salt with haloalkyl phosphate. P-15-0377 4/1/2015 6/30/2015 PCCR USA, Inc (S) Plasticizer in automotive parts (S) 1,2,4-Benzenetricarboxylic acid, 1,2,4-trionyl ester. P-15-0378 4/3/2015 7/2/2015 Allnex USA, Inc (S) Dual cure/UV cure adhesion/barrier coating for wood substrates (G) Alkoxylated substituted alkyl alkenoate polymer with disubstituted alkane. P-15-0379 4/3/2015 7/2/2015 CBI (G) Agricultural (G) Polyitaconic acid. P-15-0379 4/3/2015 7/2/2015 CBI (G) Industrial (G) Polyitaconic acid. P-15-0379 4/3/2015 7/202015 CBI (G) Home care (G) Polyitaconic acid. P-15-0380 4/3/2015 7/2/2015 CBI (G) Agricultural (G) Polyitaconic acid, potassium salt. P-15-0381 4/3/2015 7/2/2015 CBI (G) Agricultural (G) Polyitaconic acid, ammonium salt. P-15-0382 4/3/2015 7/2/2015 CBI (G) Industrial (G) Polyitaconic acid, sodium zinc salt. P-15-0383 4/3/2015 7/2/2015 CBI (G) Agricultural (G) Polyitaconic acid, partially decarboxylated. P-15-0384 4/6/2015 7/5/2015 CBI (G) Open, non-dispersive (G) Azo Dyestuff. P-15-0385 4/6/2015 7/5/2015 CBI (G) Candle component (G) Hydrogenated oil. P-15-0386 4/6/2015 7/5/2015 CBI (G) Ingredient for consumer products. Dispersive use (S) 2-cyclohexen-1-ol, 2-methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)-, 1-acetate, (1r,5r)-*. P-15-0389 4/8/2015 7/7/2015 Shin Etsu Silicones of America (S) Silylating agent (S) 2-Propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, reaction products with dimethoxymethylsilane. P-15-0389 4/8/2015 7/7/2015 Shin Etsu Silicones of America (S) Additive for silicone RTV rubber compounds (S) 2-Propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, reaction products with dimethoxymethylsilane. P-15-0390 4/8/2015 7/7/2015 CBI (G) Lens material for use in electronic applications (G) Substituted carbopolycyclic dicarboxylic acid dialkyl ester, polymer with dialkyl carbopolycyclic ester alkanediol and carbopolycyclic bis (substituted carbomonocycle). P-15-0391 4/9/2015 7/8/2015 ICL-IP America, Inc (G) The major intended use of BCA13 is as electrolytes for energy storage flow batteries. The energy storage flow batteries are for industries use. (G) Organic salt. P-15-0392 4/9/2015 7/8/2015 Polynt S.p.A (S) Plasticizer for pvc powders for car interiors
  • manufacturing; plasticizer for pvc compounds for cables
  • (S) 1,2,4-Benzenetricarboxylic acid, mixed decyl and octyl triesters*.
    P-15-0393 4/9/2015 7/8/2015 CBI (G) Adhesive (G) Alkanedioic acid, polymer with Alkanediol, .alpha.-hydro-omega.-ohydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl)] and alkyl aromatic diisocyanate. P-15-0394 4/9/2015 7/8/2015 CBI (G) Adhesive (G) Alkanedioic acid, polymer with Alkanediol, .alpha.-hydro-omega.-hydroxypoly(oxy-alkanediyll, aromaticfurandione and alkylaromaticdiisocy anate. P-15-0395 4/9/2015 7/8/2015 CBI (G) Adhesive (G) Alkanedioic acid, polymer with Alkanediol, .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxypoly(oxy- alkanediyl), aromaticfuranedione and alkylaromatic diisocyanate. P-15-0396 4/10/2015 7/9/2015 CBI (G) Resin for automotive coatings (G) Alkylmethacrylate, polymer with alkenylbenzene, branched alkylmethacrylate, hydroxyalkylmethacrylate and acrylic acid, T-butyl alkaneperoxoic acid ester-initiated. P-15-0397 4/10/2015 7/9/2015 CBI (G) Industrial roll coat construction adhesive (G) Alkylmethacrylate, polymer with alkenylbenzene, branched-alkylmethacrylate and hydroxyalkylmethacrylate, T-butyl alkaneperoxoic acid ester-initiated. P-15-0398 4/10/2015 7/9/2015 CBI (G) Resin for solvent borne coatings (G) Cycloalkyl dicarboxylic anhydride, polymer with tetrahydroxyalkyl, saturated fatty ester, and branched alkyl glycidyl ester. P-15-0399 4/10/2015 7/9/2015 CBI (G) Paint component (G) Alkylbenzene sulfonic acid salt of n-(3-(trialkylamino)alkyl)alkylacrylamide, polymer with alkyl alkylacrylate and alkylated bicycloalkyl alkylacrylate. P-15-0400 4/10/2015 7/9/2015 CBI (G) Paint component (G) Alkylbenzene sulfonic acid salt of n-(3-(trialkylamino)alkyl)alkylacrylamide, polymer with alkyl alkylacrylate and alkylated bicycloalkyl alkylacrylate. P-15-0401 4/10/2015 7/9/2015 Carbon 3D, Inc (G) Oligomeric component of 3D printer resin formulations (G) Urethane oligomer. P-15-0402 4/10/2015 7/9/2015 Carbon 3D, Inc (G) Oligomeric component of 3D printer resin formulations (G) Urethane oligomer. P-15-0403 4/11/2015 7/10/2015 Trinity Manufacturing, Inc (G) Soil fumigant additive allowing emulsification of liquid soil fumigants (dispersive use) (G) Ethoxylated amine phosphate ester. P-15-0404 4/10/2015 7/9/2015 Carbon 3D, Inc (G) Oligomeric component of 3D printer resin formulations (G) Urethane oligomer. P-15-0405 4/13/2015 7/12/2015 Evonik Corporation (S) Base polymer for use in parquet adhesive formulations; base polymer for use in misc. adhesive formulations (S) Poly[oxy(methyl-1, 2-ethanediyl)], .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxy-, polymer with 5-isocyanato-1-(isocyanatomethyl)-1,3,3-trimethylcyclohexane, n-[3-(trimethoxysily)propyl]-1-butanamine-blocked*. P-15-0408 4/13/2015 7/12/2015 CBI (G) Ingredient in industrial adhesive (G) Aqueous polyurethane dispersion. P-15-0409 4/14/2015 7/13/2015 CBI (S) Hydrogen Sulfide Scavenger (G) Substituted alkanolamine ether. P-15-0410 4/14/2015 7/13/2015 CBI (G) MDI prepolymer for Cast Elastomers (G) MDI Prepolymer. P-15-0411 4/15/2015 7/14/2015 CBI (G) Additive in aqueous solutions (G) Fatty acid esters with polyols polyalkyl ethers. P-15-0412 4/15/2015 7/14/2015 CBI (G) Cross Linking Agent (G) Perfluorinated alkyl diene. P-15-0414 4/17/2015 7/16/2015 Carbon 3D, Inc (G) Oligomeric component of 3D printer resin formulations (G) Urethane oligomer. P-15-0415 4/17/2015 7/16/2015 Carbon 3D, Inc (G) Oligomeric component of 3D printer resin formulations (G) Urethane oligomer. P-15-0416 4/17/2015 7/16/2015 CBI (G) Urethane coating (G) Aromatic isocyanate, polymer with aromatic diamine, alkyloxirane, alkyloxirane polymer with oxirane ether with alkyltriol (3:1 ), and oxirane. P-15-0417 4/17/2015 7/16/2015 CBI (G) Urethane coating (G) Aromatic isocyanate, polymer with aromatic diamine, alkyloxirane, alkyloxirane polymer with poly alkylene glycol. P-15-0418 4/17/2015 7/16/2015 CBI (S) Water clarifying agent, odor control agent, bleaching
  • agent, and general oxidant for water treatment
  • (G) Alkyl peroxide.
    P-15-0418 4/17/2015 7/16/2015 CBI (G) Destructive use in fuel production (G) Alkyl peroxide. P-15-0419 4/20/2015 7/19/2015 CBI (G) Flame retardant material (G) 2,2-bis[3′,5′-dihaloo-4′-haloalkyloxy Carbomonocycle] propane. P-15-0421 4/21/2015 7/20/2015 CBI (G) Intermediate (G) Alkoxysilane. P-15-0422 4/21/2015 7/20/2015 CBI (S) Reactive polymer in 2 part epoxy adhesive (G) Amine modified epoxy resin. P-15-0423 4/21/2015 7/20/2015 Carbon 3D, Inc (G) Oligomeric component of 3D printer (G) Urethane oligomer. P-15-0424 4/21/2015 Colonial Chemical, Inc (S) Intermediate to make polymers (S) D-glucopyranose, oligomeric, bu glycosides, polymers with epichlorohydrin*. P-15-0425 4/21/2015 7/20/2015 Colonial Chemical, Inc (S) Intermediate to make polymers (S) D-glucopyranoside, hexyl, polymer with 2-(chloromethyl) oxirane*. P-15-0426 4/21/2015 7/20/2015 Colonial Chemical, Inc (S) Viscosity control in hard surface cleaners (S) Tetradecanoic acid, compd. with 1,1'-iminobid [2-propanol] (1:1) (9ci)*. P-15-0427 4/22/2015 7/21/2015 CBI (G) Resin for coatings (G) Substituted alkylene carbomonocycle, homopolymer, substituted polyol and mono alkyl ether-blocked polyol. P-15-0428 4/23/2015 7/22/2015 ICL-IP America, Inc (G) The major intended use of BCA13 is as electrolytes for energy storage flow batteries. The energy storage flow batteries are for industries use (G) Alkyl pyridinium bromide. P-15-0429 4/23/2015 7/22/2015 CBI (G) HAPS free, silicone based resin for the manufacture of ambient curing (G) Siloxanes and silicones, alkoxy Me, polymers with Me silsesquioxanes, alkoxy-terminated industrial coatings, such as anti-corrosion coatings for mufflers, ovens, chimneys, oven inserts, barbeques and electric and gas heaters as well as other large industrial objects and equipment. P-15-0430 4/23/2015 7/22/2015 CBI (G) Papermaking additive (G) Poly(alkyl amine) copolymer. P-15-0431 4/24/2015 7/23/2015 CBI (G) Alkyd polymeric additive for industrial coatings (G) C16-18 and C18-unsaturated, polymer with alkyl triol and acid anhydride. P-15-0433 4/26/2015 7/25/2015 CBI (G) Lubricant additive (G) Chlorinated complex ester. P-15-0435 4/27/2015 7/26/2015 CBI (G) Open, non-dispersive (G) 2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3-[substituted]-5-hydroxy-6-[(1e)-2-phenyldiazenyl]-, lithium salt (1:3). P-15-0436 4/28/2015 7/27/2015 CBI (G) Stain block, surfactant, and antiblock agent (G) Anionic aqueous fluorochemical dispersion. P-15-0437 4/28/2015 7/27/2015 Henkel Corporation (S) A curable component of adhesive formulations (G) Flexible Polyurethane Methacrylate Resin. P-15-0438 4/29/2015 7/28/2015 CBI (G) A destructive use in the manufacture of coating materials and fuels (G) Zinc carboxylate. P-15-0439 4/29/2015 7/28/2015 Perstorp Polyols, Inc (S) Adhesives for industrial packaging applications (S) 1,4-Dioxane-2,5-dione, 3,6-dimethyl-, (3S,6S)-, polymer with 2-oxepanone. P-15-0440 4/29/2015 7/28/2015 CBI (G) Adhesion modifier (G) Hetero substituted alkyl acrylate polymer. P-15-0441 4/29/2015 7/28/2015 CBI (G) Intermediate (G) Xanthate reactive hydrophilic polymer.

    In Table II. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the projected end date for EPA's review of the NOC, and chemical identity.

    Table II—22 NOCs Received From 04/01/2015 to 04/29/2015 Case No. Received date Commencement notice end date Chemical P-14-0057 4/7/2015 3/10/2015 (G) Glycerides, C8-C18 and C18 unsaturated, from algal fermentation. P-14-0513 4/9/2015 3/13/2015 (G) Bisxylenol diglycidyl ether polymer. P-14-0831 4/15/2015 3/19/2015 (G) Fatty acids, polymers with acrylic monomers, bisphenol a, 2-ethoxyethanol, epichlorohydrin and styrene, alkyl peroxide-initiated, cmpds. with triethylamine. P-14-0832 4/15/2015 3/19/2015 (G) Fatty acids, polymers with acrylic monomers, bisphenol A, modified oil, epichlorohydrin and styrene, alkyl peroxide-initiated, compounds with triethylamine. P-15-0115 4/1/2015 3/25/2015 (G) Phenol-biphenyl-formaldehyde polycondensate. P-15-0116 4/1/2015 3/25/2015 (G) Polymer of phenol, biphenyl and resorcinol. P-15-0131 4/8/2015 3/25/2015 (S) Acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with 1-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinone, hydrolyzed*. P-14-0677 4/17/2015 3/25/2015 (G) Polyester acrylate. P-15-0151 4/3/2015 3/27/2015 (G) Glycidyl ester methacrylate, polymer with alkyl acrylate, and styrene, 2-propenoate. P-14-0571 4/4/2015 3/30/2015 (G) Hydroxy tetra alkyl esters of trialkyl alkanoic acid with cycloaminoethanol. P-15-0055 4/6/2015 3/31/2015 (G) Aromatic isocyanate, polxmer with alkyloxirane polymer with oxirane ether with polyfunctional alcohol, and alkyloxirane polymer with oxirane ether with triol (3:1). P-15-0093 4/20/2015 4/1/2015 (G) Aromatic polymer salt. P-12-0354 4/6/2015 4/2/2015 (S) 1,3-Propanediol, 2-ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)-, polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane and 5-isocyanato-1-(isocyanatomethyl)-1,3,3-trimethylcyclohexane, 3,5-dimethyl-1h-pyrazole-and 3-hydroxy-2,2-dimethylpropanoic acid-blocked, compds with 2-(dimethylamino) ethanol*. P-15-0156 4/10/2015 4/6/2015 (G) Amine modified epoxy resin. P-14-0679 4/17/2015 4/6/2015 (G) 2-(Dimethylamino)ethyl methyl-2-propanoate, polymer with alkyl-substituted methyl-2-propanoate and aryl-substituted methyl-2-propanoate, salt with phosphorylated caprolactone, alkyloxoheteromonocycle and polyalkylene polyol alkyl ether. P-13-0569 4/14/2015 4/10/2015 (S) 5H-cyclopenta[h]quinazoline, 6,6a,7,8,9,9a-hexahydro-7,7,8,9,9-pentamethyl-*. P-14-0862 4/23/2015 4/10/2015 (G) Furanose ester. P-15-0108 4/16/2015 4/14/2015 (G) Urethane acrylate. P-15-0119 4/16/2015 4/14/2015 (G) Ester acrylate. P-15-0175 4/22/2015 4/14/2015 (G) Carbamic acid, hydroxyalkyl ester, polymer with hydroxyalkyl carbamate and alkylisocyanate, alkoxyethanol-blocked. P-14-0561 4/24/2015 4/21/2015 (S) D-glucopyranose, oligomeric, decyl octyl glycosides, polymers with epichlorohydrin*. J-14-0010 4/25/2015 4/15/2015 (G) Trichoderma reesei 5347, producing beta-glucosidase.

    If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit III. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Chandler Sirmons, Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13418 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice: 2015-0014] Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088407XX AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“Ex-Im Bank”), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with section 3(c)(10) of the Charter). Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2015 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV. To submit a comment, enter EIB-2015-0014 under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and select Search. Follow the instructions provided at the Submit a Comment screen. Please include your name, company name (if any) and EIB-2015-0014 on any attached document.

    Reference: AP088407XX.

    Purpose And Use:

    Brief description of the purpose of the transaction:

    To support the export of U.S.-manufactured commercial aircraft to Angola.

    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the items being exported:

    To be used for long-haul air service between Angola and China, Brazil, Europe and South Africa.

    To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the items being exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.

    Parties:

    Principal Supplier: The Boeing Company Obligor: Linhas Aereas de Angola, E.P.—TAAG Angola Airlines Guarantor(s): The Republic of Angola, acting through the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Angola

    Description Of Items Being Exported:

    The items being exported are Boeing 777 aircraft.

    Information on Decision: Information on the final decision for this transaction will be available in the “Summary Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors” on http://exim.gov/newsandevents/boardmeetings/board/.

    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not include confidential or proprietary business information; information which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by supplying information that competitors could use to compete with companies in the United States.

    Lloyd Ellis, Program Specialist, Office of the General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13344 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10157, First Security National Bank, Norcross, Georgia

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for First Security National Bank, Norcross, Georgia (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of First Security National Bank on December 4, 2009. 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. 2015-13155 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Docket No. 15-03] John T. Barbour t/d/b/a Barbour Auto Group; Barbour Auto Sales; Barbour Shipping; and Barbour Shipping and Transportation Inc.—Possible Violations of the Shipping Act of 1984; Order of Investigation and Hearing AGENCY:

    Federal Maritime Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Order of Investigation and Hearing.

    DATES:

    The Order of Investigation and Hearing was served May 27, 2015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 27, 2015, the Federal Maritime Commission instituted an Order of Investigation and Hearing entitled John T. Barbour t/d/b/a Barbour Auto Group; Barbour Auto Sales; Barbour Shipping; and Barbour Shipping and Transportation Inc.—Possible Violations of Sections 8 and 19 of the Shipping Act. Acting pursuant to Section 11 of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41302, that investigation is instituted to determine:

    (1) Whether John T. Barbour, t/d/b/a Barbour Auto Group, Barbour Auto Sales, Barbour Shipping, and Barbour Shipping and Transportation Inc. violated sections 8 and 19 of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 40501, 40901, and 40902, by acting as a NVOCC without a license, filing evidence of financial security, or keeping open for public inspection a tariff containing its rates, charges, rules and practices; (2) in the event violations of the Shipping Act are found, whether civil penalties should be assessed against Barbour, and in what amount; and (3) whether appropriate cease and desist orders should be entered.

    The Order may be viewed in its entirety at http://www.fmc.gov/15-03.

    Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 41302.

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13157 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-15OO] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    CDC [email protected]® Advance Program: Evaluation of Train-the-Trainer and Technical Assistance Programs—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is expanding and enhancing a comprehensive workplace health program called [email protected] Through the [email protected] program, CDC developed a training curriculum for employers based on a problem-solving approach to improving employer knowledge and skills related to effective, science-based workplace health programs, and supporting the adoption of these programs in the workplace. Topics covered in the [email protected] curriculum include principles, strategies, and tools for leadership engagement; how to make a business case for workplace health programs; how to assess the needs of organizations and individual employees; how to plan, implement, and evaluate sustainable workplace health programs; and how to partner with community organizations for additional support. The program also offers a Train-the-Trainer component to promote large-scale dissemination of the program.

    CDC's [email protected] activities support and complement the efforts of numerous employers, public health agencies, non-profit organizations, and other professional organizations that share an interest in increasing the number of effective, science-based workplace health programs across the United States. Some of these entities have participated directly in [email protected] to take their training and apply it more broadly in their communities. Other entities offer employers opportunities for recognition or accreditation of their workplace health programs based on many of the core concepts and principles addressed in the [email protected] training. Recognition or accreditation programs enhance standards of practice and are appealing to employers to improve their visibility and status, but typically take several years of program growth and development for employers to be in position to successfully obtain them.

    The planned Advance Program will offer advanced [email protected] Accreditation Preparation Technical Assistance to those employers who have previously received a Certificate of Completion for participating in the basic [email protected] training and technical assistance program. In addition to emphasizing the mastery of core workplace health principles and concepts introduced in the basic course, the expanded [email protected] program will offer targeted technical assistance to help employers prepare for the process of getting their worksite accredited by an external organization. The advanced technical assistance will include an organizational accreditation readiness assessment as well as assessment-driven technical assistance focused on organizational alignment, population health management, and data, outcomes, and reporting. Employers will be responsible for selecting the external recognition or accreditation program that best fits with their vision and goals.

    The Advance Program also includes an updated Train-the-Trainer option so that trainers are prepared to deliver the [email protected] curriculum to employers across the country. Participants will receive technical assistance and access to an online peer learning platform.

    CDC is requesting OMB approval to collect the information needed to implement and evaluate the [email protected] Advance Program. CDC plans to collect information from employers who have previously completed the [email protected] training and technical assistance to assess readiness for accreditation of their workplace health program and their need for additional technical assistance; to obtain trainees' reactions to the advanced technical assistance; and to document their experience applying for and receiving accreditation of their workplace health program. CDC also plans to collect information needed to select the individuals who will participate in the enhanced Train-the-Trainer model; and to assess changes in trainees' knowledge and skills before and after participation in [email protected] Train-the Trainer model. Graduates of the [email protected] program will be given the opportunity to complete an annual survey to assess their capacity to sustain their workplace health program after formal training participation has ended. All information will be collected online, with the exception of the annual employer survey which will be conducted by telephone.

    CDC will use the information collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the [email protected] Program in terms of (1) increasing employer's knowledge and capacity to implement workplace health programs and to facilitate applying for accreditation for their programs, and (2) increasing the number of trainers who can provide employers with knowledge and skills in science-based workplace health programs, policies, and practices. The information will also be used to identify the best way(s) to deliver skill-based training and technical support to employers in the area of workplace health and to cultivate peer-to-peer cooperation and mentoring.

    OMB approval is requested for three years. The target number of employers participating in the enhanced technical assistance program component is 360. The target number of participants for the train-the-trainer program component is 300.

    Participation in [email protected] is voluntary and there are no costs to participants other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 450.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hr)
  • Employers CDC [email protected] Accreditation Readiness Assessment Tool 120 2 30/60 CDC [email protected] Advanced TA Survey 120 2 20/60 CDC [email protected] Follow-up Accreditation Survey 120 1 10/60 CDC [email protected] Advance Employer Follow-Up Survey 120 1 15/60 Interested New Train-the-Trainer Participants Train-the-Trainer Application Form 200 1 30/60 New Train-the-Trainer Participants in the [email protected]® Program CDC [email protected] Train-the-Trainer Knowledge and Skills Survey 100 2 30/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13384 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC) and Request for Suggested Meeting Topics for CLIAC

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is soliciting nominations for membership on CLIAC and soliciting suggestions for topics to be considered for future Committee deliberation. CLIAC provides scientific and technical advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Assistant Secretary for Health, HHS; the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and the Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The advice and guidance pertain to general issues related to improvement in clinical laboratory quality and laboratory medicine. In addition, the Committee provides advice and guidance on specific questions related to possible revision of the CLIA standards. Examples include providing guidance on studies designed to improve safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness of laboratory services; revisions to the standards under which clinical laboratories are regulated; the impact of proposed revisions to the standards on medical and laboratory practice; and the modification of the standards and provision of non-regulatory guidelines to accommodate technological advances, such as new test methods and the electronic transmission of laboratory information.

    CLIAC consists of 20 members and represents a diverse membership across laboratory specialties, professional roles (laboratory management, technical specialists, physicians, nurses) and practice settings (academic, clinical, public health), and includes a consumer representative. In addition, the Committee includes three ex officio members (or designees), including the Director, CDC; the Administrator, CMS; and the Commissioner, FDA. A nonvoting representative from the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) serves as the industry liaison. The Designated Federal Official (DFO) or their designee and the Executive Secretary are present at all meetings to ensure meetings are within applicable statutory, regulatory and HHS General Administration manual directives.

    Request for Candidates: Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to accomplishing CLIAC's objectives. Nominees will be selected by the HHS Secretary or designee from authorities knowledgeable across the fields of microbiology (including bacteriology, mycobacteriology, mycology, parasitology, and virology), immunology (including histocompatibility), chemistry, hematology, pathology (including histopathology and cytology), or genetic testing (including cytogenetics); representatives from the fields of medical technology, public health, and clinical practice; and consumer representatives. Members may be invited to serve for terms of up to four years.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that Committee membership be balanced in terms of professional training and background, points of view represented, and the committee's function. Consideration is given on the basis of geographic, ethnic and gender representation. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for CLIAC membership each fall, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in July, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise and individuals to maintain the appropriate demographic balance varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year.

    Candidates should submit the following items for nomination consideration. The deadline for receipt of materials is September 15, 2015:

    • Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone number, email address).

    • Letter(s) of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Request for Suggested Meeting Topics: Consideration of topics for meeting agendas begins approximately four months prior to each meeting. The agendas are developed by CDC in collaboration with CMS, FDA, and the CLIAC Chair. Topics within the scope of the Committee's charge are selected and questions for CLIAC deliberation are developed to align with the agenda. The agenda is published in the Federal Register not less than 15 days before the meeting date and is posted on the CLIAC Web site (http://wwwn.cdc.gov/cliac/default.aspx). Suggested meeting topics are invited at any time for consideration at future meetings.

    Candidate suggestions and potential meeting topics may be submitted by:

    • Email in care of the CLIAC Secretariat at [email protected]

    • U.S. Postal Service: Attention: CLIAC Secretariat, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop F-11, Atlanta, GA 30329.

    Contact Person for Additional Information: Nancy Anderson, Chief, Laboratory Practice Standards Branch, Division of Laboratory Systems, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Scientific Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop F-11, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4018; telephone (404) 498-2741; or via email at [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13313 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-15UR] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Enhanced Surveillance of Coccidioidomycosis in Low- and Non-Endemic States—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Coccidioidomycosis, also called “Valley fever,” is a nationally notifiable fungal infection caused by inhalation of soil-dwelling Coccidioides spp. In the United States, coccidioidomycosis is known to be endemic in the southwestern states, but new evidence suggests that the true endemic areas may be broader than previously recognized. Approximately 10,000 coccidioidomycosis cases are reported in the U.S. each year to the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS), but this system captures limited clinical and epidemiological information about reported cases. Most cases occur in Arizona or California, so the epidemiology of this disease has been well-described for these states, but little is known about the features of cases in other states.

    Enhanced surveillance in low- and non-endemic states will help determine which information is most important to collect during routine surveillance and will help assess the suitability of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) case definition for coccidioidomycosis in these areas. Primary prevention strategies for coccidioidomycosis have not yet been proven to be effective, so public health efforts may be best aimed at promoting awareness of coccidioidomycosis among healthcare providers and the general public. Improved surveillance data are essential for identifying such opportunities to promote awareness about this disease and for determining its true public health burden.

    State health department personnel in participating low- and non-endemic states will conduct telephone interviews with coccidioidomycosis cases reported during one calendar year that meet the CSTE case definition and will record responses on a standardized form. State health department personnel will use the form to collect information on demographics, underlying medical conditions, travel history, symptom type and duration, healthcare-seeking behaviors, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.

    OMB approval is requested for two years. Participation is voluntary. The total estimated annualized burden is 48 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • State Health Department Personnel Case Report Form for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever) Enhanced Surveillance 145 1 20/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13161 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement, RFA-EH-15-002, Development and validation of laboratory procedures using next generation sequencing technologies to assess genes causing severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) in state newborn screening laboratories.

    Times and Dates: 11:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., EDT, June 25, 2015 (CLOSED).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Development and validation of laboratory procedures using next generation sequencing technologies to assess genes causing severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) in state newborn screening laboratories”, EH15-002.

    Contact Person for More Information: Jane Suen, Dr.P.H., M.S., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop F63, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, Telephone (770) 488-4281.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13314 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-0010] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Birth Defects Study To Evaluate Pregnancy exposureS (BD-STEPS) (formerly titled The National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS)), (OMB 0920-0010, Expiration 01/31/2017)—Revision—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    CDC has been monitoring the occurrence of serious birth defects and genetic diseases in Atlanta since 1967 through the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program (MACDP). The MACDP is a population-based surveillance system for birth defects currently covering three counties in Metropolitan Atlanta.

    Since 1997, CDC has funded case-control studies of major birth defects that utilize existing birth defect surveillance registries (including MACDP) to identify cases and study birth defects causes in participating states/municipalities across the United States.

    The current study, BD-STEPS, is a case-control study that is similar to the previous CDC-funded birth defects case-control study, NBDPS, which stopped interviewing participants in 2013. As with NBDPS, BD-STEPS control infants are randomly selected from birth certificates or birth hospital records; mothers of case and control infants are interviewed using a computer-assisted telephone interview.

    The results from NBDPS have improved understanding of the causes of birth defects. Over 200 articles have been written in professional journals using the data from NBDPS, and BD-STEPS data will soon be added to NBDPS data for analysis. The current BD-STEPS revision is a change in proposed data collection. Specifically, the study will not ask BD-STEPS participants to participate in saliva collection as originally planned, but we will add an opportunity for some participants to respond to an online questionnaire, and we will also ask some participants for permission to retrieve newborn bloodspots.

    The BD-STEPS interview takes approximately forty-five minutes to complete. A maximum of 275 interviews are planned per year per center, 200 cases and 75 controls. With seven centers planned, the maximum interview burden for all centers combined would be approximately 1,444 hours. Mothers in five of the seven BD-STEPS Centers will also be asked to provide consent for the study to access previously collected infant bloodspots. It takes approximately 15 minutes to read, sign and return the informed consent for retrieval of bloodspots. For approximately one fifth of participants, some medical records review will be conducted. The medical records release form will take participants approximately 15 minutes to read, sign and return. In addition, it will take approximately 30 minutes for each medical record reviewer to conduct the review and send the medical record. Finally, the newly planned online questionnaire will be offered to approximately one third of participants who report certain occupations during the telephone interview; these participants will be asked to complete additional occupational questions via a Web site which will take approximately 20 minutes to answer.

    Information gathered from both the interviews and the Deoxyribonucleic acid specimens has been and will continue to be used to study independent genetic and environmental factors as well as gene-environment interactions for a broad range of carefully classified birth defects.

    This request is submitted to revise the previously estimated burden details and to request OMB clearance for three additional years. The total estimated annual burden hours are 2,290.

    There are no costs to the respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Respondents Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Mothers (interview) Telephone consent and BD-STEPS questionnaire 1,925 1 45/60 Mothers (consent for bloodspot retrieval) Written consent for bloodspot retrieval 1,375 1 15/60 Mothers (online occupational questionnaire) Online Occupational Questionnaire 642 1 20/60 Mothers (consent for medical records review) Written release for medical records review 385 1 15/60 Records reviewers (medical records review) Pulling and sending records 385 1 30/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13385 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the following federal advisory committee meeting.

    Times and dates:

    8:00 a.m.-5:15 p.m., June 24, 2015 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m., June 25, 2015

    Place: CDC, Tom Harkin Global Communications Center, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Building 19, Kent “Oz” Nelson Auditorium, Atlanta, Georgia 30333

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. Time will be available for public comment. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting. Comments should be submitted in writing by email to the contact person listed below. The deadline for receipt is June 22, 2015. All requests must contain the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the speaker, as well as the topic being addressed. Written comments should not exceed one single-spaced typed page in length and delivered in three minutes or less. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Members of the public who wish to provide public comments should plan to attend the public comment session at the start time listed. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting.

    The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web; for instructions and more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/index.html

    Purpose: The committee is charged with advising the Director, CDC, on the appropriate use of immunizing agents. In addition, under 42 U.S.C. 1396s, the committee is mandated to establish and periodically review and, as appropriate, revise the list of vaccines for administration to vaccine-eligible children through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, along with schedules regarding the appropriate periodicity, dosage, and contraindications applicable to the vaccines. Further, under provisions of the Affordable Care Act, at section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, immunization recommendations of the ACIP that have been adopted by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered by applicable health plans.

    Matters for discussion: The agenda will include discussions on: Meningococcal vaccines; general recommendations; human papillomavirus vaccines; influenza; influenza A(H5N1) vaccine, tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine; combination vaccines; smallpox vaccine in laboratory personnel; pneumococcal vaccines; child/adolescent immunization schedule; herpes zoster vaccines; Japanese encephalitis vaccine and vaccine supply. Recommendation votes are scheduled for meningococcal vaccines, influenza, influenza A (H5N1), smallpox vaccine in laboratory personnel, general recommendations and pneumococcal vaccines. A Vaccines for Children (VCF) vote is scheduled for meningococcal vaccines.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact person for more information: Stephanie Thomas, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-A27, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/639-8836; Email [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13312 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to PA 07-318, NIOSH Member Conflict Review.

    Time and date: 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., EST, June 25, 2015 (Closed)

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “NIOSH Member Conflict PA 07-318.”

    Contact person for more information: Nina Turner, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Mailstop G800, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, Telephone: (304) 285-5976.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13316 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-15LB] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Enhancing Dialogue and Execution of Dust Reduction Behaviors through Workgroup Communication—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    NIOSH, under Public Law 91-596, Sections 20 and 22 (Section 20-22, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1977) has the responsibility to conduct research relating to innovative methods, techniques, and approaches dealing with occupational safety and health problems.

    This project focuses on mineworkers' overexposure to respirable coal dust and how using the Continuous Personal Dust Monitor (CPDM), as an educational tool, can help provide information to mineworkers and their respective workgroups and shift leaders (i.e., frontline supervisors, shift foremen, etc), about ways to reduce respirable coal dust exposure in their work environment. NIOSH proposes a three-year approval for a project that seeks to understand what group communication practices are important for mineworker H&S and how those practices can be developed, implemented, and maintained over time. The following questions guide this study: What impact does a communication/technology intervention model that was designed and implemented have on: (1) Workers' health/safety behaviors, including those that lower exposure to dust; (2) workers' perceptions of their organizations' health and safety values; and (3) the types of health and safety management practices identified and utilized by mine site leaders to support workers' health/safety behaviors?

    To answer the above questions, NIOSH researchers developed an intervention that focuses on workers' communication about and subsequent actions taken to reduce respirable dust exposure over time, using information provided by their Continuous Personal Dust Monitor (CPDM). The intervention will inform how workgroups communicate with each other and their shift supervisor about health and how this communication impacts individual behavior such as corrective dust actions taken by workers.

    A new rule (CFR part 70) that passed May 1, 2014, requires mine operators to use CPDMs by February 1, 2016, for designated occupations. Continuous Personal Dust Monitors are wearable devices that provide miners with near real-time feedback about their level of respirable coal dust exposure. However, they do not ensure that miners will use the information to reduce their level of exposure. With the stricter regulations that just passed the opportunity to proactively improve communication around the CPDM and identify appropriate corrective actions, as required by the Mine Health and Safety Administration, is favorable.

    In response, an intervention was designed to involve workers in the interpretation of CPDM feedback and discuss, with their coworkers/workgroups and respective shift leaders, potential changes to work practices that can decrease exposure to respirable coal mine dust. Data is collected no more than three times throughout a six-week study period (i.e., pre, mid, and post assessments). Data collection includes a pre/post survey and focus groups with workers and site leaders. These focus groups function as “safety circles.” Safety circles are used to communicate and encourage specific behavior changes. A typical circle includes a facilitator or leader (who directs the meetings), 7-10 members, and one-hour weekly meetings that take place during the workday.

    NIOSH proposes this intervention design at no less than three but no more than five coal mine sites. Coal mine sites will be recruited who have inquired interest in learning how to improve utility of the CPDM on their site and/or interest in improving their employees' communication efforts. Only a small sample of workers will participate at each mine site because of the time required for completion and to ensure the longitudinal data can be adequately collected over the six weeks. In other words, we would rather collect data multiple times with the same worker and have fewer participants than collect data from more workers but not have the ability to appropriately follow-up during the subsequent visits.

    Data collection will take place over three years. The respondents targeted for this study include any active mine worker and any active site leader at a coal mine site. It is estimated that a sample of up to 150 mine workers will participate, which includes participating in three focus groups (in the form of safety circle workgroup meetings) that will take approximately 60 minutes. The 60 minutes includes a 30 minute discussion and the completion of a focus group worksheet and at one point, a dust control worksheet. The focus groups will debrief general CPDM data so participants can dialogue about ways to lower their exposure levels. In addition, workers will be asked to complete a pre and post survey (~15 minutes). It also is estimated that a sample of up to nine mine site leaders will participate in the form of interviews/focus groups about HSMS practices at the same mining operations which have agreed to participate, and complete a dust assessment form. The interviews/focus groups also will occur two to three times during each of the NIOSH field visits and will take no more than 45 minutes each. All participants will be between the ages of 18 and 75, currently employed, and living in the United States. Participation will require no more than 3 hours of workers' time over the six-week intervention and no more than 2.5 hours of site leaders' time over the six-week intervention period.

    There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total burden in time is an estimated 64 burden hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Mine & Health Safety Managers/Leaders Mine Recruitment and Participation Script 3 1 5/60 Worksite Leadership Interview/Focus Group Guide 3 3 45/60 Controls to Reduce Respirable Dust Exposure Assessment Worksheet for Workers and Management 3 1 15/60 Individual Mine Workers Mine Worker Recruitment Script 50 1 5/60 Pre/Post Mine Worker Survey 50 2 15/60 Mine Worker CPDM Focus Group Guide 50 3 30/60 Controls to Reduce Respirable Dust Exposure Assessment Worksheet for Workers and Management 50 1 15/60 Mine Worker Focus Group Worksheet 50 3 15/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13383 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:

    TIME AND DATE:

    10:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EDT, June 24, 2015

    PLACE:

    Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public, but without a public comment period. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number at 1-866-659-0537 and the pass code is 9933701.

    BACKGROUND:

    The Advisory Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines that have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on methods of dose reconstruction, which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program; and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC).

    In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2015.

    PURPOSE:

    The Advisory Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under E.O. 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. The Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews was established to aid the Advisory Board in carrying out its duty to advise the Secretary, HHS, on dose reconstruction.

    MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION:

    The agenda for the Subcommittee meeting includes the following dose reconstruction program quality management and assurance activities: Current findings from NIOSH and Advisory Board dose reconstruction blind reviews; dose reconstruction cases under review from Sets 14-18, including the Oak Ridge sites (Y-12, K-25, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Savannah River Site; preparation of the Advisory Board's next report to the Secretary, HHS, summarizing the results of completed dose reconstruction reviews.

    The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Theodore Katz, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta GA 30333, Telephone (513)533-6800, Toll Free 1(800) CDC-INFO, Email [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13311 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), IP-11-00100501PPHF15, PPHF-2015—Enhanced Surveillance for New Vaccine Preventable Disease—A Program Expansion for Acute Respiratory Illness Surveillance Financed Solely by 2015 Prevention and Public Health Funds.

    Time and Date: 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., June 23, 2015 (Closed).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “PPHF-2015-Enhanced Surveillance for New Vaccine Preventable Disease—A Program Expansion for Acute Respiratory Illness Surveillance Financed Solely by 2015 Prevention and Public Health Funds”, IP-11-00100501PPHF15.

    Contact Person for More Information: Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 718-8833.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13315 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [CFDA Number: 93.598] Announcement of the Award of a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grant to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, VA AGENCY:

    Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of the award of a single-source program expansion supplement to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) to support expanded services to foreign trafficking victims, potential trafficking victims, and certain family members.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announces the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant to U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, Virginia for a total of $1,060,805.

    The supplemental funding will ensure that clients' essential needs, such as housing, transportation, communication, food, and medical care, will be met. The supplemental funding will also ensure that USCRI has sufficient staff for the increased number of cases.

    DATES:

    The period of support under these supplements is June 01, 2015 through September 29, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maggie Wynne, Director, Division of Anti-Trafficking in Persons, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 901 D Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, Telephone (202) 401-4664. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Human Trafficking Victim Assistance Program (NHTVAP) provides funding for comprehensive case management services to victims of trafficking and certain family members on a per capita basis. The NHTVAP grantees help clients gain access to housing, employability services, mental health screening and therapy, medical care, and some legal services. During FY 2015, a grantee, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), served more clients than it had planned for in its budget for the year. Without the additional funding, USCRI would have to make significant cuts in services to current clients and limit the enrollment of new clients. Also, without additional funding USCRI would not have sufficient programmatic support for the increase in client enrollments. With the supplemental funding, USCRI will be able to ensure that all of the clients' essential needs will be met.

    Statutory Authority:

    Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), as amended, Section 107(b)(1)(B), 22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)(B), authorizes funding for benefits and services to foreign victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons in the United States, potential victims of trafficking seeking HHS Certification, and certain family members.

    Christopher Beach, Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Office of Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13177 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-47-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0279] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987; Policies, Requirements, and Administrative Procedures AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987; Policies, Requirements, and Administrative Procedures” 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 06, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987; Policies, Requirements, and Administrative Procedures” 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 0910-0435. 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 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13331 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0012] The Food and Drug Administration's Education and Outreach Program Targeting School-Aged Children AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; U48.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of grant funds for the support of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's (CFSAN) Education and Outreach Program Targeting School-Aged Children (U48). The goal of the Education and Outreach Program Targeting School-Aged Children (U48) is to support educational outreach programs targeting school-aged children which promotes FDA's mission. As part of FDA's mission to promote and protect public health, the educational program's mission is to perform outreach to schoolchildren using FDA-approved food safety and nutrition messages. This proposed cooperative agreement requires the supporting organization to provide teachers for one school year to extend CFSAN's outreach into schools.

    DATES:

    The application due date is July 1, 2015, by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic applications to: http://www.grants.gov. For more information, see section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Louise Dickerson, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, CPK1, Rm. 2C-006 (HFS-008), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2129, email: [email protected]; or Kimberly Pendleton Chew, Office of Acquisition and Grant Services, FHSL, Rm. 2031, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 240-402-7610, email: [email protected]

    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA) and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA located at http://www.grants.gov. Search by Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-FD-15-011.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Funding Opportunity Description RFA-FD-15-011 93.103 A. Background

    This FOA is soliciting an application from the Graduate School USA to support and extend the education programs of the Education Team in the Office of Analytics and Outreach. As part of its mission to promote and protect public health, the Education Team is tasked to implement targeted education programs that reach school-aged children using FDA-approved food safety and nutrition messages. This cooperative agreement requires the grantee to provide 37 teachers for one school year to extend CFSAN's reach into additional U.S. schools. The selected grantee must train and ensure that these 37 teachers will use the FDA curriculum Science and Our Food Supply (SOFS), which has been approved by FDA scientists. The grantee shall also guarantee that these teachers will use CFSAN's educational materials and, in turn, support and promote food safety and nutrition on a national scale.

    This cooperative agreement will support the commitment of 37 middle and high school teachers to implement the FDA-National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) supplementary food science curriculum SOFS, and includes one week of targeted training with this curriculum as the basis of instruction. It also includes a 1-day Enhancement Training session at the December NSTA Regional Conference. SOFS content is linked to specific national science education standards to help teachers integrate this content into their existing classroom materials. The course covers the latest research on food safety, food microbiology, epidemiology, and nutrition from FDA experts and scientists. These 37 teachers must conduct a train-the-teacher session for other science teachers in their area of the country on how to successfully use SOFS in their classrooms. To date, 620 teachers have completed the week-long program, reaching approximately 13,000 teachers and more than 7 million students across the country. Teachers in this program have represented all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

    In recent years, CFSAN has added other training and online resources through the NSTA Learning Center, as well as FDA and Graduate School Web sites. The grantee shall assume the responsibilities of arranging print and electronic program advertisements to science teachers through science teacher journals, Web-based formats, and listservs (where appropriate). The grantee shall act as a National Training Coordinator for the year-round SOFS content delivery by teachers. In addition, the grantee shall oversee and coordinate exhibiting at one regional NSTA conference in the fall of 2015 and one national NSTA conference in spring 2016. The goal of this cooperative agreement is to provide continued support for this program, which requires around-the-calendar attention to cover the various stages of teacher primary training, in-school SOFS curriculum implementation, secondary training, and train-the-teacher programs, as well as to distribute food science education materials to teachers to promote student education in food safety and nutrition.

    B. Research Objectives

    Specific objectives of this support are to:

    • Provide 37 teachers from diverse U.S. schools a weeklong course in food science in the Washington, DC metropolitan area;

    • distribute approved food science curricula and other materials for the train-the-teacher session and exhibit at the national NSTA and regional NSTA conferences; and

    • facilitate, identify, and prioritize technical assistance and development needs, develop strategic and project plans, and allocate resources to coordinate FDA training program components for U.S. teachers actively incorporating FDA's food safety and nutrition curriculum in their classrooms, as specified in the various training components of this proposed cooperative agreement.

    C. Eligibility Information

    The following organization is eligible to apply: Graduate School USA.

    II. Award Information/Funds Available A. Award Amount

    The number of awards is contingent upon FDA appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations, availability of funding and awardee performance.

    FDA/CFSAN intends to fund up to $452,700.00 for fiscal year 2015 in support of this grant program. Application budgets need to reflect the actual needs of the proposed project and should not exceed the following in total costs (direct and indirect):

    YR 1: $452,700 YR 2: $500,000 YR 3: $500,000 YR 4: $500,000 YR 5: $500,000 B. Length of Support

    The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum project period is 5 years.

    III. Electronic Application, Registration, and Submission

    Only electronic applications will be accepted. To submit an electronic application in response to this FOA, applicants should first review the full announcement located at http://www.grants.gov. Search by Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-FD-15-011. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses throughout this document, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.) For all electronically submitted applications, the following steps are required.

    • Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number • Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM) • Step 3: Obtain Username & Password • Step 4: Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) Authorization • Step 5: Track AOR Status • Step 6: Register With Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons

    Steps 1 through 5, in detail, can be found at http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. Step 6, in detail, can be found at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/registration/registrationInstructions.jsp. After you have followed these steps, submit electronic applications to: http://www.grants.gov.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13330 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1805] Retrospective Review of Premarket Approval Application Devices; Striking the Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection; Correction AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice entitled “Retrospective Review of Premarket Approval Application Devices; Striking the Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection” that appeared in the Federal Register of April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23798). The document announced the progress of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health on its 2014-2015 Strategic Priority “Strike the Right Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection.” The document was published with the incorrect docket number. This document corrects that error.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Granger, Office of Policy and Planning, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of April 29, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-09884, on page 23798, the following correction is made:

    1. On page 23798, in the first column, in the headings section of the document, “[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0090]” is corrected to read “[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1805]”.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13337 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0248] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Formal Dispute Resolution; Appeals Above the Division Level AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection contained in the guidance for industry on formal dispute resolution.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the collection of information 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:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Guidance for Industry on Formal Dispute Resolution; Appeals Above the Division Level (OMB Control Number 0910-0430)—Extension

    This information collection approval request is for FDA guidance on the process for formally resolving scientific and procedural disputes in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) that cannot be resolved at the division level. The guidance describes procedures for formally appealing such disputes to the office or center level and for submitting information to assist center officials in resolving the issue(s) presented. The guidance provides information on how the Agency will interpret and apply provisions of the existing regulations regarding internal Agency review of decisions (§ 10.75 (21 CFR 10.75)) and dispute resolution during the investigational new drug (IND) process (§ 312.48 (21 CFR 312.48)) and the new drug application/abbreviated new drug application (NDA/ANDA) process (§ 314.103 (21 CFR 314.103)). In addition, the guidance provides information on how the Agency will interpret and apply the specific Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goals for major dispute resolution associated with the development and review of PDUFA products.

    Existing regulations, which appear primarily in parts 10, 312, and 314 (21 CFR parts 10, 312, and 314), establish procedures for the resolution of scientific and procedural disputes between interested persons and the Agency, CDER, and CBER. All Agency decisions on such matters are based on information in the administrative file (§ 10.75(d)). In general, the information in an administrative file is collected under existing regulations in part 312 (OMB control number 0910-0014), part 314 (OMB control number 0910-0001), and part 601 (21 CFR part 601) (OMB control number 0910-0338), which specify the information that manufacturers must submit so that FDA may properly evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs and biological products. This information is usually submitted as part of an IND, NDA, or biologics license application (BLA), or as a supplement to an approved application. While FDA already possesses in the administrative file the information that would form the basis of a decision on a matter in dispute resolution, the submission of particular information regarding the request itself and the data and information relied on by the requestor in the appeal would facilitate timely resolution of the dispute. The guidance describes the following collection of information not expressly specified under existing regulations: The submission of the request for dispute resolution as an amendment to the application for the underlying product, including the submission of supporting information with the request for dispute resolution.

    Agency regulations (§§ 312.23(a)(11) and (d), 314.50, 314.94, and 601.2) state that information provided to the Agency as part of an IND, NDA, ANDA, or BLA is to be submitted in triplicate and with an appropriate cover form. Form FDA 1571 must accompany submissions under INDs and Form FDA 356h must accompany submissions under NDAs, ANDAs, and BLAs. Both forms have valid OMB control numbers as follows: FDA Form 1571—OMB control number 0910-0014, and FDA Form 356h—OMB control number 0910-0338.

    In the guidance document, CDER and CBER ask that a request for formal dispute resolution be submitted as an amendment to the application for the underlying product and that it be submitted to the Agency in triplicate with the appropriate form attached, either Form FDA 1571 or Form FDA 356h. The Agency recommends that a request be submitted as an amendment in this manner for two reasons: To ensure that each request is kept in the administrative file with the entire underlying application and to ensure that pertinent information about the request is entered into the appropriate tracking databases. Use of the information in the Agency's tracking databases enables the appropriate Agency official to monitor progress on the resolution of the dispute and to ensure that appropriate steps will be taken in a timely manner.

    CDER and CBER have determined and the guidance recommends that the following information should be submitted to the appropriate center with each request for dispute resolution so that the Center may quickly and efficiently respond to the request: (1) A brief but comprehensive statement of each issue to be resolved, including a description of the issue, the nature of the issue (i.e., scientific, procedural, or both), possible solutions based on information in the administrative file, whether informal dispute resolution was sought prior to the formal appeal, whether advisory committee review is sought, and the expected outcome; (2) a statement identifying the review division/office that issued the original decision on the matter and, if applicable, the last Agency official that attempted to formally resolve the matter; (3) a list of documents in the administrative file, or additional copies of such documents, that are deemed necessary for resolution of the issue(s); and (4) a statement that the previous supervisory level has already had the opportunity to review all of the material relied on for dispute resolution. The information that the Agency suggests submitting with a formal request for dispute resolution consists of: (1) Statements describing the issue from the perspective of the person with a dispute, (2) brief statements describing the history of the matter, and (3) the documents previously submitted to FDA under an OMB approved collection of information.

    Based on FDA's experience with dispute resolution, the Agency expects that most persons seeking formal dispute resolution will have gathered the materials listed previously when identifying the existence of a dispute with the Agency. Consequently, FDA anticipates that the collection of information attributed solely to the guidance will be minimal.

    Description of Respondents: A sponsor, applicant, or manufacturer of a drug or biological product regulated by the Agency under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act who requests formal resolution of a scientific or procedural dispute.

    Burden Estimate: Provided in this document is an estimate of the annual reporting burden for requests for dispute resolution. Based on data collected from review divisions and offices within CDER and CBER, FDA estimates that approximately eight sponsors and applicants (respondents) submit requests for formal dispute resolution to CDER annually and approximately one respondent submits requests for formal dispute resolution to CBER annually. The total annual responses are the total number of requests submitted to CDER and CBER in 1 year, including requests for dispute resolution that a single respondent submits more than one time. FDA estimates that CDER receives approximately 31 requests annually and CBER receives approximately 1 request annually. The hours per response is the estimated number of hours that a respondent would spend preparing the information to be submitted with a request for formal dispute resolution in accordance with this guidance, including the time it takes to gather and copy brief statements describing the issue from the perspective of the person with the dispute, brief statements describing the history of the matter, and supporting information that has already been submitted to the Agency. Based on experience, FDA estimates that approximately 8 hours on average would be needed per response. Therefore, FDA estimates that 8 hours will be spent per year by respondents requesting formal dispute resolution under the guidance.

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Requests for formal dispute resolution Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    CDER 8 2 31 8 248 CBER 1 1 1 8 8 Total 256 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13386 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0748] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3794 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments concerning collection of information using Form FDA 3794 entitled “Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet.”

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the collection of information 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:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3794 OMB Control Number 0910-0727—Extension

    On July 9, 2012, the Generic Drug User Fee Act (GDUFA) (Pub. L. 112-144, Title 111) was signed into law by the President. GDUFA, designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry, requires that generic drug manufacturers pay user fees to finance critical and measurable program enhancements. The user fees required by GDUFA are as follows: A one-time fee for original abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) pending on October 1, 2012 (also known as backlog applications); fees for type II active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and final dosage form (FDF) facilities; fees for new ANDAs and prior approval supplements (PASs); and a one-time fee for drug master files (DMFs).

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit feedback on the collection of information in an electronic form used to calculate and pay generic drug user fees. Proposed Form FDA 3794, the Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, requests the minimum necessary information to determine if a person has satisfied all relevant user fee obligations. The proposed form is modeled on other FDA user fee cover sheets, including Form FDA 3397, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act Cover Sheet. The information collected would be used by FDA to initiate the administrative screening of generic drug submissions and DMFs, support the inspection of generic drug facilities, and otherwise support the generic drug program. A copy of the proposed form will be available in the docket for this notice.

    Respondents to this proposed collection of information would be potential or actual generic application holders and/or related manufacturers (manufacturers of FDF and/or APIs). Companies with multiple applications will submit a cover sheet for each application and facility. Based on FDA's database of application holders and related manufacturers, we estimate that approximately 460 companies would submit a total of 3,544 cover sheets annually to pay for application and facility user fees. FDA estimates that the 3,544 annual cover sheet responses would break down as follows: 1,439 facilities fees, 942 ANDAs, 502 PASs, and 661 Type II API DMFs. The estimated hours per response are based on FDA's past experience with other submissions and range from approximately 0.1 to 0.5 hours. The hours per response are estimated at the upper end of the range to be conservative.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 FDA form Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    FDA 3794 460 7.7 3,544 0.5 (30 min.) 1,772 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13352 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority; Administration for Community Living AGENCY:

    Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL) was created in order to achieve several important objectives: to reduce the fragmentation that currently exists in federal programs addressing the community living service and support needs of both the aging and disability populations; to enhance access to quality health care and long-term services and supports for older adults and people with disabilities; to promote consistency in community living policy across other areas of the federal government; and to complement the community infrastructure, as supported by both Medicaid and other federal programs, in order to better respond to the full spectrum of needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. Public Law 113-128, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), furthers these objectives by transferring three groups of programs—the Independent Living (IL) Programs, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (now titled the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research), and the Assistive Technology (AT) Act programs—from the Department of Education's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to the HHS Administration for Community Living (ACL). This reorganization incorporates these programs into ACL's structure with the IL programs and the AT Act section 5 programs included under the newly established Administration on Disabilities; the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) reporting directly to the ACL Administrator; and the AT Act section 4 programs located in the Office of Consumer Access and Self-Determination within the renamed Center for Integrated Programs (formally the Center for Consumer Access and Self-Determination).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christine Phillips, Administration for Community Living, 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20201, 202-357-3547.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice amends part B of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Community Living, as last amended at 79 FR 62142-62152, dated October 16, 2014, as follows:

    I. Delete Part B, “The Administration for Community Living”; in its entirety and replace with the following:

    B.00 Mission B.10 Organization B.20 Functions

    B.00 Mission. The Administration for Community Living's (ACL) mission is to maximize the independence, well-being, and health of older adults, people with disabilities across the lifespan, and their families and caregivers. ACL provides national leadership and direction to plan, manage, develop, and raise awareness of comprehensive and coordinated systems of long-term services and supports that enable older Americans and individuals with disabilities, including intellectual, developmental, physical, and other disabilities, to maintain their health and independence in their homes and communities. ACL programs support strong state, tribal, and local community networks designed to respond to the needs of persons with disabilities, older Americans, and their families through advocacy, research, systems change and capacity building to ensure access to needed community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance that promote self-determination, independence, productivity, and integration and inclusion in all facets of community life.

    ACL advises the Secretary, departmental components and other federal departments and agencies on the development and implementation of policies to improve access to community living services and supports and enhance opportunities for persons with disabilities and older Americans, while retaining discrete policy and programmatic operations that respond to the unique needs of these populations. ACL's visibility within the Department of Health and Human Services and with other federal agencies helps ensure that federal policies and programs allow all individuals across the lifespan to live with respect and dignity as full members of their communities.

    B.10 Organization. ACL is an operating division of the Department of Health and Human Services. ACL is headed by an Administrator, who reports directly to the Secretary. The Administrator is also the Assistant Secretary for Aging. In addition to the Administrator, the ACL consists of the Principal Deputy Administrator who also reports to the Secretary, serving as the senior disability policy advisor to the Secretary; and staff and program offices. ACL is organized as follows:

    Office of the Administrator (BA) Administration on Aging (BB) Administration on Disabilities (BC) Center for Integrated Programs (BD) Center for Management and Budget (BE) Center for Policy and Evaluation (BF) National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (BG)

    B.20 Functions. ACL is the principal agency in the department designated to lead aging and disability programs. More specifically, the provisions of the Older Americans Act (OAA) of 1965 are carried out by its subcomponent, the Administration on Aging; the provisions of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) of 2000 and Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are carried out by its subcomponent, the Administration on Disabilities; and the provisions of Title II of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are carried out by its subcomponent, the Nation lInstitute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. ACL also administers programs authorized under Title III and Title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), section 262 and 292 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), section 119 of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) of 2008, section 6021(d) of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005, section 4360 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990, the Elder Justice Act (EJA) of 2010 (Subtitle B of Title XX of the Social Security Act), and the Assistive Technology Act of 1998. In addition, ACL provides continuing support for the administration of the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities pursuant to E.O. 13652.

    Specifically, ACL develops, recommends and issues regulations, policies, procedures, standards and guidelines to provide direction for the programs it administers. Approves or disapproves plans and funding applications for national programs providing community-based long-term services and supports. Administers programs for training, research, demonstration, evaluation and information dissemination. Administers programs related to advocacy, systems change and capacity building. Administers national centers for service development and provides technical assistance to states, tribal organizations, local communities and service providers. Serves as the lead federal agency for adult protective services.

    Assists the Secretary in all matters pertaining to opportunities and challenges of persons with disabilities, older Americans, and Americans of all ages about their current and potential future need for information and access to long-term services and supports. Advocates for the needs of these constituencies in program planning and policy development within the department and in other federal agencies. Advises the Secretary, departmental components and other federal organizations on the characteristics, circumstances and needs of these populations and develops policies, plans and programs designed to promote their welfare.

    The functions of the organizational units of ACL are described in detail in the succeeding chapters.

    A. Office of the Administrator (BA):

    BA.00 Mission BA.10 Organization BA.20 Functions

    BA.00 Mission. The Office of the Administrator provides executive direction, leadership, and guidance for ACL programs, and serves as the focal point for the development, coordination and administration of those programs nationwide. The office advises the Secretary on issues affecting seniors and persons with disabilities.

    BA.10 Organization. The Office of the Administrator is headed by the Administrator, who reports directly to the Secretary. The Office of the Administrator includes the Principal Deputy Administrator, who also serves as the senior advisor to the Secretary on HHS activities relating to disabilities, and the following components:

    Immediate Office of the Administrator (BAA) Office of External Affairs (BAB) Office of Regional Operations (BAC) Regional Support Centers (BAC1-BAC10)

    BA.20 Functions.

    1. Immediate Office of the Administrator (BAA). The Immediate Office of the Administrator provides executive supervision to the major components of ACL. The Administrator and Principal Deputy both serve as members of the Secretary's senior leadership team, ensuring that federal policies and programs support the goal of enabling all individuals to live with respect and dignity as fully participating members of their communities.

    Specifically, the Immediate Office of the Administrator sets national policies, establishes national priorities, ensures policy consistency, and directs plans and programs conducted by ACL. Advises the Secretary, HHS operating divisions, and other federal agencies on the characteristics, circumstances, and needs of persons with disabilities, older Americans, and their families and on policies, plans and programs designed to promote their welfare.

    Coordinates the development of legislative proposals, testimony, background statements, and other policy documents in activities related to legislation. In coordination with the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, analyzes proposed and enacted legislation related directly or indirectly to older people and persons with disabilities, including legislation directly affecting ACL programs.

    In collaboration with other federal agencies, develops and implements interagency agreements to advance the concerns and interests of persons with disabilities, older adults, and families of such individuals. Provides liaison to federal advisory committees. Works with national organizations, professional societies, and academic organizations to identify mutual interests and plan voluntary and funded approaches to enhance opportunities for community living.

    Receives, assesses, and controls incoming correspondence and makes assignments to the appropriate ACL component(s) for response and action; provides assistance and advice to ACL staff on the development of responses to correspondence; and tracks development of periodic reports and facilitates departmental clearance. Maintains official copies of all policy and information issuances, ensuring adherence to ethics requirements as well as requirements for records management and disposition and the Freedom of Information Act.

    2. Office of External Affairs (BAB). The Office of External Affairs (OEA) supports the Immediate Office of the Administrator in the effective communication of ACL policies, goals, and objectives. Develops and executes strategy for interaction with the news media. Initiates media outreach activities; responds to all media inquiries concerning ACL programs and related issues; develops communications products such as news releases, feature articles and opinion-editorial pieces on ACL programs, initiatives, and issues affecting ACL stakeholders

    Manages preparation and clearance of speeches and official statements on ACL programs. Coordinates ACL's participation in conferences and other events intended to educate and inform ACL stakeholders about ACL programs and federal initiatives that affect older Americans and people with disabilities.

    Develops and implements public education activities to support program objectives. Develops and distributes communications products such as brochures, fact sheets, and conference exhibits about issues affecting older people and people with disabilities and programs that support them.

    Coordinates with other federal agencies, regional offices and partners in the aging and disability networks to develop and implement communications campaigns that advance mutual goals. Coordinates ceremonies and celebrations. Manages the content of ACL Web sites and social media platforms. Implements the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information authorized under section 6021(d) of the DRA of 2005.

    3. Office of Regional Operations (BAC). The Office of Regional Operations includes a coordinating central office liaison and Regional Support Centers around the country. ACL has five Regional Administrators (RA), who each oversee two regions.

    The Regional Support Centers (BAC1-BAC10) serve as the focal point for the administration and coordination of Older Americans Act programs within their designated HHS regions, and coordinate with ACL program offices as needed on other ACL programs that support state and local efforts to improve community living for older adults and persons with disabilities (for example, Regional Support Center staff serve as liaisons between State Offices on Aging and other ACL divisions). Represent the Administrator within the region, providing information for, and helping to advance the development of, national programs serving older adults and persons with disabilities. Serve as advocate for ACL stakeholders to other federal agencies in their geographic jurisdictions; advise, consult and cooperate with each federal agency proposing or administering programs or services that affect ACL stakeholders; coordinate and assist public (including federal, state, tribal and local agencies) and private organization in the planning and development of comprehensive and coordinated services; and conduct education of officials and the broader community to ensure understanding of the need for community-based services and supports for older adults and people with disabilities.

    Monitor, assist and evaluate state agencies and tribal organizations administering programs supported under the OAA and other authorizing legislation as directed. Participate in the review of state plans and recommend approval or disapproval. Participate in the review of applications for tribal programs and recommend approval or disapproval. Review grantee financial and program reports and provide technical assistance on fiscal operations. Oversee disaster assistance and reimbursement activities pursuant to section 310 of the OAA.

    Advise the Administrator on problems and progress of programs; evaluate the effectiveness of programs and services in the regions and recommend changes that would improve program operations and enhance effectiveness; and provide guidance to agencies and grantees in applications of policy to specific operational issues requiring resolution. Facilitate interagency cooperation at the federal, regional, state and tribal levels to enhance resources and assistance available to older adults and persons with disabilities. Disseminate and provide technical assistance regarding program guidelines and developments to state agencies, tribal organizations, and local community service providers.

    B. Administration on Aging (BB):

    BB.00 Mission BB.10 Organization BB.20 Functions

    BB.00 Mission. The Administration on Aging (AoA) carries out programs operated under the OAA, section 398 and Title III of the PHSA, and the EJA (Subtitle B of Title XX of the Social Security Act), including, but not limited to, those concerning the Elder Justice Coordinating Council and Adult Protective Services. The Administration on Aging helps elderly individuals maintain their dignity and independence in their homes and communities through comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective systems of long-term services and supports and livable communities across the United States.

    BB.10 Organization. The Administration on Aging is headed by the Assistant Secretary for Aging, who is also the ACL Administrator. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aging supports the Assistant Secretary in overseeing the Administration on Aging. The Administration on Aging includes the following components:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aging (BBA) Office of Supportive and Caregiver Services (BBB) Office of Nutrition and Health Promotion Programs (BBC) Office of Elder Justice and Adult Protective Services (BBD) Office of American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian Programs (BBE) Office of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs (BBF)

    BF.20 Functions.

    1. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aging (BBA). The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aging advises and supports the Administrator, the Secretary, and other elements of the department in serving as the visible and effective advocate for older people within the federal government. Provides leadership and expertise on program development, advocacy and initiatives affecting seniors and their caregivers. Plans and directs grant programs designed to provide planning, coordination and services to older Americans as authorized under the OAA and other legislation. Actively partners with other ACL subcomponents to develop coordinated programs and policies that jointly address the common needs of older adults and people with disabilities.

    Performs functions under Title II of the OAA related to consultation with other federal agencies and the provision of information about aging services, programs and policies in order to enhance coordination and delivery. Supports the Administrator in implementing section 203(1) of the OAA by advising and coordinating with the head of each department and agency and instrumentality of the federal government proposing or administering programs or services substantially related to the objectives of the OAA. Oversees the consultation process by which agency heads must consult with AoA before establishing programs or services related to the OAA. Plans and implements the process for the collaboration with AoA and all federal agencies executing programs and services related to the OAA.

    Consults with and provides technical assistance to and education for State and Area Agencies on Aging, tribal grantees and local community service providers in the development of plans, goals, and system development activities. Ensures that statutory requirements, regulations, policies, and instructions are implemented for mandatory grant programs under Titles III, VI and VII of the OAA, and for the discretionary grant programs under Title II and Title IV of the OAA, as well as section 398 and Title III of the PHSA and the EJA.

    Provides oversight and leadership, technical assistance, and guidance to Regional Support Centers, states, Area Agencies on Aging and community service providers. Provides technical guidance to the Regional Support Centers as they implement the national programs of the OAA and ensures that clear and consistent guidance is given on program and policy directives. Issues substantive operating procedures to guide central office and regional staff in the conduct of their programmatic responsibilities.

    At all levels, from national to the local service delivery level, develops methods and collaborations to articulate the problems and concerns of the elderly to organizations beyond the traditional network of agencies and works with these organizations to be more sensitive and responsive to age-related needs and issues. In coordination with the Office of External Affairs, develops strategies for increasing public awareness of the needs of older Americans and their families, and programs designed to address them.

    2. Office of Supportive and Caregiver Services (BBB). The Office of Supportive and Caregiver Services serves as the focal point for the operation, administration, and assessment of the programs authorized under Titles III-B and III-E of the OAA and section 398 of the PHSA, as well as activities under Titles II and IV of the OAA that are designed to provide information and referral services to seniors and caregivers, and to support technical assistance, outreach, and information dissemination that are culturally and linguistically appropriate in order to meet the needs of diverse populations of older individuals. In addition, the Office performs the functions under Title II of the OAA related to consultation with other federal agencies and the provision of information about supportive and caregiver services in order to enhance service coordination and delivery.

    Implements Titles III-B and III-E of the OAA through the development of regulations, policies and guidance governing the development and enhancement by State and Area Agencies on Aging of comprehensive and coordinated systems of home- and community-based supportive and caregiver services. This includes implementing and enhancing systems for home- and community-based supportive services, the operation of multi-purpose senior centers, and caregiver support and assistance services.

    In coordination with the Office of Nutrition and Health Promotion Programs, provides guidance regarding state plan processing and approval, the process and criteria for approval of states' Intrastate Funding Formulas for the allocation and targeting of resources within states, and implementation of the Interstate Funding Formula for distribution of Title III-B and III-E funds among states. Through the analysis of state plans, evaluation findings and other relevant material, identifies potential program and management issues and develops recommendations on possible solutions.

    Fosters, oversees, and ensures accountability for the implementation of programs by states and Area Agencies on Aging through guidance and direction to regional staff regarding program reviews and system development and enhancements. Designs and provides training and technical assistance for program compliance, effectiveness, and enhancement. Provides technical and subject matter expertise targeted at enhancing the capabilities of State and Area Agencies on Aging and local communities to improve service delivery to older people.

    Directs and assesses the development of state-administered home- and community-based long-term care systems providing supportive services for the elderly and caregivers. Initiates and encourages expansion of the capacities of home- and community-based supportive and caregiver services.

    Implements programs under section 398 of the PHSA, as well as activities under Titles II and IV of the OAA, through the development of demonstrations designed to test the efficacy of new and innovative models in improving the delivery and effectiveness of community-based supportive services for seniors and caregivers. Plans and develops discretionary grant program announcements. Evaluates demonstration grant and contract proposals and recommends approval/disapproval. Monitors progress, gives technical guidance, and evaluates program performance.

    Promotes the coordination of innovation and demonstration activities with other national, field and local programs related to aging. Develops standards and identifies successful service and systems development strategies and best practice models for use by the aging network. Provides technical assistance to aging network partners in utilizing the findings from program demonstrations to inform policy and program development and enhance service delivery and coordination at the federal, state and local level.

    3. Office of Nutrition and Health Promotion Programs (BBC). The Office of Nutrition and Health Promotion Programs serves as the focal point for the operation, administration, and assessment of the programs authorized under Titles III-C and III-D of the OAA and Title III of the PHSA, as well as activities under Titles II and IV of the OAA designed to promote healthy behaviors and improved health status for older people. In addition, the office performs the functions under Title II of the OAA related to consultation with other federal agencies and the provision of information about nutrition and preventive health services in order to enhance service coordination and delivery.

    Implements Titles III-C and III-D of the OAA through the development of regulations, policies and guidance governing the development and enhancement by State and Area Agencies on Aging of comprehensive and coordinated systems of home- and community-based nutrition and preventive health services. Carries out the functions of the designated Nutrition Officer, who coordinates nutritional services under the OAA, develops the regulations and guidelines, and provides technical assistance regarding nutrition to State and Area Agencies on Aging, nutrition service providers, and other organizations. Serves as the liaison to the Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies and organizations related to nutrition policy and program issues.

    In coordination with ACL's Office of Supportive and Caregiver Services, provides guidance regarding state plan processing and approval, the process and criteria for approval of states' Intrastate Funding Formulas for the allocation and targeting of resources within states, and implementation of the Interstate Funding Formula for distribution of Title III-C and III-D funds among states. Through the analysis of state plans, evaluation findings and other relevant material, identifies potential program and management issues and develops recommendations on possible solutions.

    Fosters, oversees, and ensures accountability for the implementation of programs by states and Area Agencies on Aging through guidance and direction to regional staff regarding program reviews and system development and enhancements. Designs and provides training and technical assistance for program compliance, effectiveness, and enhancement. Provides technical and subject matter expertise targeted at enhancing the capabilities of State and Area Agencies on Aging and local communities to improve service delivery to older people.

    Directs and assesses the development of State-administered home- and community-based long-term care systems providing nutrition and preventive health services for the elderly and caregivers. Initiates and encourages expansion of the capacities of home- and community-based nutrition and preventive health services to deliver comprehensive services to the elderly.

    Implements programs under Title III of the PHSA, as well as other activities under Titles II and IV of the OAA, through the development of demonstrations designed to test the efficacy of new and innovative models in improving the delivery and effectiveness of community-based nutrition, health promotion, and evidenced-based disease prevention. Prepares the planning documents for and develops discretionary grant program announcements. Evaluates demonstration grant and contract proposals; and recommends approval/disapproval. Monitors progress, gives technical guidance to, and evaluates the performance of grantees and contractors.

    Promotes the coordination of innovation and demonstration activities with other national, field and local programs related to aging. Develops standards and identifies successful service and systems development strategies and best practice models for use by the aging network. Provides technical assistance to aging network partners in utilizing the findings from program demonstrations to inform policy and program development and enhance service delivery and coordination at the federal, state and local level.

    4. Office of Elder Justice and Adult Protective Services (BBD). The Office of Elder Justice and Adult Protective Services serves as the focal point for the operation, administration, and assessment of the elder abuse prevention, legal assistance development, and pension counseling programs under Titles II and VII of the OAA, and for Adult Protective Services and related activities carried out under the Elder Justice Act. The office also coordinates with the Office of the National Long-Term Care Ombudsman which oversees the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program and the National Ombudsman Resource Center.

    Reviews state plans to determine eligibility for funding under the OAA and recommends approval or disapproval. Implements Title VII in the field, in coordination with the National Long-Term Care Ombudsman, through the provision to Regional Support Centers of guidance and information, and the development and interpretation of Title VII program regulations and policy. Ensures the implementation of guidance and instructions concerning prevention of elder abuse, elder justice and legal assistance development programs. Provides guidance and leadership in the development of the pension counseling program and effective models for nationwide replication.

    Fosters, coordinates, and ensures accountability for the implementation of Title VII by states through guidance and direction to regional staff regarding program reviews, and program and system development and enhancements. Designs and provides training and technical assistance for program compliance, effectiveness, and enhancement. Develops program plans and instructions for Regional Support Centers and State and Area Agencies on Aging to improve the Title VII protection and representational programs funded under the OAA.

    Implements demonstration activities under Titles II and IV of the OAA and the EJA designed to test the efficacy of new and innovative models in improving the delivery and effectiveness of elder rights activities. Prepares the planning documents for and develops discretionary grant program announcements. Evaluates demonstration grant and contract proposals and recommends approval/disapproval. Monitors progress, gives technical guidance, and evaluates program performance.

    Promotes the coordination of innovation and demonstration activities with other national, field and local programs related to aging. Develops standards and identifies successful service and systems development strategies and best practice models for use by the aging network. Provides technical assistance to aging network partners in utilizing the findings from program demonstrations to inform policy and program development and enhance service delivery and coordination at the federal, state and local level.

    Provides federal leadership for the development and implementation of comprehensive Adult Protective Services systems in order to provide a coordinated and seamless response for helping adult victims of abuse and to prevent abuse before it happens. Develops national Adult Protective Services data systems and standards, and provides technical assistance to states on using and interfacing with the system. Develops model Adult Protective Services program standards that help states improve the quality and consistency of programs. Advances a coordinated federal research strategy to fill the gaps in knowledge and develop evidence-based interventions to prevent, identify and report, and respond to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. Provides support for the Elder Justice Coordinating Council.

    5. Office for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian Programs (BBE). The Office for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian Programs serves as advocate within the Department of Health and Human Services and with other departments and agencies of the federal government regarding all federal policies affecting older individuals who are Native Americans. Works with state, local and tribal governments providing leadership and coordination of activities, services and policies affecting American Indians, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiian elders. Promotes linkages among national Indian organizations, national aging organizations, and national provider organizations with the goal of enhancing the interests of and services to Native American elders. Recommends policies and priorities with respect to the development and operation of programs and activities relating to individuals who are older Native Americans. The office coordinates activities among other federal departments and agencies to ensure a continuum of improved services through memoranda of agreements or through other appropriate means of coordination.

    Evaluates outreach under Title III and Title VI of the OAA and recommends necessary action to improve service delivery, outreach, and coordination between Title III and Title VI services. Encourages and assists with the provision of information to older Native Americans to ensure a continuum of services. Develops research plans, conducts and arranges for research in the field of Native American aging; collects, analyzes, and disseminates information related to problems experienced by older Native Americans, including information on health status of older individuals who are Native Americans, elder abuse, in-home care, and problems unique to Native Americans. Develops, implements, and oversees the uniform data collection procedures for tribal and Native Hawaiian Organizations and implements and oversees the consultation requirements of Title II as they apply to Native American issues.

    Serves as the AoA focal point for the administration of the programs authorized under Title VI and the Native American Organization provisions of Title VII-B of the OAA, including administering grants, cooperative agreements and contracts. Coordinates with the Regional Support Centers to provide program guidance, policy direction, training, technical assistance, and monitoring of Title VI grantees. Oversees the development and operation of Resource Centers on Native American Elders under Title IV of the OAA, which gather information, perform research, provide for dissemination of results, and provide technical assistance and training to those who provide services to Native American elders. Arranges for and manages ongoing training and technical assistance for Title VI grantees. Coordinates additional training and technical assistance related to diversity and national minority aging organizations and coalitions with other projects managed by other components of the agency.

    6. Office of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs (BBF). The Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs carries out the functions established in section 201(d)(1) of the OAA, serving as the advocate for older Americans in the development and implementation of federal policies and laws that may affect the health, safety, welfare, or rights of residents of long-term care facilities.

    Reviews federal legislation, regulations, and policies regarding long-term care ombudsman programs and makes recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Aging. Coordinates the activities of ACL with other federal, state and local entities relating to long-term care ombudsman programs; prepares an annual report to Congress on the effectiveness of services provided by state long-term care ombudsman programs; and establishes standards for the training of state long-term care ombudsman staff.

    Coordinates with the Office of Elder Justice and Adult Protective Services on the administration of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program and the National Ombudsman Resource Center to ensure alignment with agency initiatives related to elder rights and adult protective services. Makes recommendations to the Administrator regarding the operation of the National Ombudsman Resource Center, and the review and approval of the provisions in state plans submitted under section 307(a) of the OAA that relate to state long-term care ombudsman programs.

    C. Administration on Disabilities (BC):

    BC.00 Mission BC.10 Organization BC.20 Functions

    BC.00 Mission. The Administration on Disabilities (AoD) advises the Secretary, through the Administrator and Principal Deputy Administrator for Community Living, on matters relating to services and supports for individuals with disabilities and their families, and serves as a focal point in the department to support and encourage the provision of quality services and supports, and implementation of program and policy that benefit people with disabilities and their families. The AoD supports states and communities in increasing the independence, productivity and community inclusion of individuals with disabilities; empowers individuals with disabilities to maximize opportunities for competitive integrated employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence and integration into society; promotes consumer control and self-advocacy; and ensures that the rights of individuals with disabilities are protected. Carries out programs operated under the DD Act, Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act, section 262 and 292 of the HAVA, section 5 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, and Title III of the PHSA.

    BC.10 Organization. The Administration on Disabilities is headed by a Commissioner, who reports directly to the ACL Administrator, and a Deputy Commissioner who also serves as Director of Independent Living. In this dual role, the Deputy Commissioner/Director of Independent Living serves as a member of the ACL Administrator's senior leadership team and reports directly to the ACL Administrator in carrying out the functions of the Director of Independent Living consistent with Section 701A of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. The AoD includes the following components:

    Office of the Commissioner on Disabilities (BCA) Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (BCB) Office of Program Support (BCB1) Office of Innovation (BCB2) President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (BCB2A) Independent Living Administration (BCC)

    BC.20 Functions.

    1. Office of the Commissioner on Disabilities (BCA). The Office of the Commissioner on Disabilities (OCD) provides executive leadership and management strategies for all components of the Administration on Disabilities. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner/Director of Independent Living advise the ACL Administrator on issues related to services and supports, civil rights and other matters affecting individuals with disabilities and their families. Plans, coordinates and controls AoD policy, planning and management activities which include the development of legislative proposals, regulations and policy issuances for AoD.

    Provides executive direction to AoD's components and establishes goals and objectives for AoD programs. Assists states, through the design and implementation of state plans for independent living, developmental disabilities, and protection and advocacy programs, in making optimal use of federal, state, and local resources that maximize the independence, productivity, economic self-sufficiency and community inclusion and integration of individuals with disabilities and their families.

    In concert with other components of ACL as well as other public, private, and volunteer sector partners, develops and implements research, demonstration and evaluation strategies for discretionary funding of activities designed to improve and enrich the lives of individuals with disabilities. Serves as a resource in the development of policies and programs to reduce or eliminate barriers experienced by individuals with disabilities through the identification of promising practices and dissemination of information. Supports and encourages programs or services and manages initiatives, involving the private and voluntary sectors that benefit individuals with disabilities and their families.

    Initiates, executes and supports the development of interagency, intergovernmental and public-private sector agreements, committees, task forces, commissions or joint-funding efforts as appropriate. Actively partners with other ACL subcomponents to develop coordinated programs and policies that jointly address the common needs of older adults and people with disabilities. In coordination with the Office of External Affairs, develops strategies for increasing public awareness of the needs of individuals with disabilities, their families, and programs designed to address them.

    2. Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (BCB). The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) is responsible for the coordination, oversight, management and evaluation of programs authorized by the DD Act and activities authorized under section 5 of the AT Act and section 262 and 292 of the HAVA. AIDD includes two program offices, the Office of Program Support (OPS) and the Office of Innovation (OI).

    OPS (BCB1) is responsible for the coordination, oversight, management and evaluation of the State Councils on Developmental Disabilities, the Developmental Disabilities Protection and Advocacy Systems, and the University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities grant programs as authorized by the DD Act. OPS is responsible for the development of procedures and performance standards that ensure compliance with the DD Act and that improve the outcomes of the programs in increasing the independence, productivity and community inclusion of persons with developmental disabilities. OPS conducts routine and special analyses of state plans of State Councils on Developmental Disabilities, statements of goals and objectives of state Protection and Advocacy systems, and five-year plans of the University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, to ensure consistent application of AIDD program goals and objectives. Provides program development services, develops and initiates guidelines, policy issuances and actions with team participation by other components of AoD, ACL, HHS and other government agencies to fulfill the mission and goals of the DD Act, as amended.

    OPS also administers Protection and Advocacy programs under section 292 of the HAVA and section 5 of the AT Act that help to ensure full participation in the electoral process for individuals with disabilities and to assist individuals with disabilities in the acquisition, utilization, or affordability of AT services or devices. Administers a training and technical assistance grant program under the HAVA that provides technical assistance to Protection and Advocacy systems in their mission to promote the full participation in the electoral process for individuals with the full range of disabilities, including registering to vote, casting vote, and accessing polling places.

    OI (BCB2) is responsible for the coordination, oversight, management and evaluation of the Projects of National Significance program, including the Family Support and the Direct Support Workers grant programs as authorized by the DD Act. OI ensures the dissemination of grantee results, including project results and information produced by AD grantees, in coordination with the Independent Living Administration and the Office of the Commissioner on Disabilities. Manages cross-cutting research, demonstration and evaluation initiatives consistent with the purposes of the DD Act, with other components of ACL, HHS and other government agencies to promote and integrate the grant programs into cross-agency and cross-disability efforts. Coordinates information sharing and other activities related to national program trends and studies, reviews and analyzes other federal programs providing services applicable to persons with developmental disabilities for the purpose of integrating and coordinating program efforts. OI also oversees activities under section 262 of the HAVA that support state efforts to improve accessibility for individuals with the full range of disabilities to polling places and voting facilities.

    OI also provides general staff support for the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (BCB2A) as established by E.O. Coordinates all meetings, provides advice and assistance in the areas of intellectual disabilities as requested by the President or the Secretary, and prepares and issues an annual report concerning intellectual disabilities and additional reports or recommendations as appropriate.

    3. Independent Living Administration (BCC). Established by section 701A of the Rehabilitation Act, the Independent Living Administration (ILA) aims to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with disabilities while promoting the independent living philosophy of consumer control, self-help and self-advocacy, development of peer relationships and peer role models, and equal access for individuals with significant disabilities to all aspects of society. Administers grants to support independent living programs that offer financial assistance to provide expanded and improved independent living services. Develops and supports statewide networks of centers for independent living and improves working relationships among state independent living rehabilitation programs, centers for independent living, statewide Independent Living Councils (SILCs), Rehabilitation Act programs outside of Title VII, and other relevant federal and non-federal programs. Also funds grants for consumer-controlled, community-based, cross-disability, nonresidential, private nonprofit agencies that are designed and operated within a local community by individuals with disabilities and provide an array of independent living services, such as community planning and decision making; school-based peer counseling, transition services, role modeling, and skills training. Manages other grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to provide training and technical assistance with respect to planning, developing, conducting, administering, and evaluating centers for independent living. Ensure compliance with the Rehabilitation Act, which establishes a set of standards and assurances that centers for independent living must meet and requires development and publication of indicators of minimum compliance with the standards.

    In addition, participates in the development and dissemination of policy guidance, regulations, and program guidance related to Independent Living Programs. In collaboration with the Center for Policy and Evaluation, develops program performance measures, which are used to evaluate and monitor grantees. Provides program development services, develops and initiates guidelines, policy issuances and actions with team participation by other components of ACL, HHS and other government agencies to fulfill the purpose and goals of Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. Also carries out activities under Title III of the PHSA that promote the health and well-being of people living with paralysis and limb loss. Supports their families and caregivers by providing comprehensive information and referral services that assist individuals to remain at home and in the community.

    D. Center for Integrated Programs (BD):

    BD.00 Mission BD.10 Organization BD.20 Functions

    BD.00 Mission. The Center for Integrated Programs (CIP) serves as the locus within ACL for the administration of programs and initiatives that serve both older adults and persons with disabilities, including consumer access and protection programs. Also manages programs and initiatives that promote the use of self-directed and person-centered service models and advance the development of health and long-term care services and support systems that are responsive to the needs and preferences of older adults, persons with disabilities, caregivers, and families. The CIP carries out programs authorized under Titles II and IV of the OAA, Title XXIX of the PHSA, section 119 of the MIPPA, section 4360 of the OBRA of 1990, and section 4 of the AT Act that focus on helping states make their health care and long-term service and support systems more person-centered, improve access to health care and assistive technology services, and promote the values of self-determination, full participation in community, integration and independence. CIP also implements initiatives at the national, state and local level to strengthen the capacity of ACL's network of state and community-based organizations to play a meaningful role in the transformation of our nation's health and long-term service and support systems.

    BD.10 Organization. The Center for Integrated Programs is headed by a Deputy Administrator, who reports directly to the ACL Administrator. The CIP includes the following components:

    Office of the Deputy Administrator for Integrated Programs (BDA) Office of Healthcare Information and Counseling (BDB) Office of Integrated Care Innovations (BDC) Office of Consumer Access and Self-Determination (BDD)

    BD.20 Functions.

    1. Office of the Deputy Administrator for Integrated Programs (BDA). The Office of the Deputy Administrator for Integrated Programs supports the ACL Administrator and the Principal Deputy Administrator in advancing programmatic and systemic changes to make state health and long-term services and supports systems more person-centered and responsive to the needs and preferences of older Americans, people with disabilities, their families, and caregivers. Works with other ACL components, federal partners and key external stakeholder groups to engage the multiple state agencies involved in long-term services and supports in developing high performing, consumer-oriented, and responsive systems of care for all populations.

    Provides leadership and strategic direction to guide the administration of ACL programs that assist consumers in understanding their health care and long-term services and supports options, improve access to services including assistive technologies, and prevent fraud and abuse. Consults with, provides technical assistance to, and supports the education of states and local community service providers in the development of plans, goals, and system development activities. Supports the coordination of programs within HHS and with federal, state, community and private-sector partners.

    Works closely with AoA, AoD, and other ACL components to facilitate the coordination across ACL of multiple consumer protection and family support programs and various systems change and network capacity initiatives to fully optimize the potential synergies of these investments across ACL. Uses data and learnings from the programs administered by CIP to inform the work of other ACL components and ACL's policy priorities and provides guidance to the Regional Support Centers to ensure clear and consistent direction to the states on relevant program implementation issues.

    2. Office of Healthcare Information and Counseling (BDB). The Office of Healthcare Information and Counseling oversees the operation and administration of the State Health Insurance Assistance Program, authorized under the section 4360 of the OBRA of 1990, and the Senior Medicare Patrol Program, authorized under Title IV of the OAA, that help Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries as well as coming-of-agers navigate the complexities of health and long-term care systems and educate them on how to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. The office also manages related activities funded under section 119 of the MIPPA that focus on outreach to help beneficiaries understand and apply for their Medicare benefits including the Low Income Subsidy program (LIS), Medicare Savings Program (MSP), and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage (Part D).

    Coordinates, implements, monitors, and promotes efforts to provide consumer information and education designed to increase access to, and detect, prevent and report error, fraud and abuse in, the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Works with the ACL Regional Support Centers to provide in-depth expertise, information, leadership and technical assistance to assist the State Health Insurance Assistance Program and Senior Medicare Patrol networks, and serves as a reliable clearinghouse of information for older persons, people with disabilities, and their families and caregivers.

    Develops funding opportunities and monitors grants to ensure all necessary activities are completed. Manages the full spectrum of contract requirements including identifying contractual needs, developing statements of work and necessary planning documents, and ensuring that contractors are completing assigned tasks. Ensures that grantees and their volunteers have the necessary information and training to carry out program functions. Develops and refines the performance management systems and provides specialized guidance and technical assistance to help grantees improve their performance. Coordinates with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other national partnerships to advance program objectives.

    3. Office of Integrated Care Innovations (BDC). The Office of Integrated Care Innovations oversees a variety of initiatives to ensure that the interests and needs of older adults and people with disabilities, as well as the state and local organizations that serve these populations, are adequately reflected in the transformations occurring in our nation's health and long-term services and support systems as those systems shift toward the use of managed care, Health Information Technology (IT), and other models and approaches to better integrate the delivery of health and long-term services and supports as well as to make those systems more person-centered. These initiatives involve partnerships with other federal agencies and external stakeholders at the national, state, and local level and the management and execution of technical assistance activities, including the identification and dissemination of best practices and program models.

    Leads ACL's Business Acumen work to help community-based organizations that serve older adults and persons with disabilities to build their business capacity and align their service capabilities in order to work effectively with integrated healthcare entities (e.g., accountable care organizations, health plans, managed care organizations, hospitals, health systems, etc.) to provide community-based long-term services and supports and/or evidence-based preventive health programs and services. Works with other ACL components to coordinate the various business acumen and related activities across ACL, and oversees the provision of the business acumen technical assistance that is delivered through a variety of methods and techniques to state level and community-based aging and disability agencies and organizations. Develops partnerships with external stakeholders at the national, state and local level in both the public and private sectors, including private foundations, to enhance and complement ACL's work in this area.

    Works with the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, CMS, and other internal and external stakeholders on Health IT initiatives that have a potential impact on older adults and persons with disabilities and the state and local agencies and organizations that serve these populations to ensure that the needs and interests of these populations and organizations are reflected in the Health IT initiatives that are shaping the future of our nation's health and long-term services and support systems.

    Administers, in partnership with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Duals Demonstration Ombudsman Technical Assistance Program which supports grantees serving beneficiaries of state demonstrations to integrate care for Medicare-Medicaid enrollees associated with the CMS Financial Alignment Initiative. Ensures that grantees and their volunteers have the necessary information and training to carry out program functions. Coordinates with CMS and the state grantees in developing and refining performance management systems and provides specialized guidance and technical assistance to help grantees improve their performance. Analyzes program reports, including consumer feedback and complaints, and makes recommendations to CMS for improving the Ombudsman Program and the Financial Alignment Initiative.

    OICI works with CPE and other ACL components to track policy and program trends and emerging issues related to integrated care to inform ACL's ongoing program and policy development work as the transformations in health and long-term services and supports continue to evolve.

    4. Office of Consumer Access and Self-Determination (BDD). The Office of Consumer Access and Self-Determination (OCASD) plans and directs the implementation of programs designed to enhance consumer access to long-term services and supports, including integrated systems of services and person-centered programs and systems at the state and local level that support community living. Supports state and community efforts to improve the provision of assistive technology for individuals with disabilities of all ages through comprehensive, statewide programs that are consumer responsive. Serves as the focal point for the administration of the Lifespan Respite Care Program authorized under Title XXIX of the PHSA, Aging and Disability Resource Center program authorized under Title II of the OAA, the Veterans-Directed Home and Community-Based Services program, the Assistive Technology state programs authorized under section 4 of the AT Act, and other activities as deemed appropriate.

    Provides leadership and a central strategic focus for ACL's efforts to work with states and communities to develop single entry point/no wrong door systems of access to long-term services and supports for seniors, persons with disabilities, and their families and caregivers, in coordination with CMS and other Federal agencies. Promotes initiatives to expand access to services and the development of more responsive service systems, including person-centered planning and self-directed service models. Implements partnerships with external stakeholder organizations to enhance access to integrated systems of services that support both older Americans and persons of all ages with disabilities. Coordinates with the Department of Veterans Affairs on the development and implementation of their long term services and support programs, including the Veteran-Directed Home and Community-Based Services program and caregiver support programs. Provides technical assistance and support services to programs funded under the AT Act to make assistive technology devices and services more available and accessible to individuals with disabilities and their families. Works with NIDILRR and other ACL components to facilitate and accelerate the translation of relevant research findings into practice nationwide. Supports the development and maintenance of a database of technical assistance resources, best practices and model programs for use by federal, state and local agencies and organizations involved in advancing system changes that make long-term services and support systems more person-centered and more responsive to the needs and preferences of older adults and persons with disabilities.

    Develops funding opportunities and monitors grants to ensure all necessary activities are completed. Manages the full spectrum of contract requirements including identifying contractual needs, developing statements of work and necessary planning documents, and ensuring that contractors are completing assigned tasks. Ensures that grantees have the necessary information and training to carry out program functions. Develops and refines performance management systems and provides specialized guidance and technical assistance to help grantees improve their performance.

    E. Center for Management and Budget (BE):

    BE.00 Mission BE.10 Organization BE.20 Functions

    BE.00 Mission. The Center for Management and Budget advises the Administrator on the budget, financial, grants, information resources, procurement, administrative and human resources management activities of ACL.

    BE.10 Organization. The Center for Management and Budget is headed by a Deputy Administrator, who reports directly to the Administrator. The Center for Management and Budget includes the following components:

    Office of the Deputy Administrator for Management and Budget (BEA) Office of Budget and Finance (BEB) Office of Administration and Personnel (BEC) Office of Grants Management (BED) Office of Information Resources Management (BEE)

    BE.20 Functions.

    1. Office of the Deputy Administrator for Management and Budget (BEA). The Office of the Deputy Administrator for Management and Budget directs and coordinates all administrative and resource management activities for ACL. The Deputy Administrator for Management and Budget serves as the Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and is the principal advisor and counselor to the ACL Administrator on all aspects of the internal administration of ACL.

    Serves as the ACL liaison with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA), the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR), the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for all budget and administrative management issues. Develops, administers, and coordinates financial, operational, and budgetary policies, processes, and controls necessary to administer ACL programs and financial resources; directs the processes that support the administration of discretionary and mandatory grants activities; oversees the utilization of information resources, information technology systems and telecommunications; provides leadership for human capital development; and coordinates ACL's internal control activities.

    Coordinates with other components to carry out reviews of program activities and management practices required under the Chief Financial Officers Act, the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, the Improper Payments Information Act, the Federal Information Security Management Act, and other legislation. Monitors legislation related to administrative management and provides analysis of the impact on ACL programs and resources. Conducts annual reviews and assessments of internal controls required under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act and ensures compliance with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and OMB standards. Plans, organizes and conducts studies of organizational structures, functional statements, job structures, staffing patterns, and management and administrative information systems; and identifies and resolves problems of organization and administrative management. Prepares and maintains organizational and functional statements and delegations and designations of authority for ACL.

    2. Office of Budget and Finance (BEB). The Office of Budget and Finance supports the Deputy Administrator for Management and Budget in fulfilling ACL's Chief Financial Officer responsibilities. The Director serves as the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Budget Officer, and Senior Travel Official and oversees and coordinates ACL's budget formulation, budget execution, and financial management activities. Serves as the primary liaison with the Program Support Center's Division of Financial Management Services, which provides accounting, audit, and financial management services to ACL.

    In coordination with the program offices, formulates and presents budget estimates; executes apportionment documents; and plans, directs, and coordinates financial and budgetary programs of ACL. Provides guidance to program offices in preparing budgets, justifications, and other supporting budgetary materials. Solicits, obtains and consolidates information and data from other offices, and prepares budget documents on behalf of the Administrator for presentation to the department, OMB, and Congress.

    Analyzes the budget as approved by Congress and apportioned by OMB, obtains input from program offices and recommends for the ACL Administrator's approval a financial plan for its execution. Makes allowances to ACL offices within the guidelines of the approved financial plan. Develops and maintains an overall system of budgetary controls to ensure observance of established ceilings on both program—including all mandatory and discretionary grant accounts—and salaries and expense funds; maintains administrative control of funds against allotments and allowances; certifies funds availability for all accounts; and coordinates the management of interagency agreement activities. Prepares requests for apportionment of appropriated funds; and prepares spending plans and status-of-funds reports for the ACL Administrator.

    Develops financial operating procedures and manuals; coordinates financial audits; and provides analysis on financial issues. Ensures that internal controls are in place for administrative and programmatic activities that provide reasonable assurance of the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Serves as the liaison with the Office of the Secretary and OMB on all budgetary and financial matters.

    Coordinates all travel management activities. Provides technical assistance and oversight on the use of government travel systems; manages employee participation in the Travel Charge Card program, and coordinates the provision of Travel Management Center services.

    3. Office of Administration and Personnel (BEC). The Office of Administration and Personnel (OAP) provides support to ACL in the areas of human capital development, personnel, facilities, acquisitions, and other administrative services. The OAP Director serves as the Chief Human Capital Officer and provides leadership for the strategic planning and operational management of human capital resources. OAP serves as the primary liaison to the Program Support Center's Division of Acquisition Management Services, which provides procurement services to ACL; and the Washington Human Resources Center, which provides personnel support services.

    Develops and implements human capital strategies and strategic workforce plans; directs the development and creation of strategies to attract diverse talent and develop a highly skilled workforce; and provides leadership in the development of plans for achieving short- and long-range human capital goals. Provides leadership and guidance to meet the human resource management needs and coordinates internal and external resources to provide staff with personnel services including position management, performance management, employee recognition, staffing, recruitment, employee and labor relations, employee assistance, payroll liaison, staff development and training, and special hiring and placement programs.

    Provides oversight and direction to meet the administrative needs of ACL components. Prepares, coordinates and disseminates information, policy and procedural guidance on human resource and administrative management issues on an agency-wide basis. Serves as liaison with the Program Support Center's Division of Real Property Management Services and the General Services Administration (GSA) to plan, develop and coordinate space and facilities services. Serves as the lead for coordination and liaison with departmental, GSA, Federal Protective Service, and other federal agencies for planning and executing the agency's environmental health, safety and physical security programs. Provides coordination and direction for continuity-of-operations activities.

    Assists other ACL components in securing contractor assistance by advising on appropriate acquisition vehicles, developing statements of work and independent cost estimates, and managing the technical aspects of contracts. Coordinates with the Office of Information Resources Management to develop and implement procurement strategies for information technology support services and review all information technology acquisition documentation for compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Monitors the use of credit cards for small purchases and establishes and manages contracts and/or blanket purchase agreements for administrative support and facilities management services.

    4. Office of Grants Management (BED). The Office of Grants Management (OGM) serves as ACL's focal point for the management, leadership and administration of grants, and cooperative agreements. The OGM Director serves as the Chief Grants Management Officer and provides national policy oversight and development for grants management and administration matters. The office ensures that all grant awards conform to applicable statutory, regulatory, and administrative policy requirements, both before and following award. Maintains liaison and coordination with appropriate ACL and HHS organizations to ensure consistency between discretionary and mandatory grant award activities, including the Program Support Center's Division of Payment Management Services, which provides payment system services for grants.

    Ensures that the administrative, business and financial management aspects of grants administration are carried out and grantee performance is monitored. Performs cost analysis/budget analysis for all discretionary grant award documents and negotiates grant budgets, executing all awards. Advises management and program officials in developing, implementing and evaluating program plans, strategies, regulations, announcements, guidelines and procedures. Only the Office of Grants Management has the authority to obligate the government to the expenditure of funds for grants and cooperative agreements. Serves as liaison with other departmental offices for grants policy and administration.

    Issues grant awards pursuant to requirements established in authorizing legislation and makes adjustments to previously issued mandatory grant awards. In coordination with other ACL subcomponents, reviews and assesses grant award procedures; directs and/or coordinates management initiatives to improve grant programs in financial areas; develops proposals for improving the efficiency in awarding grants and coordinating financial operations among grant programs; establishes priorities and develops procedures for grantee financial monitoring; and reviews fiscal activities at the field level for all grant programs.

    For grant activities, develops financial management standards and provides guidance on and interpretation of applicable federal regulations. Based on grants management policies and procedures approved by the department, reprograms grant funds as required under authoring legislation. Following consultation with ACL staff with grant administration responsibilities, and with the approval of the ACL Administrator, develops instructions and procedures for the administration of the business aspects of all grants.

    Provides training, technical assistance, overall guidance, monitoring and assistance to ACL staff in all areas of administrative and financial management of grants. Has primary responsibility for developing grants management policy issuances, and ensuring consistent policy interpretation within ACL concerning grants management. Serves as the liaison to the General Accounting Office and the HHS Office of the Inspector General on grant matters. Assists before the HHS Appeals Board at grant hearings in response to disallowances and other financial claims. Responds to departmental and OIG audit reviews, ensuring proper analysis and resolution of audit findings by Regional Support Centers for final action by the Administrator. Coordinates receipt and processing of all grants and related materials.

    5. Office of Information Resources Management (BEE). The Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM) oversees and coordinates the provision of information technology services for ACL. The OIRM Director serves as the Chief Information Officer and Privacy Officer and prepares, coordinates and disseminates information, policies, standards, guidelines, and procedures on information technology management issues. OIRM serves as the primary liaison to the HHS Office of Information Technology Infrastructure Operations, which provides for the management, maintenance and operation of ACL's information technology systems infrastructure, including the LAN, personal computers, software, hosting, and support services.

    Manages the development of ACL custom applications and systems; in close collaboration with the Office of External Affairs, manages ACL Web sites; oversees training and technical assistance for all systems, hardware and software; and coordinates the preparation of manuals and policy issuances required to meet the instructional and informational needs of users of the systems. Directs and coordinates ACL's systems security and privacy responsibilities, including protection, security and integrity of data; and is responsible for establishing and maintaining a secure Internet and intranet presence. Coordinates mandated OMB approvals required for data collection activities under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended. Represents ACL on the department's Chief Information Officer's Council and other departmental information technology policy and planning boards, teams, and workgroups.

    In coordination with the Office of Administration and Personnel, develops and implements procurement strategies for information technology support services. Reviews all information technology acquisition documentation for compliance with applicable laws and regulations and defines the specifications for procurement of all hardware and software. Identifies opportunities to share information technology services through intergovernmental, interdepartmental and interagency agreements.

    Serves as liaison with the Office of the Secretary, GSA, and outside vendors to plan, develop and coordinate guidelines and activities for telecommunications services. Provides telecommunications planning and management, including procurement, installation, and maintenance of telecommunications equipment and services such as telephones, cellular phone service, cable TV service, and audio and video conferencing equipment and services.

    F. Center for Policy and Evaluation (BF):

    BF.00 Mission BF.10 Organization BF.20 Functions

    BF.00 Mission. The Center for Policy and Evaluation (CPE) advises and supports the ACL Administrator and the Principal Deputy Administrator in developing effective federal policies to address the needs of older individuals and individuals with disabilities. The CPE collects and analyzes data on populations and services, develops strategic goals and objectives, evaluates the effectiveness of programs, and plans and coordinates the development of policies designed to overcome barriers that prevent older Americans and persons with disabilities from fully participating and contributing in an inclusive, integrated community life.

    BF.10 Organization. The Center for Policy and Evaluation is headed by a Director, who reports directly to the Administrator. The Center for Policy and Evaluation includes the following components:

    Office of the Director for Policy and Evaluation (BFA) Office of Policy Analysis and Development (BFB) Office of Performance and Evaluation (BFC)

    BF.20 Functions.

    1. Office of the Director for Policy and Evaluation (BFA). The Office of the Director for Policy and Evaluation advises the Administrator and the Principal Deputy Administrator on matters relating to implementation and coordination of policies, regulations, and special initiatives within the department and with other federal agencies focused on disability and aging. Serves as a focal point within ACL and the department for the analysis of, and development of recommendations related to, disability and aging issues, including policies, regulations, and special initiatives. Supports the coordination of policies within HHS and with federal, state, community and private sector partners.

    Leads the agency's strategic planning, policy analysis, and program evaluation functions, including the formulation of short- and long-term strategies for advancing ACL policy and program priorities. Coordinates the development and implementation of the agency's strategic plan that establishes long and short-range goals, objectives, strategies and action plans for advancing the agency's policy and program agenda. Reviews and coordinates all policy and program development documents, regulations and activities to ensure consistency with ACL's strategic plan; and adjusts goals and strategies as appropriate. Coordinates the identification and analysis of emerging policy issues and trends and appropriate federal responses. Formulates an agency-wide policy and program development strategy consistent with the priorities established by the Administrator and the Principal Deputy Administrator.

    Plans and directs the evaluation of ACL programs designed to provide planning, coordination and services to older Americans and people with disabilities. Coordinates work of CPE with the work of National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). The Director serves as the Performance Improvement Officer and is the primary liaison with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, and the Office of Management and Budget for program performance and evaluation activities.

    2. Office of Policy Analysis and Development (BFB). The Office of Policy Analysis and Development analyzes trends in demographics, service needs, public policies and program development, and translates those trends into new policies and initiatives in long-term services and supports and health care that assist people with disabilities and older individuals to remain in their own homes and communities.

    Directs intergovernmental activities as they relate to the agency's policy and program development agenda, and develops and maintains effective relationships with other governmental departments and agencies. Plans, negotiates, facilitates and updates memoranda of understanding with other departments and agencies to promote agreements and cooperative relationships. Maintains information on, and pursues collaborative opportunities with, other federal agencies, non-profit organizations and private corporations that have the potential to contribute to the agency's policy and program development priorities.

    Provides technical, program and policy development input on legislative activities and the annual budget. Participates in departmental and inter-departmental activities that concern health and long-term care; reviews and comments on departmental regulations and policies regarding health programs, institutional and non-institutional long-term care services, and programs and services designed to enhance community living.

    Conducts short-term policy research, policy reviews and environmental scans, and carries out periodic reviews of needs and resources in the fields of aging and disability, and undertakes qualitative and quantitative analyses to develop policy options and recommendations for the Administrator and the Principal Deputy Administrator. Develops policy reports based on the needs and circumstances of older people, their family members and the aging population. Develops and coordinates initiatives with other federal agencies, national aging organizations, national disability organizations, and universities to fill gaps in information in the field of aging and disability.

    3. Office of Performance and Evaluation (BFC). The Office of Performance and Evaluation (OPE), in collaboration with the respective ACL program offices, implements, oversees and manages ACL's program performance responsibilities, data collection systems, and program evaluation activities. Develops plans and priorities for evaluation of ACL service delivery programs, with subject matter input from appropriate units. Manages contracts for mandated evaluation projects and performs intramural evaluation studies. Prepares reports of the results of service delivery program and impact evaluations conducted by and for ACL, with technical input from other ACL units. Provides technical guidance on evaluation activities conducted as part of ACL's discretionary grants for service delivery programs.

    Implements the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. Interprets ACL goals, priorities, and strategies for consistency with ACL long-range GPRA goals and strategies, and adjusts GPRA goals and strategies accordingly. Provides guidance and technical assistance to ACL organizational units in developing operational plans, particularly in developing measurable objectives and indicators reflecting program and organizational performance. Prepares annual GPRA plans and reports and coordinates with the Office of Budget and Finance on the development of the ACL performance budget.

    Coordinates ACL activities related to the collection, analysis, and dissemination of national and program data on older individuals and individuals with disabilities. Develops and manages data requirements; designs the criteria for collecting, analyzing and disseminating program performance data; and prepares the data for reporting to Congress and the public. Designs, implements and provides guidance and technical assistance to funding recipients on data collection and analysis. Works with the Office of Information Resources Management to coordinate mandated Office of Management and Budget approvals required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended.

    Compiles, publishes, and disseminates information on demographic data and data from other federal agencies on the health, social and economic status of older persons and persons with disabilities. Performs routine and special statistical analyses of data for ACL offices, other federal and non-federal organizations, and the general public.

    G. National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (BG):

    BG.00 Mission BG.10 Organization BG.20 Functions

    BG.00 Mission. The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) administers research programs authorized under sections 202 and 204 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

    NIDILRR supports the generation of new knowledge and promotes the effective use of this knowledge to (1) improve the abilities of individuals with disabilities to participate in community activities of their choice and (2) enhance society's capacity to provide opportunities and accommodations for these individuals. NIDILRR fulfills its mission through research, development, and dissemination and related activities designed to contribute to community living and participation, employment, and health and function of individuals of all ages with all types and degrees of disability, including low-incidence disability.

    BG.10 Organization. NIDILRR is headed by a Director, who reports directly to the Administrator, and serves as a member of the Administrator's senior leadership team. NIDILRR includes the following components:

    Office of the Director of Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (BGA) Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Advisory Council (BGA1) Office of Research Sciences (BGB) Office of Research Evaluation and Administration (BGC)

    BG.20 Functions.

    1. Office of the Director of Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (BGA). The Office of the Director of Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (ODDILRR) provides executive leadership and management strategies for all components of NIDILRR. The Office of the Director, which includes a Deputy Director, manages all internal and external activities of the NIDILRR, including the research, dissemination, and public information programs, research evaluation, and provides direction and guidance to NIDILLR's scientific peer review. ODDILRR prepares and issues an annual report and coordinates with the Office of External Affairs and other agency components to ensure that the results of research are disseminated to, and utilized by service providers, people with disabilities and their families, and the general public.

    Responsible for the coordination and management of research and research capacity building programs. Promotes the widespread dissemination of research results and other new knowledge both nationally and internationally to individuals with disabilities, families, service providers, researchers, and others through appropriate and accessible media, training, and technical assistance. Sponsors research that can be used to promote the use of appropriate assistive technology and the development of coordinated systems of technology services. Provides general staff support for the Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Advisory Council. Coordinates all meetings, provides advice and assistance, and prepares and issues reports or recommendations as appropriate. Chairs and supports the Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR), authorized by section 203 of the Rehabilitation Act, and promotes the coordination of disability independent living, and research throughout the federal Government. The ICDR is responsible for identifying, assessing, and seeking to coordinate and promote cooperation among all federal program activities, projects, and plans with respect to the conduct of research related to rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities; facilitating the compilation of information about the status of disability, independent living and rehabilitation research sponsored by federal agencies. Coordinates its activities with other federal agencies and participates in joint-funding of rehabilitation research and related activities, in collaboration with the ICDR. Prepares and submits to Congress a long-range plan for rehabilitation research and provides necessary data and information required by the National Council on Disability. The ICDR is also responsible for preparing a comprehensive government-wide strategic plan for disability, independent living and rehabilitation research and ensuring accountability for achievement of measurable goals, objectives and timetables.

    2. Office of Research Sciences (BGB). The Office of Research Sciences is responsible for national and international programs of research, training, and knowledge translation. Develops and manages a comprehensive program of grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts that address all of NIDILRR's research, capacity building, and knowledge translation activities. Sponsors research on, and development of programs and interventions involving technological systems, techniques and devices to overcome environmental barriers, and enable persons with disabilities to maximize community living and participation, employment, and their health and functional abilities. Responsible for providing research-based knowledge to industry to facilitate development, marketing, and distribution of aids and devices that can be used by people with disabilities. Determines criteria and standards and sets priorities for all NIDILRR research, training, and evaluation activities in the areas of community living and participation, employment, and health and function.

    Plans, develops, implements, and manages a comprehensive national and international program of research, training, and knowledge translation in specific program areas. Identifies trends and needs and recommends research and development priorities to the leadership of NIDILRR. Manages a comprehensive scientific peer review of all grant applications and conducts pre-award site visits, as required by statute. Recommends new and continuation awards, as well as award terminations. Performs program oversight and monitoring of the progress of grants and contracts. Collaborates with ACL senior leaders, the Center for Policy and Evaluation, and the Center for Management and Budget in developing and publishing regulatory documents, including annual announcements of priorities and grant application packages.

    Enhances the public understanding of the barriers to and facilitators of optimal outcomes for individuals with disabilities through the dissemination of research findings and other data. Other data include statistical data on disability status and outcomes, as evidenced by the annual publication of the Annual Compendium of Disability Statistics, distributed widely each year. Coordinates with the Office of External Affairs as well as ACL subcomponents to plan, develop, and administer knowledge translation, research utilization, public information, public education, and publications which address NIDILRR research activities and findings; and manages a comprehensive program to disseminate NIDILRR research findings through accessible media to a range of target audiences. Provides research-based information from grantees to the Interagency Committee on Disability Research, the National Council on Disability, and other agencies and private organizations serving individuals with disabilities. Sponsors studies to determine innovative techniques and systems for the dissemination and utilization of rehabilitation research findings.

    3. Office of Research Evaluation and Administration (BGC). The Office of Research Evaluation and Administration (OREA) supports the administration of NIDILRR's grants and contracts portfolio. OREA also coordinates NIDILRR's program evaluation activities and collaborates with ORS in program planning and priority setting.

    Coordinates with the Office of Research Sciences staff in the preparation of all contract packages, development of requirements and performance work statements. Conducts routine contract management activities to include completion of administrative and fiscal tasks required throughout the contract lifecycle. Maintains and monitors annual grant forecasts and schedules, and provides grants administration support for NIDILRR including packaging grant announcements and application kits.

    Makes recommendations to the Director/NIDILRR regarding allocation of NIDILRR program funds for current and future budget years. Coordinate and collaborates with Office of Research Sciences program staff in the preparation of the annual spending plan and facilitate the implementation of the plan to ensure compliance with established departmental guidance. Provides administrative support in the monitoring of grants and cooperative agreements, and facilitates the administrative execution of interagency agreements.

    Administers NIDILRR evaluation activities to improve the effectiveness of NIDILRR's research activities. This includes collaboration with NIDILRR's senior management to define and facilitate the conduct of analyses of program and budget data as well as focused, special program evaluation activities. In its evaluation function, it coordinates with CPE to prepare planning and evaluation documents required by ACL, HHS, OMB and Congress.

    II. Delegations of Authority: All delegations and re-delegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further re-delegations.

    III. Funds, Personnel and Equipment: Transfer of organizations and functions affected by this reorganization shall be accompanied in each instance by direct and support funds, positions, personnel, records, equipment, supplies and other resources.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13351 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; 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 on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Mitochondrial ROS and Aging.

    Date: July 9, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Elaine Lewis, Ph.D., Scientific Review Branch, National Institute On Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, MSC-9205, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7707, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13149 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Notice of Correction for Announcement of Requirements and Registration for: “Harnessing Insights From Other Disciplines To Advance Drug Abuse and Addiction Research” Challenge

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is correcting a notice previously published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30084) and titled “Announcement of Requirements and Registration for: “Harnessing Insights From Other Disciplines To Advance Drug Abuse and Addiction Research” Challenge.” The notice announced a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) challenge soliciting ideas on how to adapt specialized knowledge from other disciplines to inform new directions and discoveries in drug abuse and addiction research.

    NIH is amending the submission date for the challenge from June 22, 2015 to June 30, 2015, the Judging period from June 23, 2015-July 17, 2015 to July 1, 2015-July 24, 2015, and winners announced date from July 30, 2015 to August 6, 2015.

    For further information about the Challenge, please contact Emily Einstein, Ph.D. Science Policy Branch, NIDA, Phone 301-443-6071, email: emil[email protected].

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Nora D. Volkow, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13348 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Announcement for Request for Comment for: Antimicrobial Resistance Rapid, Point-of-Care Diagnostic Test Challenge Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 3719

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) intends to hold a prize competition in which up to $20 million will be made available, subject to the availability of funds, for the delivery of one or more successful rapid point-of-care diagnostics that may be used by health care providers to identify bacterial infections. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) are sponsoring the prize competition, and seek public comments regarding the technical criteria and performance characteristics of the diagnostic(s) for which the prize(s) will be offered.

    DATES:

    Submission Period begins June 2, 2015, 9:00 a.m. EST. Submission Period ends 5 p.m. EST July 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments can be sent to https://www.challenge.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert W. Eisinger, Ph.D., National Institutes of Health, Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, Telephone: 301-496-2229, Email:[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 18, 2014, the President issued Executive Order 13676 on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/18/executive-order-combating-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria) and the Antimicrobial Resistance Challenge was called for in the accompanying White House Fact Sheet https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/18/fact-sheet-obama-administration-takes-actions-combat-antibiotic-resistan). The development and use of rapid, point-of-care, and innovative diagnostic tests for identification and characterization of resistant bacteria was a goal identified in the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria released in September 2014 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/carb_national_strategy.pdf) and addressed in the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria released in March 2015 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_action_plan_for_combating_antibotic-resistant_bacteria.pdf).

    In conformance to the above documents, the NIH and BARDA are sponsoring a prize competition, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are contributing technical and regulatory expertise to develop the award evaluation process.

    The aim of the prize competition is to incentivize the development of one or more in vitro diagnostic tests that would be of significant clinical and public health utility to combat the development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. For example, such a diagnostic test could be used by health care providers to identify bacterial infections in patients to help guide their decisions about the necessity of prescribing antibiotics, and if so, which antibiotics may be effective—thus promoting antibiotic stewardship. Another important diagnostic use could be to facilitate clinical trials for new antibacterial products by allowing for the enrichment of patient populations with specific infections, thus advancing the development of new antibacterial agents. The prize-winning diagnostic(s) must exhibit a set of predefined technical criteria and performance characteristics based on the intended use(s).

    When exercising prize authority under the America COMPETES Act, agencies are to “consult widely both within and outside the federal Government” when developing prize competitions. As such, HHS is seeking input from the medical, public health, and scientific communities; the pharmaceutical and medical diagnostic sectors; patients and other advocacy groups; and the public at-large in order to receive broad input on the type(s) of diagnostic(s) that may be developed in an appropriate time frame to be of significant utility in combating the development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

    At this time, HHS is seeking comments on the topics identified below as they pertain to a rapid, point-of-care diagnostic test(s) that could be developed in an appropriate time frame to be of significant clinical and public health utility in combating the development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. A prioritized list of 18 bacteria of highest concern can be found in Table 3 of the National Action Plan (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_action_plan_for_combating_antibotic-resistant_bacteria.pdf). The comment period will be open for 45 days from the publication of this request for information (RFI). Input received during this 45-day comment period and during the subsequent public consultation will be used by HHS to develop the technical criteria and performance characteristics of the diagnostic(s) for which the prize(s) will be offered. The design of the Challenge will take into account previous guidance obtained in the aforementioned National Strategy and National Action Plan to combat antibiotic resistant bacteria. Comments can be submitted to the discussion board for this Challenge accessible on https://www.challenge.gov.

    This web-based discussion board also provides an open forum for discussion of this prize competition. The online community is open to the public and will allow for a broad and interactive discussion of the topics covered by this RFI. This platform will allow users to submit ideas about a desired diagnostic test and to comment on the ideas that have been submitted by others.

    Comments may include, but are not limited to, the following topic areas:

    1. Purpose. The purpose(s) or function(s) a rapid, point-of-care in vitro diagnostic test that would be of significant utility to the clinical and public health communities in combating antibiotic resistance. Comments may reflect considerations about in vitro diagnostic tests that distinguish between bacterial and viral infections, or that identify specific bacterial pathogens and/or their drug susceptibility in patients.

    2. Characterizing drug susceptibility. The development of an effective in vitro diagnostic test that can identify whether bacterial pathogens are resistant and/or sensitive to certain clinically relevant antibiotics, and thus would be of significant utility in combating antibiotic resistance. Examples may be provided.

    3. Sample matrix. The development of an effective in vitro diagnostic test that identifies pathogens by testing human samples (e.g., blood, urine, sputum, tissue fluid, multiple or other sample specimens). Comments may include what type or types of samples would be most relevant in identifying pathogens and/or antibiotic susceptibility.

    4. Speed. The development of an effective in vitro diagnostic test that rapidly produces results. Comments may reflect considerations about what would be the maximum acceptable time-to-result for an in vitro diagnostic test to be of significant utility (i.e., from the time that a sample is collected from a patient to the time that the result is available to the healthcare provider).

    5. Setting. The settings or venues in which the proposed point-of-care in vitro diagnostic test may be most needed for combating antibiotic resistance.

    6. Ease-of-use. The development of an effective in vitro diagnostic test that is easy to use. Recognizing that diagnostics often require specialized equipment for sample storage, processing and/or analysis, comments also may include considerations about how such specialized equipment may affect an in vitro diagnostic test's ease of use or otherwise limit its utility. Comments also may include considerations about the nature and extent of training that would be necessary to operate and obtain results from the proposed in vitro diagnostic test.

    7. Diagnostic performance. The performance characteristics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) required of the proposed in vitro diagnostic test in order for it to have significant utility in combatting antibiotic resistance.

    8. Tradeoffs. Any inherent tradeoffs associated with the performance characteristics/parameters described in connection with your previous comments and priority of the characteristics/parameters, if applicable.

    9. Cost. The development of an effective in vitro diagnostic test that is not cost prohibitive for its intended purpose. Cost and cost considerations may include what price or price range would be desirable to support the widespread adoption of an in vitro diagnostic test that will be effective in combating antibiotic resistant bacteria.

    10. Other characteristics. Additional characteristics of the proposed in vitro diagnostic test that would be of significant value.

    11. Key technologies. The specific technologies or disciplines, current or nascent, which would lend themselves to the development of a successful in vitro diagnostic test including, for example, what special considerations, advantages, and disadvantages may be associated with each technology/discipline. Comments on what timeframe would be considered reasonable for the development and licensure of a successful in vitro diagnostic test are also welcome.

    12. Interest. Major factors that may influence a person's decision to compete in the prize competition described in this information request.

    13. Use. Identification of who is likely to purchase and/or use the type of in vitro diagnostic tests being targeted by this prize competition and how or where such a purchaser or user is most likely to use the in vitro diagnostic test. Examples may be provided (e.g., patient/self-diagnosis, guiding prescriptive decisions, etc.).

    14. Barriers. Major barriers that may impede development of the proposed in vitro diagnostic test (e.g., technical or research driven; financial or regulatory; infrastructure or resource based). Comments may reflect considerations about what potential solutions, if any, may be available to overcome such barriers and the level of difficulty associated with implementing any such solution in the U.S. and/or globally.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Lawrence A. Tabak, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13113 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-13-080: Accelerating the Pace of Drug Abuse Research Using Existing Data.

    Date: June 16, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: George Vogler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3140, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 237-2693, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group; Molecular Genetics A Study Section.

    Date: June 22-23, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Michael M, Sveda, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1114, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3565, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-RM-14-007: Nucleomics Tools.

    Date: June 29, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Thomas Beres, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr. Rm. 5201, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1175, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-RM-14-007: Nucleomics Tools.

    Date: June 29, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: David Balasundaram, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5189, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1022, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group; Genetics of Health and Disease Study Section.

    Date: June 29-30, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Monaco Alexandria, 480 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Cheryl M. Corsaro, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2204, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1045, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13144 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Stem Cell-Derived Blood Products.

    Date: June 18, 2015.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Crystal City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Tony L. Creazzo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725, creazzo[email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Stem Cell-Derived Blood Products.

    Date: June 18, 2015.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Crystal City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Tony L. Creazzo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Stem Cell-Derived Blood Products.

    Date: June 19, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Crystal City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Tony L. Creazzo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13142 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Genes, Genomes and Genetics.

    Date: June 22, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Dominique Lorang-Leins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, MSC 7766, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-326-9721, Lora[email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Enabling Bioanalytical and Imaging Technologies.

    Date: June 23, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Crystal Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Kenneth Ryan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3218, MSC 7717, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0229, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cardiovascular Sciences.

    Date: June 25-26, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Westin Riverwalk Hotel, 420 West Market Street, San Antonio, TX 78205.

    Contact Person: Margaret Chandler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4126, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301-435-1743, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13140 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute On Aging; 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 on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Mobility-Disability and Muscle Mass.

    Date: June 23, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ramesh Vemuri, Ph.D., Chief, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7700, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13148 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Integrative Neuroscience.

    Date: June 16, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Nicholas Gaiano, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5178, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892-7844, 301-435-1033, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group; Drug Discovery and Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance Study Section.

    Date: June 19, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Guangyong Ji, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3188, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1146, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Vaccines Against Microbial Diseases.

    Date: June 19, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites DC Convention Center, 900 10th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    Contact Person: Jian Wang, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4198, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2778, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Enabling Bioanalytical and Imaging Technologies.

    Date: June 19, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Feng Tao, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive Room 6184, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Psych Prevention and Behavioral Medicine.

    Date: June 23, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Weijia Ni, Ph.D., Chief/Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3100, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-3292, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Synthetic Psychoactive Drugs and Strategic Approaches to Counteract Their Deleterious Effects.

    Date: June 24, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Nicholas Gaiano, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5178, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892-7844, 301-435-1033, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Neuroscience AREA Grant Applications.

    Date: June 25-26, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Marriott Wardman Park Washington DC Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road NW., Washington, DC 20008.

    Contact Person: Richard D. Crosland, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4190, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1220, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Animal Models and Stem Cell-based Therapies for Regenerative Medicine.

    Date: June 25, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231.

    Contact Person: Jonathan Arias, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5170, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2406, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Brain Disorders and Related Neurosciences.

    Date: June 25-26, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Marriott Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Vilen A. Movsesyan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040M, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7278, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Synthetic and Biological Chemistry.

    Date: June 25-26, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Michael Eissenstat, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, BCMB IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4166, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1722, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cell, Computational, and Molecular Biology.

    Date: June 25, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Maria DeBernardi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6158, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1355, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Microbial Infection and Immunity via Vaccination.

    Date: June 25, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Bahiru Gametchu, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4204, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1225, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR:392: New Computational Methods for Understanding the Functional Role of DNA Variants that are Associated with Mental Disorders.

    Date: June 25, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Alexander Gubin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6046B, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9655, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13145 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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 Human Genome Research Institute Initial Review Group Genome Research Review Committee.

    Date: June 4, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Human Genome Research Institute, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ken D. Nakamura, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-0838.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 26, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13152 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; BRAIN Initiative Review Meeting: RFA-EY-15-001.

    Date: July 13-14, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Brian Hoshaw, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Division of Extramural Research, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Rockville, MD 20892, 301-451-2020, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13147 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review 30-Day Comment Request: DERT Extramural Grantee Data Collection (NIEHS) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Institutes of Health, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2015, Volume 80, Number 50, page 13562 and allowed 60-days for public comment. No public comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

    For Further Information: To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Kristianna Pettibone, Evaluator, Program Analysis Branch, NIEHS, NIH, 530 Davis Dr., Room 3055, Morrisville, NC 20560, or call non-toll-free number 919-541-7752 or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    PROPOSED COLLECTION DERT Extramural Grantee Data Collection, 0925-0657, Expiration Date 06/30/2015—REVISION, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: In order to make informed management decisions about its research programs and to demonstrate the outputs, outcomes and impacts of its research programs NIEHS will collect, analyze and report on data from extramural grantees who are currently receiving funding or who have received funding in the past on topics such as: (1) Key scientific outcomes achieved through the research and the impact on the field of environmental health science; (2) Contribution of research findings to program goals and objectives; (3) Satisfaction with the program support received; (4) Challenges and benefits of the funding mechanism used to support the science; and (5) Emerging research areas and gaps in the research.

    Information gained from this primary data collection will be used in conjunction with data from grantee progress reports and presentations at grantee meetings to inform internal programs and new funding initiatives. Outcome information to be collected includes measures of agency-funded research resulting in dissemination of findings, investigator career development, grant-funded knowledge and products, commercial products and drugs, laws, regulations and standards, guidelines and recommendations, information on patents and new drug applications and community outreach and public awareness relevant to extramural research funding and emerging areas of research. Satisfaction information to be collected includes measures of satisfaction with the type of funding or program management mechanism used, challenges and benefits with the program support received, and gaps in the research. Frequency of Response: Once per grantee, per research portfolio. Affected Public: Current or past grantees from:

    Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD);

    • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD);

    • National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH);

    • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS);

    • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); and

    • National Cancer Institute (NCI).

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 700.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average time
  • per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hour
  • NICHD Grantee 200 1 30/60 100 NIDCD Grantee 200 1 30/60 100 NIMH Grantee 200 1 30/60 100 NINDS Grantee 200 1 30/60 100 NCI Grantee 400 1 30/60 200 NIEHS Grantee 200 1 30/60 100
    Dated: May 21, 2015. Joellen M. Austin, Associate Director for Management, NIEHS, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13346 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities, June 9, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to June 9, 2015, 3:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2015, 80 FR 89, page 26574.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the adjournment time of the open session from 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. The start time of the closed session will be 2:00 p.m.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13151 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowship: Immunology.

    Date: June 25-26, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Deborah Hodge, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4207 MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1238, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Biological Chemistry, Biophysics and Drug Discovery.

    Date: June 26, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Monaco, 700 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    Contact Person: Vonda K Smith, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6188, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1789, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Sciences.

    Date: June 26, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Wyndham Grand Chicago Riverfront, 71 E Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.

    Contact Person: Rajiv Kumar, Ph.D., IRG Chief, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4216, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1212, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Biomedical Sensing, Measurement and Instrumentation.

    Date: June 26, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Guo Feng Xu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5122, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-237-9870, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: BD2K Open Educational Resources and Courses for Skills Development (R25).

    Date: June 26, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn/Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Raymond Jacobson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5858, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-996-7702, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: Molecular Probes.

    Date: June 26, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Marriott Wardman Park Washington DC Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road NW., Washington, DC 20008.

    Contact Person: Mary Custer, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4148, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1164, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; AREA Review: Immunology.

    Date: June 26, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Deborah Hodge, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4207 MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1238, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Collaborative Applications: Adult Psychopathology.

    Date: June 26, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Villa Florence Hotel, 225 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Contact Person: Serena Chu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, BBBP IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3178, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-500-5829, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Orthopedic and Skeletal Biology.

    Date: June 29, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Baljit S Moonga, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1777, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Oncology 1—Basic Translational Integrated Review Group; Molecular Oncogenesis Study Section.

    Date: June 29-30, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westin St. Francis, 335 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Contact Person: Nywana Sizemore, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6204, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1718, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Oncology 1—Basic Translational Integrated Review Group; Tumor Cell Biology Study Section.

    Date: June 29-30, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Charles Morrow, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6202, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9850, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Neurodevelopment, Synaptic Plasticity and Neurodegeneration

    Date: June 29-30, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications

    Place: The Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, 1250 S. Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Mary Schueler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5214, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-0996, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes Integrated Review Group; Biobehavioral Regulation, Learning and Ethology Study Section.

    Date: June 29-30, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Ritz-Carlton Georgetown, 3100 South Street NW., Washington, DC 20007.

    Contact Person: Mark D Lindner, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3182, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0913, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Research Project Grant.

    Date: June 29, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ping Wu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, HDM IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3166, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-8428, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Topics in Infectious Diseases.

    Date: June 29, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Neerja Kaushik-Basu, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3198 MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2306, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Orthopedic and Skeletal Biology.

    Date: June 29, 2015.

    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Aruna K Behera, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4211, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6809, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR 13-374: Modeling of Social Behavior.

    Date: June 29, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Gabriel B Fosu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3108, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-3562, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Kidney and Urology.

    Date: June 29, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Mushtaq A Khan, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2176, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1778, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR 13-109: Mechanistic Insights from Birth Cohorts.

    Date: June 30, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lisa Steele, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, PSE IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3139, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-6594, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-12-259: Lymphatics in Health and Disease in the Digestive, Urinary, Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Systems.

    Date: June 30, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Mushtaq A Khan, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2176, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1778, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-15-048: Systems Science and Health in the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

    Date: June 30, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Gabriel B Fosu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3108, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-3562, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13146 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel ZAA1 DD (C2) Review Phase 2 Astraea Proposal.

    Date: July 10, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: NIAAA, NIH, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room CR2098, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, Ph.D., Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIH, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 2085, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 451-2067, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 92.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Supports Awards, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13150 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 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: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group—NHLBI Institutional Training Mechanism Review Committee.

    Date: June 18-19, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard by Marriott, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

    Contact Person: Charles Joyce, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0288, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13141 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 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: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group—Heart, Lung, and Blood Program Project Review Committee.

    Date: June 19, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 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: Jeffrey H. Hurst, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7208, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0303 [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 27, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13143 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0034] Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Appeal of Decision Under Section 210 or 245A, Form I-694; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    DHS, USCIS invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0034 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0014. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2007-0014;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. 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).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0014 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Notice of Appeal of Decision Under Section 210 or 245A.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-694; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS uses the information provided on Form I-694 in considering the appeal from a finding that an applicant is ineligible for legalization under section 210 and 245A of the Act or is ineligible for a related waiver of inadmissibility.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-694 is 50 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 25 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $6,125.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13168 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5831-N-26] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Agency Executive Compensation Information AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at Colette [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on Mach 23, 2015.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Public Housing Agency Executive Compensation Information.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0272.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection.

    Form Numbers: HUD-52725.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Pursuant to PIH Notice 2014-01, HUD collects information on the compensation provided by public housing agencies (PHAs) to the top management official, top financial official, and highest compensated employee, similar to the information that non-profit organizations receiving federal tax exemptions are required to report to the IRS annually. Because PHAs receive significant direct federal funds HUD has been collecting compensation information to enhance regulatory oversight by HUD, as well as state and local authorities. HUD provides the information collected to the public. The compensation data collected includes base salary and bonus, and incentive and other compensation, and the extent to which these payments are made with federal funds.

    Respondents: Public Housing Agencies.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: Approximately 4,000.

    Estimated Number of Responses: Approximately 4,000.

    Frequency of Response: Annually.

    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes.

    Total Estimated Burdens: The total burden hours is estimated to be 2,000 hours annually. The total burden cost is estimated to be $44,740.

    Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

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

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

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

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13409 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2015-N099; FXES11130100000-156-FF01E00000] Endangered Species; Recovery Permit Application AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following application for a recovery permit to conduct activities with the purpose of enhancing the survival of an endangered species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing such permits.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Program Manager, Restoration and Endangered Species Classification, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Regional Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181. Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colleen Henson, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address, or by telephone (503-231-6131) or fax (503-231-6243).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) prohibits certain activities with respect to endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. Along with our implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17, the Act provides for certain permits, and requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits for endangered species.

    A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the permittee to conduct activities (including take or interstate commerce) with respect to U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

    Application Available for Review and Comment

    We invite local, State, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following application. Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments.

    Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by request from the Program Manager for Restoration and Endangered Species Classification at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    Permit Number: TE-802107

    Applicant: Patricia Baird, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia.

    The applicant requests a permit renewal with changes to take (survey, monitor, capture, measure, band, collect bio-samples, attach data loggers, and release) the least tern (Sterna antillarum spp.) in Hawaii, in conjunction with scientific research, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Public Availability of Comments

    All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: May 21, 2015. Hugh Morrison, Acting, Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13085 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-ES-2015-N083; FXES11130200000-156-FF02ENEH00] Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of applications; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered or threatened species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activities. Both the Act and the National Environmental Policy Act require that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of Classification and Restoration, by U.S. mail at Division of Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6920. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of Classification and Restoration, by U.S. mail at P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6920.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activities. Along with our implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17, the Act provides for permits, and requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.

    A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes applicants to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of survival or propagation, or interstate commerce. Our regulations regarding implementation of section 10(a)(1)(A) permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

    Applications Available for Review and Comment

    We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (e.g., Permit No. TE-123456) when requesting application documents and when submitting comments.

    Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    Permit TE-174552

    Applicant: Animas Biological Studies, Durango, Colorado.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys, nest monitoring, and banding of southwestern willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii extimus) within Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.

    Permit TE-71618A

    Applicant: Museum of Southwestern Biology—University of New Mexico Herbarium, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to collect seeds and voucher specimens of the following federally listed plants within New Mexico:

    Argemone pinnatisecta (Sacramento prickly poppy) Astragalus humillimus (Mancos milk-vetch) Cirsium vinaceum (Sacramento Mountains thistle) Coryphantha sneedii var. leei (Lee's pincushion cactus) Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii (Sneed's pincushion cactus) Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzieri (Kuenzler's hedgehog cactus) Erigeron rhizomatus (Zuni fleabane) Eriogonum gypsophilum (gypsum wild buckwheat) Hedeoma todsenii (Todsen's pennyroyal) Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus (Holy Ghost ipomopsis) Pediocactus knowltonii (Knowlton's cactus) Sclerocactus mesae-verdae (Mesa Verde cactus) Permit TE-63202B

    Applicant: Carol Chambers, Flagstaff, Arizona.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) within Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico.

    Permit TE-27791B

    Applicant: National Park Service—Montezuma and Tuzigoot National Monuments, Camp Verde, Arizona.

    Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) within Arizona.

    Permit TE-830213

    Applicant: EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa, Arizona.

    Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) within California and Nevada.

    Permit TE-63522B

    Applicant: Laney Environmental Consulting, Muskogee, Oklahoma.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) within Oklahoma.

    Permit TE-170625

    Applicant: Daniel Howard, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) within Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.

    Permit TE-63523B

    Applicant: Medina Consulting Company, Inc., San Antonio, Texas.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) within Texas.

    Permit TE-00975A

    Applicant: Osage Nation—Department of Natural Resources, Pawhuska, Oklahoma.

    Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of Neosho madtom (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) within Oklahoma.

    Permit TE-37484A

    Applicant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, Marble Falls, Texas.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys, banding, and nest monitoring of golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) within Texas.

    Permit TE-236730

    Applicant: Timothy Bonner, San Marcos, Texas.

    Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to collect 2,000 fountain darters (Etheostoma fonticola) from the wild in Texas, as well as using 350 captive-bred and 120 wild-caught fish for a predation study at Texas State University.

    Permit TE-023643

    Applicant: U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Hood, Texas.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) within Texas.

    Permit TE-011464

    Applicant: Caryn Vaughn, Norman, Oklahoma.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for Ouachita pocketbook (Arcidens =Arkansia wheeleri), scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon), and winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) mussels within Oklahoma.

    Permit TE-146537

    Applicant: New Mexico State Land Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) within New Mexico.

    Permit TE-64616B

    Applicant: National Park Service—Valles Caldera National Preserve, Jemez Springs, New Mexico.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of Jemez Mountain salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) within New Mexico.

    Permit TE-64622B

    Applicant: Kathy Granillo, Socorro, New Mexico.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) within New Mexico.

    Permit TE-38748A

    Applicant: Carlotta Copper Company, Fort Collins, Colorado.

    Applicant requests a renewal to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct seed collection and cactus propagation, and to construct receiving areas and transplantation for Arizona hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus) within Arizona.

    Permit TE-64624B

    Applicant: Cassidy Johnson, Houston, Texas.

    Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct the following activities for Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) within Texas: Presence/absence surveys, transportation and storage of frozen samples, transportation of live species for education and outreach, and possession of one retired male toad for education and outreach purposes.

    Permit TE-206016

    Applicant: Andrew Middick, Edmond, Oklahoma.

    Applicant requests an amendment to a current permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys of American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) within Ohio.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we have made an initial determination that the proposed activities in these permits are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (516 DM 6 Appendix 1, 1.4C(1)).

    Public Availability of Comments

    All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

    Dated: May 14, 2015. Joy E. Nicholopoulos, Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13341 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-PWR-TUSK-18052; PX.XLKTUSK15.00.1] Request for Nominations for the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Request for Nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, is establishing and seeking nominations for members of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council (Council). The purpose of the Council is to provide the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and National Park Service (NPS) guidance for the management of the Monument.

    DATES:

    Written nominations must be postmarked by July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send nominations to Lake Mead National Recreation Area, ATTN: Tule Springs Advisory Council, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, Nevada 89005, telephone (702) 293-8691, or email [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christie Vanover, Public Affairs Officer, Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, Nevada 89005, telephone (702) 293-8691, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NPS is establishing the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council in accordance with section 3092 (a)(6) of Public Law 113-291, and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16).

    The Council provides the Secretary and the NPS with guidance for the management of the Monument, including advice on the preparation and implementation of the management plan.

    The Council is composed of 10 members appointed by the Secretary, as follows: (a) One member appointed among individuals recommended by the County Commission; (b) one member appointed among individuals recommended by the city council of Las Vegas, Nevada; (c) one member appointed among individuals recommended by the city council of North Las Vegas, Nevada; (d) one member appointed among individuals recommended by the tribal council of the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe; (e) one member of the conservation community in southern Nevada; (f) one member appointed among individuals recommended by Nellis Air Force Base; (g) one member appointed among individuals recommended by the State of Nevada; (h) one member who resides in Clark County and has a background that reflects the purposes for which the Monument was established; and (i) two members who reside in Clark County or adjacent counties, both of whom shall have experience in the field of paleontology, obtained through higher education, experience, or both. Members will be appointed by the Secretary for a term of three years.

    Members of the Council will receive no compensation for serving on the Council. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission as approved by the Designated Federal Officer, members may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government service are allowed such expenses under section 5703 of Title 5 of the United States Code.

    Individuals who are Federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated special government employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.

    The Council will hold its first meeting once all members are appointed, at which time a chairperson will be elected from among the members. The Chairperson shall not, however, be a member of Federal or a State agency. Meetings will take place at such times as designated by the Designated Federal Officer. Members are expected to make every effort to attend all meetings. Members may not appoint deputies or alternates.

    Seeking Nominations for Membership

    We are seeking nominations for council members in the following categories: (a) One member who represents the conservation community in southern Nevada; (b) one member who resides in Clark County and has a background that reflects the purposes for which the Monument was established; and (c) two members who reside in Clark County or adjacent counties, both of whom shall have experience in the field of paleontology, obtained through higher education, experience, or both.

    Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Council and permit the Department to contact a potential member.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Alma Ripps, Chief, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13117 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation [RR83550000, 156R5065C6, RX.59389832.1009676] Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract Actions AGENCY:

    Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of contractual actions that have been proposed to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and are new, discontinued, or completed since the last publication of this notice. This notice is one of a variety of means used to inform the public about proposed contractual actions for capital recovery and management of project resources and facilities consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. Additional announcements of individual contract actions may be published in the Federal Register and in newspapers of general circulation in the areas determined by Reclamation to be affected by the proposed action.

    ADDRESSES:

    The identity of the approving officer and other information pertaining to a specific contract proposal may be obtained by calling or writing the appropriate regional office at the address and telephone number given for each region in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Kelly, Reclamation Law Administration Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007; telephone 303-445-2888.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, and the rules and regulations published in 52 FR 11954, April 13, 1987 (43 CFR 426.22), Reclamation will publish notice of proposed or amendatory contract actions for any contract for the delivery of project water for authorized uses in newspapers of general circulation in the affected area at least 60 days prior to contract execution. Announcements may be in the form of news releases, legal notices, official letters, memorandums, or other forms of written material. Meetings, workshops, and/or hearings may also be used, as appropriate, to provide local publicity. The public participation procedures do not apply to proposed contracts for the sale of surplus or interim irrigation water for a term of 1 year or less. Either of the contracting parties may invite the public to observe contract proceedings. All public participation procedures will be coordinated with those involved in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act. Pursuant to the “Final Revised Public Participation Procedures” for water resource-related contract negotiations, published in 47 FR 7763, February 22, 1982, a tabulation is provided of all proposed contractual actions in each of the five Reclamation regions. When contract negotiations are completed, and prior to execution, each proposed contract form must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or pursuant to delegated or redelegated authority, the Commissioner of Reclamation or one of the regional directors. In some instances, congressional review and approval of a report, water rate, or other terms and conditions of the contract may be involved.

    Public participation in and receipt of comments on contract proposals will be facilitated by adherence to the following procedures:

    1. Only persons authorized to act on behalf of the contracting entities may negotiate the terms and conditions of a specific contract proposal.

    2. Advance notice of meetings or hearings will be furnished to those parties that have made a timely written request for such notice to the appropriate regional or project office of Reclamation.

    3. Written correspondence regarding proposed contracts may be made available to the general public pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended.

    4. Written comments on a proposed contract or contract action must be submitted to the appropriate regional officials at the locations and within the time limits set forth in the advance public notices.

    5. All written comments received and testimony presented at any public hearings will be reviewed and summarized by the appropriate regional office for use by the contract approving authority.

    6. Copies of specific proposed contracts may be obtained from the appropriate regional director or his or her designated public contact as they become available for review and comment.

    7. In the event modifications are made in the form of a proposed contract, the appropriate regional director shall determine whether republication of the notice and/or extension of the comment period is necessary.

    Factors considered in making such a determination shall include, but are not limited to, (i) the significance of the modification, and (ii) the degree of public interest which has been expressed over the course of the negotiations. At a minimum, the regional director will furnish revised contracts to all parties who requested the contract in response to the initial public notice.

    Definitions of Abbreviations Used in the Reports ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 BCP Boulder Canyon Project Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation CAP Central Arizona Project CUP Central Utah Project CVP Central Valley Project CRSP Colorado River Storage Project FR Federal Register IDD Irrigation and Drainage District ID Irrigation District LCWSP Lower Colorado Water Supply Project M&I Municipal and Industrial NMISC New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission O&M Operation and Maintenance OM&R Operation, maintenance, and replacement P-SMBP Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program PPR Present Perfected Right RRA Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 SOD Safety of Dams SRPA Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WD Water District

    Pacific Northwest Region: Bureau of Reclamation, 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83706-1234, telephone 208-378-5344.

    New contract action:

    10. East Columbia Basin ID, Columbia Basin Project, Washington: Long-term contract to renew master water service contract No. 14-06-100-9165, as supplemented, to authorize the District to deliver a base quantity of up to 90,000 acre-feet of Columbia Basin Project water annually to up to 30,000 First Phase Continuation Acres located within the District, and continue delivery of additional water to land irrigated under the District's repayment contract during the peak period of irrigation water use annually.

    Mid-Pacific Region: Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825-1898, telephone 916-978-5250.

    Completed contract actions:

    23. Colusa County WD, CVP, California: Execution of a long-term Warren Act of 1911 contract for conveyance of up to 40,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year through the use of the Tehama-Colusa Canal. Executed a 5-year Warren Act contract for 30,000 acre-feet on August 27, 2014.

    39. Conaway Preservation Group, LLC; Sacramento River Division, CVP; California: Proposed assignment of 10,000 acre-feet of water under an existing Sacramento River Settlement Contract to the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency. Contract executed on March 24, 2014.

    Lower Colorado Region: Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 61470 (Nevada Highway and Park Street), Boulder City, Nevada 89006-1470, telephone 702-293-8192.

    New contract action:

    23. Yuma County Water Users' Association, Yuma Project, Arizona: Execute a funding agreement for California Check and Wasteway infrastructure improvements to improve operational control and reduce water spills as part of the Western Drought Response activities in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Mexico.

    Discontinued contract action:

    2. John J. Peach, BCP, Arizona: Develop a Colorado River water delivery contract for 456 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year as recommended by the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Contract executed on December 29, 2014.

    Completed contract actions:

    16. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute amendment No. 4 to a CAP water lease to extend the term of the lease in order for the San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 20,000 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Town of Gilbert during calendar year 2015. Contract executed on December 29, 2014.

    17. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute amendment No. 4 to a CAP water lease to extend the term of the lease in order for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to lease 13,933 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Town of Gilbert during calendar year 2015. Contract executed on November 12, 2014.

    18. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, CAP, Arizona: Execute a CAP water lease in order for the San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 2,000 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe during calendar year 2015. Contract executed on January 2, 2015.

    Upper Colorado Region: Bureau of Reclamation, 125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1102, telephone 801-524-3864.

    New contract actions:

    26. La Plata Water Conservancy District, Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado: The District has requested a 1-year temporary water service contract for the use of Reclamation shares in the Pine Ridge Ditch for the temporary use of up to 262 acre-feet. A contract is currently being drafted which will determine point(s) of delivery and rate and method of water payments.

    27. Carbon Water Conservancy District, Scofield Project, Utah: The District has requested Reclamation's assistance with O&M activities to rehabilitate certain portions of the Scofield Dam outlet works and surrounding area.

    28. Provo Reservoir Canal Company, Provo River Project, Utah: The Company has requested a contract to store some of its nonproject water in Deer Creek Reservoir on a space-available basis under the authority of the Warren Act of 1911.

    29. Uintah Water Conservancy District; Jensen Unit, CUP; Utah: Jensen Unit M&I Block Notice No. 3 will be issued as required by a 1983 contract with Chevron USA, Inc., for 200 acre-feet of M&I water that is currently being pumped upstream of Red Fleet Reservoir.

    30. Uintah Water Conservancy District; Vernal Unit, CUP; Utah: The District desires to pipe the Steinaker Service Canal to improve public safety, decrease O&M costs, and increase water efficiency. This action will require a supplementary O&M contract to modify Federal Reclamation facilities, as well as an agreement written under the authority of the Civil Sundry Appropriations Act of 1921 for Reclamation to accept funds to review designs, inspect project construction, and any other activities requiring Reclamation's participation.

    31. Newton Water Users Association, Newton Project; Utah: The Association desires to abandon the Federal canals which distribute water from Newton Reservoir, and replace them with a private pipeline. This requires a supplementary O&M agreement to approve modification to Federal Reclamation facilities and outline the O&M responsibilities during and after construction.

    Discontinued contract action:

    11. Pinnacle Potash International; Flaming Gorge, CRSP; Utah: Pinnacle Potash International has requested a water service agreement for up to 20,000 acre-feet of M&I water out of Flaming Gorge for potash mining at a place near Crescent Junction, Utah.

    Completed contract actions:

    7. PacifiCorp Energy Corporation, Emery County Project, Utah: The Corporation has requested renewal of its water service contract for 6,000 acre-feet of project M&I water from Joe's Valley Reservoir, Emery County Project. Contract executed December 22, 2014.

    20. Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, San Juan-Chama Project, New Mexico: Requested a contract to store up to 50,000 acre-feet of project water in Elephant Butte Reservoir. The proposed contract would have a 40-year maximum term, which due to ongoing consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the existing contract No. 3-CS-53-01510 which expired on January 26, 2008, has been extended annually. The Act of December 29, 1981, Public Law 97-140, 95 Stat. 1717, provides authority to enter into this contract. Reclamation is conducting environmental compliance to proceed with the 40-year contract. In the interim, Reclamation continues to execute annual renewals until a long-term contract can be executed. Contract executed January 29, 2015.

    Great Plains Region: Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 36900, Federal Building, 2021 4th Avenue North, Billings, Montana 59101, telephone 406-247-7752.

    New contract actions:

    54. Fort Cobb Reservoir Master Conservancy District, Fort Cobb Division, Washita River Basin Project: Reclamation intends to enter into an amendment to contract No. 14-06-500-295 to recognize the previously uncommitted irrigation water allocation as available for M&I use.

    55. East Bench ID; East Bench Unit, Three Forks Division, P-SMBP; Montana: Consideration of a contract amendment, pursuant to Public Law 112-139; to extend the term of contract No. 14-06-600-3593 through December 31, 2019.

    56. Milk River Project, Montana: Proposed amendments to contracts to reflect current land ownership.

    57. Teton County Water and Sewer District; Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Consideration of a long-term contract for up to 40 acre-feet of M&I water from Canyon Ferry Reservoir.

    58. Sunny Brooks Colony, Inc.; Lower Marias Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Consideration to enter into a long-term contract for up to 59 acre-feet of M&I water from Lake Elwell.

    59. Devon Water Inc.; Lower Marias Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Proposed 40-year contract for M&I water.

    60. Tiber County WD; Lower Marias Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Proposed 40-year contract for M&I water.

    Modified contract actions:

    17. Van Amundson; Jamestown Reservoir; Garrison Diversion Unit, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Intent to enter into an individual long-term irrigation water service contract to provide up to 285 acre-feet of water annually for a term of up to 40 years from Jamestown Reservoir, North Dakota.

    30. Helena Valley ID; Helena Valley Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Consideration of a contract to allow for delivery of up to 10,000 acre-feet of water for M&I purposes within the district boundaries.

    51. Bostwick Division, P-SMBP: Excess capacity contract with the State of Nebraska and/or State of Kansas entities and/or irrigation districts.

    Discontinued contract actions:

    35. Dickinson-Heart River Mutual Aid Corporation; Dickinson Unit, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of an amended long-term irrigation water service contract.

    36. Town of Silverthorne, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a new long-term water service contract for Green Mountain Reservoir.

    43. Edwards Farms, Nebraska Bostwick, P-SMBP: Consideration of a long-term Warren Act contract.

    49. Larry TenBensel, Frenchman-Cambridge, P-SMBP: Consideration of a long-term excess capacity contract for the conveyance of nonproject water.

    Completed contract actions:

    7. Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a new long-term contract or amendment of contract No. 4-07-70-W0107 with the Municipal Subdistrict and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for the proposed Windy Gap Firming Project. Contract executed December 19, 2014.

    20. Doug and Michelle Hamilton; Boysen Unit, P-SMBP; Wyoming: Renewal of a long-term water service contract. Contract executed December 24, 2014.

    21. Frank Robbins; Boysen Unit, P-SMBP; Wyoming: Renewal of a long-term water service contract. Contract executed February 6, 2015.

    22. Wade W. Jacobsen; Boysen Unit, P-SMBP; Wyoming: Renewal of a long-term water service contract. Contract executed December 24, 2014.

    38. Hillcrest Colony; Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Consideration of a 10-year water service contract. Contract executed September 24, 2014.

    39. Allan Davies; Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP; Montana: Renewal of a long-term water service contract. Contract executed January 23, 2015.

    42. Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP, Montana: Renewal of 20 various individual water service contracts for small amounts of irrigation and municipal water use. Contracts executed, various dates.

    50. Kansas Bostwick ID, P-SMBP: Proposed amendment to original excess capacity contract executed June 2014, or new short-term excess capacity contract for storage and conveyance of nonproject water. Contract executed December 29, 2014.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Roseann Gonzales, Director, Policy and Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13334 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Comment Request for Information Collection for the Impact Evaluation of the YouthBuild Program, Extension With Revisions AGENCY:

    Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL or Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)] (PRA). The PRA helps ensure that respondents can provide requested data in the desired format with minimal reporting burden (time and financial resources), collection instruments are clearly understood and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the information collection request (ICR) to collect data about the YouthBuild evaluation study participants' educational attainment, employment and earnings, involvement with the criminal justice system, and social and emotional development. This information collection request (ICR) is to obtain extended clearance for MDRC, under contract to ETA, to administer a follow-up survey 48 months after youth were randomly assigned by MDRC to the YouthBuild Evaluation's treatment or control group.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before August 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Eileen Pederson, Office of Policy Development and Research, Room N-5641, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-693-3647 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Fax: 202-693-2766. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eileen Pederson, 202-693-3647, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Impact Evaluation of the YouthBuild program is a seven-year experimental design impact evaluation funded by ETA. YouthBuild is a youth and community development program that addresses several core issues facing low-income communities: available housing, youth education, youth employment and youth criminal behavior. The program primarily serves high school dropouts and focuses on helping them attain a high school diploma or general educational development certificate, and teaching them construction skills geared toward career placement. The Impact Evaluation will measure core program outcomes including educational attainment, postsecondary planning, employment, earnings, delinquency and involvement with the criminal justice system, and youth social and emotional development. The evaluation represents an important opportunity for DOL to add to the growing body of knowledge about the impacts of “second chance” programs for youth who have dropped out of high school. Compared to peers who remain in school, high school dropouts are more likely to be disconnected from school and work, be incarcerated, be unmarried, and have children outside of marriage.

    The evaluation of the YouthBuild program will address the following research questions:

    • Operation: How is YouthBuild designed in each participating site? What are the key implementation practices that affect how the program operates? How does the local context affect program implementation and the services available to members of the control group?

    • Participation: What are the characteristics of youth who enroll in the study? How are these characteristics shaped by YouthBuild recruitment and screening practices?

    • Impacts: What are YouthBuild's impacts on educational attainment, planning, and aspirations? What are YouthBuild's impacts on employment, earnings, and job characteristics? What are YouthBuild's impacts on crime and delinquency? What are the program's impacts on social-emotional development, identity development, and self-regulation?

    • Costs: How does the net cost per participant compare with the impacts the program generates?

    The evaluation study started in June 2010 and is scheduled to continue until July 2017. The study includes a baseline information collection, a web-based survey of YouthBuild grantees, site-specific qualitative and cost data, and three mixed-mode (web and computer-assisted telephone interviewing) surveys of youth that will take place 12, 30, and 48 months after random assignment. The target population for the study is out-of-school youth aged 16-24, who are from low-income families; in foster care; offenders; migrants; disabled; or are children of incarcerated parents.

    Members of both the treatment and control groups will complete the 48-month follow-up survey. The survey requests information about the services that participants have received through YouthBuild and other community service providers, as well as information about their educational attainment, postsecondary planning and engagement, employment, earnings, delinquency and involvement with the criminal justice system, and social and emotional development.

    On December 18, 2012, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved DOL's request to administer the three follow-up surveys (see ICR Reference #201208-1205-007). That clearance expires on December 31, 2015. This request is to extend OMB clearance of the final survey administration, with minor revisions.

    II. Review Focus

    The Department is particularly interested in comments which:

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

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    III. Current Actions

    Agency: DOL-ETA.

    Type of Review: Extension with changes.

    Title of Collection: The Impact Evaluation of the YouthBuild Program.

    Form: 48-Month participant follow-up survey.

    OMB Control Number: 1205-0503.

    Affected Public: Low-income, disadvantaged youth.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,749 youth.

    Frequency: Once.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 2,749 (2,749 respondents × 1 survey).

    Estimated Average Time per Response: 35 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,604 hours for the 48-month survey (2,749 responses × 35 minutes per response ÷ 60 minutes = 1,604 burden hours).

    Total Estimated Annual Other Cost Burden: $11,629 (2,749 responses × 35 minutes per response × $7.25 per hour = $11,629).

    We will summarize and/or include in the request for OMB approval of the ICR, the comments received in response to this comment request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13375 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Bureau of International Labor Affairs; Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiation and Trade Policy.

    Date, Time, Place: June 22, 2015; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary's Conference Room, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.

    Purpose: The meeting will include a review and discussion of current issues which influence U.S. trade policy. Potential U.S. negotiating objectives and bargaining positions in current and anticipated trade negotiations will be discussed. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2155(f)(2)(A), it has been determined that the meeting will be concerned with matters the disclosure of which would seriously compromise the Government's negotiating objectives or bargaining positions. Therefore, the meeting is exempt from the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of sections 10 and 11 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (relating to open meetings, public notice, public participation, and public availability of documents). 5 U.S.C. app. Accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anne M. Zollner, Chief, Trade Policy and Negotiations Division; Phone: (202) 693-4890.

    Signed at Washington, DC, the 27th day of May 2015. Carol Pier, Deputy Undersecretary, International Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13374 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-28-P
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sunshine Act Meetings: June 2015 TIME AND DATES:

    All meetings are held at 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 2; Wednesday, June 3; Thursday, June 4; Tuesday, June 9; Wednesday, June 10; Thursday, June 11; Tuesday, June 16; Wednesday, June 17; Thursday, June 18; Tuesday, June 23; Wednesday, June 24; Thursday, June 25; Tuesday, June 30.

    PLACE:

    Board Agenda Room, No. 11820, 1099 14th St. NW., Washington, DC 20570.

    STATUS:

    Closed.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Pursuant to § 102.139(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Board or a panel thereof will consider “the issuance of a subpoena, the Board's participation in a civil action or proceeding or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition . . . of particular representation or unfair labor practice proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of the [National Labor Relations] Act, or any court proceedings collateral or ancillary thereto.” See also 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Henry Breiteneicher, Associate Executive Secretary, (202) 273-2917.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. William B. Cowen, Solicitor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13429 Filed 5-29-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75048; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-15] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers May 27, 2015.

    On March 24, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend NYSE Rule 13, and related NYSE rules, governing order types and modifiers. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 14, 2015.3 The Commission has received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74678 (April 8, 2015), 80 FR 20053 (“Notice”).

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 3 provides that, within 45 days of the publication of the notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 designates July 13, 2015 as the date by which the Commission should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number SR-NYSE-2015-15).

    4Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.5

    5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13171 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IC-31648; File No. 812-14206] The RBB Fund, Inc., et al.; Notice of Application May 27, 2015. AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Notice of application pursuant to section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), seeking exemptions from sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the 1940 Act and Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) thereunder.

    Applicants:

    The RBB Fund, Inc. (the “Company”), Matson Money, Inc. (“Matson”) and Summit Global Investments, LLC (“Summit” and, collectively with the Company and Matson, the “Applicants”).

    Summary of Application:

    Applicants request an order granting exemptions from sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a), and 15(b) of the 1940 Act and Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) thereunder, in cases where a life insurance separate account supporting variable life insurance contracts (“VLI Accounts”) holds shares of an existing portfolio of the Company that is designed to be sold to VLI Accounts or VA Accounts (as defined below) for which Matson, Summit or any of their affiliates, may serve as investment adviser, sub-adviser, manager, administrator, principal underwriter or sponsor (“Existing Fund”) or “Future Fund” 1 (any Existing Fund or Future Fund is referred to herein as a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”), and one or more of the following other types of investors also hold shares of the Funds: (i) Any life insurance company separate account supporting variable annuity contracts (“VA Accounts”) and any VLI Account; (ii) trustees of qualified group pension or group retirement plans outside the separate account context (“Qualified Plans”); (iii) the investment adviser or any subadviser to a Fund or affiliated persons of the adviser or subadviser (representing seed money investments in a Fund) (“Advisers”); and (iv) any general account of an insurance company depositor of VA Accounts and/or VLI Accounts (“General Accounts”).

    1 As used herein, a “Future Fund” is any investment portfolio or series thereof of the Company, other than an Existing Fund, designed to be sold to VA Accounts and/or VLI Accounts and to which Matson, Summit or their affiliates may in the future serve as investment adviser, sub-adviser, manager, administrator, principal underwriter or sponsor.

    Filing Date:

    The application was filed on August 30, 2013, and amended and restated on September 25, 2014, and May 13, 2015.

    Hearing or Notification of Hearing:

    An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June 22, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    ADDRESSES:

    Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: The RBB Fund, Inc. c/o Mary Jo Reilly, Esq., Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, One Logan Square, Ste. 2000, Philadelphia, PA, 19103-6996; Mark E. Matson, Matson Money, Inc., 5955 Deerfield Blvd., Mason, OH 45040; and David Harden, Summit Global Investments, LLC, 620 South Main St., Bountiful, UT, 84010.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sonny Oh, Senior Counsel, or Joyce M. Pickholz, Branch Chief, Disclosure Review Office (Insured Investments), Division of Investment Management at (202) 551-6795.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search.htm, or by calling (202) 551-8090.

    Applicants' Representations

    1. The Company was organized as a Maryland corporation on February 29, 1988 and is registered under the 1940 Act as an open-end management investment company (Reg. File No. 811-5518). The Company is a series investment company as defined by Rule 18f-2 under the 1940 Act and is currently comprised of twenty-three portfolios managed by ten different investment advisers, six sub-advisers and seven commodity trading sub-advisers hereinafter collectively, (the “investment advisers”). The investment advisers may or may not be affiliated with each other. None of the current investment advisers are affiliated with the Company. Each portfolio pursues its own investment strategy and is liable for its own expenses. However, the combination of multiple portfolios managed by multiple investment advisers into a single registered investment company allows the portfolios to share a single Board of Directors (“Board”), as well as common officers, fund counsel, custodian and other service providers. Expenses common to one or more portfolios can be shared by those portfolios, thus allowing the portfolios to realize economies of scale and reduce operating expenses. The Company may establish additional portfolios and classes of shares of each portfolio in the future. Shares of the Funds will not be offered to the general public.

    2. Matson currently serves as the investment adviser to six portfolios of the Company, including the Existing Funds. It is anticipated that Matson will also serve as the Adviser to one or more of the Future Funds, subject to the authority of the Board. Matson is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 Act (“Advisers Act”).

    3. Summit currently serves as the investment adviser to one portfolio of the Company. It is anticipated that Summit will serve as the Adviser to one or more of the Funds, subject to the authority of the Board. Summit is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act.

    4. The Funds propose to, and other Funds may in the future propose to, offer and sell their shares to VLI and VA Accounts of affiliated and unaffiliated life insurance companies (“Participating Insurance Companies”) to serve as investment media to support variable life insurance contracts (VLI Contracts”) and variable annuity contracts (“VA Contacts”) (VLI Contracts and VA Contracts together, “Variable Contracts”) issued through such accounts respectively, VLI Accounts and VA Accounts (VLI Accounts and VA Accounts together, “Separate Accounts”). Each Separate Account is or will be established as a segregated asset account by a Participating Insurance Company pursuant to the insurance law of the insurance company's state of domicile. Presently, TIAA-CREF Life Insurance Company is the only Participating Insurance Company.

    5. The Funds will sell their shares to Separate Accounts only if each Participating Insurance Company sponsoring such a Separate Account enters into a participation agreement with the Funds. The participation agreements define or will define the relationship between each Fund and each Participating Insurance Company and memorialize or will memorialize, among other matters, the fact that, except where the agreement specifically provides otherwise, the Participating Insurance Company will remain responsible for establishing and maintaining any Separate Account covered by the agreement and for complying with all applicable requirements of state and federal law pertaining to such accounts and to the sale and distribution of Variable Contracts issued through such Separate Accounts. The role of the Funds under this arrangement, with regard to the federal securities laws, will consist of offering and selling shares of the Funds to the Separate Accounts and fulfilling any conditions that the Commission may impose in granting the requested order.

    6. The use of a common management investment company (or investment portfolio thereof) as an investment medium for both VLI Accounts and VA Accounts of the same Participating Insurance Company, or of two or more insurance companies that are affiliated persons of each other, is referred to herein as “mixed funding.” The use of a common management investment company (or investment portfolio thereof) as an investment medium for VLI Accounts and/or VA Accounts of two or more Participating Insurance Companies that are not affiliated persons of each other is referred to herein as “shared funding.”

    7. Applicants propose that the Funds may offer their shares directly to Qualified Plans, Advisers, and the General Accounts of a Participating Insurance Company.

    8. The use of a common management investment company (or investment portfolio thereof) as an investment medium for Separate Accounts, Qualified Plans, Advisers and General Accounts is referred to herein as “extended mixed funding.”

    Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 9(a)(3) of the 1940 Act makes it unlawful for any company to serve as an investment adviser or principal underwriter of any investment company, including a unit investment trust, if an affiliated person of that company is subject to disqualification enumerated in section 9(a)(1) or (2) of the 1940 Act. Sections 13(a), 15(a), and 15(b) of the 1940 Act have been deemed by the Commission to require “pass-through” voting with respect to an underlying investment company's shares.

    2. Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) under the 1940 Act provide partial exemptions from sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a), and 15(b) of the 1940 Act to VLI Accounts supporting certain VLI Contracts and to their life insurance company depositors under limited circumstances, as described in the application. VLI Accounts, their depositors and their principal underwriters may not rely on the exemptions provided by Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) if shares of the Fund are held by a VLI Account through which certain VLI Contracts are issued, a VLI Account of an unaffiliated Participating Insurance Company, an unaffiliated Adviser, any VA Account, a Qualified Plan or a General Account. Accordingly, Applicants request an order of the Commission granting exemptions from sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a), and 15(b) of the 1940 Act and Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) thereunder in cases where a scheduled premium VLI Account holds shares of a Fund and one or more of the following types of investors also hold Shares of the Funds: (i) VA Accounts and VLI Accounts (supporting scheduled premium or flexible premium VLI Contracts) of affiliated and unaffiliated Participating Insurance Companies; (ii) Qualified Plans; (iii) Advisers; and/or (iv) General Accounts.

    3. Applicants maintain that there is no policy reason for the sale of Fund Shares to Qualified Plans, Advisers or General Accounts to prohibit or otherwise limit a Participating Insurance Company from relying on the relief provided by Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15). Nonetheless, Rule 6e-2 and Rule 6e-3(T) each specifically provides that the relief granted thereunder is available only where shares of the underlying fund are offered exclusively to insurance company separate accounts. In this regard, Applicants request exemptive relief to the extent necessary to permit shares of the Funds to be sold to Qualified Plans, Advisers and General Accounts while allowing Participating Insurance Companies and their Separate Accounts to enjoy the benefits of the relief granted under Rule 6e-2(b)(15) and Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15). Applicants note that if the Funds were to sell their shares only to Qualified Plans, exemptive relief under Rule 6e-2 and Rule 6e-3(T) would not be necessary. The relief provided for under Rule 6e-2(b)(15) and Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) does not relate to Qualified Plans, Advisers or General Accounts or to a registered investment company's ability to sell its shares to such purchasers.

    4. Applicants are not aware of any reason for excluding separate accounts and investment companies engaged in shared funding from the exemptive relief provided under Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15), or for excluding separate accounts and investment companies engaged in mixed funding from the exemptive relief provided under Rule 6e-2(b)(15). Similarly, Applicants are not aware of any reason for excluding Participating Insurance Companies from the exemptive relief requested because the Funds may also sell their shares to Qualified Plans, Advisers and General Accounts. Rather, Applicants submit that the proposed sale of shares of the Funds to these purchasers may allow for the development of larger pools of assets resulting in the potential for greater investment and diversification opportunities, and for decreased expenses at higher asset levels resulting in greater cost efficiencies.

    5. For the reasons explained below, Applicants have concluded that investment by Qualified Plans, Advisers and General Accounts in the Funds should not increase the risk of material irreconcilable conflicts between owners of VLI Contracts and other types of investors or between owners of VLI Contracts issued by unaffiliated Participating Insurance Companies.

    6. Consistent with the Commission's authority under section 6(c) of the 1940 Act to grant exemptive orders to a class or classes of persons and transactions, Applicants request exemptions for a class consisting of Participating Insurance Companies and their separate accounts investing in Existing and Future Funds of the Company, as well as their principal underwriters.

    7. Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act provides, in part, that the Commission, by order upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the 1940 Act, or any rule or regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act. Applicants submit that the exemptions requested are appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act.

    8. Section 9(a)(3) of the 1940 Act provides, among other things, that it is unlawful for any company to serve as investment adviser or principal underwriter of any registered open-end investment company if an affiliated person of that company is subject to a disqualification enumerated in sections 9(a)(1) or (2). Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(i) and (ii) and Rules 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(i) and (ii) under the 1940 Act provide exemptions from section 9(a) under certain circumstances, subject to the limitations discussed above on mixed funding, extended mixed funding and shared funding. These exemptions limit the application of the eligibility restrictions to affiliated individuals or companies that directly participate in management or administration of the underlying investment company.

    9. Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii) under the 1940 Act provide exemptions from pass-through voting requirements with respect to several significant matters, assuming the limitations on mixed funding, extended mixed funding and shared funding are observed. Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii)(A) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii)(A) provide that the insurance company may disregard the voting instructions of its variable life insurance contract owners with respect to the investments of an underlying investment company, or any contract between such an investment company and its investment adviser, when required to do so by an insurance regulatory authority (subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (b)(7)(ii)(A) of Rules 6e-2 and 6e-3(T)). Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii)(B) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii)(A)(2) provide that an insurance company may disregard the voting instructions of owners of its variable life insurance contracts if such owners initiate any change in an underlying investment company's investment policies, principal underwriter or any investment adviser (provided that disregarding such voting instructions is reasonable and subject to the other provisions of paragraphs (b)(5)(ii), (b)(7)(ii)(B) and (b)(7)(ii)(C) of Rules 6e-2 and 6e-3(T)).

    10. Applicants represent that the sale of Fund shares to Qualified Plans, Advisers or General Accounts will not have any impact on the exemptions requested herein regarding the disregard of pass-through voting rights. Shares sold to Qualified Plans will be held by such Qualified Plans. The exercise of voting rights by Qualified Plans, whether by trustees, participants, beneficiaries, or investment managers engaged by the Qualified Plans, does not raise the type of issues respecting disregard of voting rights that are raised by VLI Accounts. With respect to Qualified Plans, which are not registered as investment companies under the 1940 Act, there is no requirement to pass through voting rights to Qualified Plan participants. Indeed, to the contrary, applicable law expressly reserves voting rights associated with Qualified Plan assets to certain specified persons.

    11. Similarly, Advisers and General Accounts are not subject to any pass-through voting rights. Accordingly, unlike the circumstances surrounding Separate Account investments in shares of the Funds, the issue of the resolution of any material irreconcilable conflicts with respect to voting is not present with respect to Advisers or General Accounts of Participating Insurance Companies.

    12. Applicants recognize that the prohibitions on mixed and shared funding might reflect concern regarding possible different investment motivations among investors. When Rule 6e-2 was first adopted, variable annuity separate accounts could invest in mutual funds whose shares were also offered to the general public. However, now, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), any underlying fund, including the Funds, that sells shares to VA Accounts or VLI Accounts, would, in effect, be precluded from also selling its shares to the public. Consequently, the Funds may not sell their shares to the public.

    13. Applicants assert that the rights of an insurance company on its own initiative or on instructions from a state insurance regulator to disregard the voting instructions of owners of Variable Contracts is not inconsistent with either mixed funding or shared funding. Applicants state that The National Association of Insurance Commissioners Variable Life Insurance Model Regulation (the “NAIC Model Regulation”) suggests that it is unlikely that insurance regulators would find an underlying fund's investment policy, investment adviser or principal underwriter objectionable for one type of Variable Contract but not another type.

    14. Applicants assert that shared funding by unaffiliated insurance companies does not present any issues that do not already exist where a single insurance company is licensed to do business in several or all states. A particular state insurance regulator could require action that is inconsistent with the requirements of other states in which the insurance company offers its contracts. However, the fact that different insurers may be domiciled in different states does not create a significantly different or enlarged problem. Shared funding by unaffiliated insurers, in this respect, is no different than the use of the same investment company as the funding vehicle for affiliated insurers, which Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) permit. Affiliated insurers may be domiciled in different states and be subject to differing state law requirements. Affiliation does not reduce the potential, if any exists, for differences in state regulatory requirements. Applicants state that in any event, the conditions set forth below are designed to safeguard against, and provide procedures for resolving, any adverse effects that differences among state regulatory requirements may produce. If a particular state insurance regulator's decision conflicts with the majority of other state regulators, then the affected Participating Insurance Company will be required to withdraw its separate account investments in the relevant Fund. This requirement will be provided for in the participation agreement that will be entered into by Participating Insurance Companies with the relevant Fund.

    15. Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) give Participating Insurance Companies the right to disregard the voting instructions of VLI Contract owners in certain circumstances. This right derives from the authority of state insurance regulators over Separate Accounts. Under Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15), a Participating Insurance Company may disregard VLI Contract owner voting instructions only with respect to certain specified items. Affiliation does not eliminate the potential, if any exists, for divergent judgments as to the advisability or legality of a change in investment policies, principal underwriter or investment adviser initiated by such Contract owners. The potential for disagreement is limited by the requirements in Rules 6e-2 and 6e-3(T) that the Participating Insurance Company's disregard of voting instructions be reasonable and based on specific good faith determinations.

    16. A particular Participating Insurance Company's disregard of voting instructions, nevertheless, could conflict with the voting instructions of a majority of VLI Contract owners. The Participating Insurance Company's action possibly could be different than the determination of all or some of the other Participating Insurance Companies (including affiliated insurers) that the voting instructions of VLI Contract owners should prevail, and either could preclude a majority vote approving the change or could represent a minority view. If the Participating Insurance Company's judgment represents a minority position or would preclude a majority vote, then the Participating Insurance Company may be required, at the relevant Fund's election, to withdraw its Separate Accounts' investments in the relevant Fund. No charge or penalty will be imposed as a result of such withdrawal. This requirement will be provided for in the participation agreement entered into by the Participating Insurance Companies with the relevant Fund.

    17. Applicants assert there is no reason why the investment policies of a Fund would or should be materially different from what these policies would or should be if the Fund supported only VA Accounts or VLI Accounts supporting flexible premium or scheduled premium VLI Contracts. Each type of insurance contract is designed as a long-term investment program.

    18. Each Fund will be managed to attempt to achieve its specified investment objective, and not favor or disfavor any particular Participating Insurance Company or type of insurance contract. Applicants assert there is no reason to believe that different features of various types of Variable Contracts will lead to different investment policies for each or for different Separate Accounts. The sale of Variable Contracts and ultimate success of all Separate Accounts depends, at least in part, on satisfactory investment performance, which provides an incentive for each Participating Insurance Company to seek optimal investment performance.

    19. Furthermore, no single investment strategy can be identified as appropriate to a particular Variable Contract. Each “pool” of VLI Contract and VA Contract owners is composed of individuals of diverse financial status, age, insurance needs and investment goals. A Fund supporting even one type of Variable Contract must accommodate these diverse factors in order to attract and retain purchasers. Permitting mixed and shared funding will provide economic support for the continuation of the Funds. Applicants state further that mixed and shared funding will broaden the base of potential Variable Contract owner investors, which may facilitate the establishment of additional Funds serving diverse goals.

    20. Applicants do not believe that the sale of the shares to Qualified Plans, Advisers or General Accounts will increase the potential for material irreconcilable conflicts of interest between or among different types of investors. In particular, Applicants see very little potential for such conflicts beyond those that would otherwise exist between owners of VLI Contracts and VA Contracts. Applicants submit that either there are no conflicts of interest or that there exists the ability by the affected parties to resolve such conflicts consistent with the best interests of VLI Contract owners, VA Contract owners and Qualified Plan participants.

    21. Applicants state they considered whether there are any issues raised under the Code, Treasury Regulations, or Revenue Rulings thereunder, if Qualified Plans, Separate Accounts, Advisers and General Accounts all invest in the same Fund. Applicants have concluded that neither the Code, nor the Treasury Regulations nor Revenue Rulings thereunder present any inherent conflicts of interest if Qualified Plans, Advisers, General Accounts, and Separate Accounts all invest in the same Fund.

    22. Applicants note that, while there are differences in the manner in which distributions from separate accounts and Qualified Plans are taxed, these differences have no impact on the Funds. When distributions are to be made, and a separate account or Qualified Plan is unable to net purchase payments to make distributions, the separate account or Qualified Plan will redeem shares of the relevant Fund at its net asset values in conformity with Rule 22c-1 under the 1940 Act (without the imposition of any sales charge) to provide proceeds to meet distribution needs. A Participating Insurance Company will then make distributions in accordance with the terms of its Variable Contracts, and a Qualified Plan will then make distributions in accordance with the terms of the Qualified Plan.

    23. Applicants state that they considered whether it is possible to provide an equitable means of giving voting rights to Variable Contract owners, Qualified Plans, Advisers and General Accounts. In connection with any meeting of Fund shareholders, the Fund or its transfer agent will inform each Participating Insurance Company (with respect to its Separate Accounts and General Account), Adviser, and Qualified Plan of its share holdings and provide other information necessary for such shareholders to participate in the meeting (e.g., proxy materials). Each Participating Insurance Company then will solicit voting instructions from owners of VLI Contracts and VA Contracts in accordance with Rules 6e-2 or 6e-3(T), or section 12(d)(1)(E)(iii)(aa) of the 1940 Act, as applicable, and its participation agreement with the relevant Fund. Shares of a Fund that are held by an Adviser or a General Account will generally be in the same proportion as all votes cast on behalf of all Variable Contract owners having voting rights. However, an Adviser or General Account will vote its shares in such other manner as may be required by the Commission or its staff. Shares held by Qualified Plans will be voted in accordance with applicable law. The voting rights provided to Qualified Plans with respect to the shares would be no different from the voting rights that are provided to Qualified Plans with respect to shares of mutual funds sold to the general public. Furthermore, if a material irreconcilable conflict arises because of a Qualified Plan's decision to disregard Qualified Plan participant voting instructions, if applicable, and that decision represents a minority position or would preclude a majority vote, the Qualified Plan may be required, at the election of the relevant Fund, to withdraw its investment in the Fund, and no charge or penalty will be imposed as a result of such withdrawal.

    24. Applicants do not believe that the ability of a Fund to sell its shares to a Qualified Plan, Adviser or General Account gives rise to a “senior security” as defined by section 18(g) of the 1940 Act. Regardless of the rights and benefits of participants under Qualified Plans or owners of Variable Contracts; Separate Accounts, Qualified Plans, Advisers and General Accounts only have, or will only have, rights with respect to their respective shares of a Fund. These parties can only redeem such shares at net asset value. No shareholder of a Fund has any preference over any other shareholder with respect to distribution of assets or payment of dividends.

    25. Applicants do not believe that the veto power of state insurance commissioners over certain potential changes to Fund investment objectives approved by Variable Contract owners creates conflicts between the interests of such owners and the interests of Qualified Plan participants, Advisers or General Accounts. Applicants note that a basic premise of corporate democracy and shareholder voting is that not all shareholders may agree with a particular proposal. Their interests and opinions may differ, but this does not mean that inherent conflicts of interest exist between or among such shareholders or that occasional conflicts of interest that do occur between or among them are likely to be irreconcilable.

    26. Although Participating Insurance Companies may have to overcome regulatory impediments in redeeming shares of a Fund held by their Separate Accounts, Applicants state that the Qualified Plans and participants in participant-directed Qualified Plans can make decisions quickly and redeem their shares in a Fund and reinvest in another investment company or other funding vehicle without impediments, or as is the case with most Qualified Plans, hold cash pending suitable investment. As a result, conflicts between the interests of Variable Contract owners and the interests of Qualified Plans and Qualified Plan participants can usually be resolved quickly since the Qualified Plans can, on their own, redeem their Fund shares. Advisers and General accounts can similarly redeem their shares of a Fund and make alternative investments at any time.

    27. Finally, Applicants considered whether there is a potential for future conflicts of interest between Participating Insurance Companies and Qualified Plans created by future changes in the tax laws. Applicants do not see any greater potential for material irreconcilable conflicts arising between the interests of Variable Contract owners and Qualified Plan participants from future changes in the federal tax laws than that which already exists between VLI Contract owners and VA Contract owners.

    28. Applicants recognize that the foregoing is not an all-inclusive list, but rather is representative of issues that they believe are relevant to the Application. Applicants believe that the sale of Fund shares to Qualified Plans would not increase the risk of material irreconcilable conflicts between the interests of Qualified Plan participants and Variable Contract owners or other investors. Further, Applicants submit that the use of the Funds with respect to Qualified Plans is not substantially dissimilar from each Fund's current and anticipated use, in that Qualified Plans, like separate accounts, are generally long-term investors.

    29. Applicants assert that permitting a Fund to sell its shares to an Adviser or to the General Account of a Participating Insurance Company will enhance management of each Fund without raising significant concerns regarding material irreconcilable conflicts among different types of investors.

    30. Applicants assert that various factors have limited the number of insurance companies that offer Variable Contracts. These factors include the costs of organizing and operating a funding vehicle, certain insurers' lack of experience with respect to investment management, and the lack of name recognition by the public of certain insurance companies as investment experts. In particular, some smaller life insurance companies may not find it economically feasible, or within their investment or administrative expertise, to enter the Variable Contract business on their own. Applicants state that use of a Fund as a common investment vehicle for Variable Contracts would reduce or eliminate these concerns. Mixed and shared funding should also provide several benefits to owners of Variable Contracts by eliminating a significant portion of the costs of establishing and administering separate underlying funds.

    31. Applicants state that the Participating Insurance Companies will benefit not only from the investment and administrative expertise of the Funds' Adviser, but also from the potential cost efficiencies and investment flexibility afforded by larger pools of funds. Therefore, making the Funds available for mixed and shared funding will encourage more insurance companies to offer Variable Contracts. This should result in increased competition with respect to both Variable Contract design and pricing, which can in turn be expected to result in more product variety. Applicants also assert that sale of shares in a Fund to Qualified Plans, in addition to Separate Accounts, will result in an increased amount of assets available for investment in a Fund.

    32. Applicants also submit that, regardless of the type of shareholder in a Fund, an Adviser is or would be contractually and otherwise obligated to manage the Fund solely and exclusively in accordance with the Fund's investment objectives, policies and restrictions, as well as any guidelines established by the Fund's Board of Trustees (the “Board”).

    33. Applicants assert that sales of Fund shares, as described above, will not have any adverse federal income tax consequences to other investors in such Fund.

    34. In addition, Applicants assert that granting the exemptions requested herein is in the public interest and, as discussed above, will not compromise the regulatory purposes of sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a), or 15(b) of the 1940 Act or Rules 6e-2 or 6e-3(T) thereunder.

    Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that the Commission order requested herein shall be subject to the following conditions:

    1. A majority of the Board of each Fund will consist of persons who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, as defined by section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act, and the rules thereunder, and as modified by any applicable orders of the Commission, except that if this condition is not met by reason of death, disqualification or bona fide resignation of any director/trustee or directors/trustees, then the operation of this condition will be suspended: (a) For a period of 90 days if the vacancy or vacancies may be filled by the Board; (b) for a period of 150 days if a vote of shareholders is required to fill the vacancy or vacancies; or (c) for such longer period as the Commission may prescribe by order upon application, or by future rule.

    2. The Board will monitor a Fund for the existence of any material irreconcilable conflict between and among the interests of the owners of all VLI Contracts and VA Contracts and participants of all Qualified Plans investing in the Fund, and determine what action, if any, should be taken in response to such conflicts. A material irreconcilable conflict may arise for a variety of reasons, including: (a) An action by any state insurance regulatory authority; (b) a change in applicable federal or state insurance, tax, or securities laws or regulations, or a public ruling, private letter ruling, no-action or interpretive letter, or any similar action by insurance, tax or securities regulatory authorities; (c) an administrative or judicial decision in any relevant proceeding; (d) the manner in which the investments of the Fund are being managed; (e) a difference in voting instructions given by VA Contract owners, VLI Contract owners, and Qualified Plans or Qualified Plan participants; (f) a decision by a Participating Insurance Company to disregard the voting instructions of contract owners; or (g) if applicable, a decision by a Qualified Plan to disregard the voting instructions of Qualified Plan participants.

    3. Participating Insurance Companies (on their own behalf, as well as by virtue of any investment of General Account assets in a Fund), any Advisers, and any Qualified Plan that executes a participation agreement upon its becoming an owner of 10% or more of the net assets of a Fund (collectively, “Participants”) will report any potential or existing conflicts to the Board. Each Participant will be responsible for assisting the Board in carrying out the Board's responsibilities under these conditions by providing the Board with all information reasonably necessary for the Board to consider any issues raised. This responsibility includes, but is not limited to, an obligation by each Participating Insurance Company to inform the Board whenever Variable Contract owner voting instructions are disregarded, and, if pass-through voting is applicable, an obligation by each trustee for a Qualified Plan to inform the Board whenever it has determined to disregard Qualified Plan participant voting instructions. The responsibility to report such information and conflicts, and to assist the Board, will be a contractual obligation of all Participating Insurance Companies under their participation agreement with a Fund, and these responsibilities will be carried out with a view only to the interests of the Variable Contract owners. The responsibility to report such information and conflicts, and to assist the Board, also will be contractual obligations of all Qualified Plans under their participation agreement with a Fund, and such agreements will provide that these responsibilities will be carried out with a view only to the interests of Qualified Plan participants.

    4. If it is determined by a majority of the Board, or a majority of the disinterested directors/trustees of the Board, that a material irreconcilable conflict exists, then the relevant Participant will, at its expense and to the extent reasonably practicable (as determined by a majority of the disinterested directors/trustees), take whatever steps are necessary to remedy or eliminate the material irreconcilable conflict, up to and including: (a) Withdrawing the assets allocable to some or all of their VLI Accounts or VA Accounts from the relevant Fund and reinvesting such assets in a different investment vehicle, including another Fund; (b) in the case of a Participating Insurance Company, submitting the question as to whether such segregation should be implemented to a vote of all affected Variable Contract owners and, as appropriate, segregating the assets of any appropriate group (i.e., VA Contract owners or VLI Contact owners of one or more Participating Insurance Companies) that votes in favor of such segregation, or offering to the affected Variable Contract owners the option of making such a change; (c) withdrawing the assets allocable to some or all of the Qualified Plans from the affected Fund and reinvesting them in a different investment medium; and (d) establishing a new registered management investment company or managed separate account. If a material irreconcilable conflict arises because of a decision by a Participating Insurance Company to disregard Variable Contract owner voting instructions, and that decision represents a minority position or would preclude a majority vote, then the Participating Insurance Company may be required, at the election of the Fund, to withdraw such Participating Insurance Company's Separate Account investments in a Fund, and no charge or penalty will be imposed as a result of such withdrawal. If a material irreconcilable conflict arises because of a Qualified Plan's decision to disregard Qualified Plan participant voting instructions, if applicable, and that decision represents a minority position or would preclude a majority vote, the Qualified Plan may be required, at the election of the Fund, to withdraw its investment in a Fund, and no charge or penalty will be imposed as a result of such withdrawal. The responsibility to take remedial action in the event of a Board determination of a material irreconcilable conflict and to bear the cost of such remedial action will be a contractual obligation of all Participants under their participation agreement with a Fund, and these responsibilities will be carried out with a view only to the interests of Variable Contract owners or, as applicable, Qualified Plan participants.

    For purposes of this Condition 4, a majority of the disinterested directors/trustees of the Board of a Fund will determine whether or not any proposed action adequately remedies any material irreconcilable conflict, but, in no event, will the Fund or its investment adviser be required to establish a new funding vehicle for any Variable Contract or Qualified Plan. No Participating Insurance Company will be required by this Condition 4 to establish a new funding vehicle for any Variable Contract if any offer to do so has been declined by vote of a majority of the Variable Contract owners materially and adversely affected by the material irreconcilable conflict. Further, no Qualified Plan will be required by this Condition 4 to establish a new funding vehicle for the Qualified Plan if: (a) A majority of the Qualified Plan participants materially and adversely affected by the irreconcilable material conflict vote to decline such offer, or (b) pursuant to documents governing the Qualified Plan, the Qualified Plan trustee makes such decision without a Qualified Plan participant vote.

    5. The determination by the Board of the existence of a material irreconcilable conflict and its implications will be made known in writing promptly to all Participants.

    6. Participating Insurance Companies will provide pass-through voting privileges to all Variable Contract owners whose Variable Contracts are issued through registered Separate Accounts for as long as the Commission continues to interpret the 1940 Act as requiring such pass-through voting privileges. However, as to Variable Contracts issued through Separate Accounts not registered as investment companies under the 1940 Act, pass-through voting privileges will be extended to owners of such Variable Contracts to the extent granted by the Participating Insurance Company. Accordingly, such Participating Insurance Companies, where applicable, will vote the shares of each Fund held in their Separate Accounts in a manner consistent with voting instructions timely received from Variable Contract owners. Participating Insurance Companies will be responsible for assuring that each of their Separate Accounts investing in a Fund calculates voting privileges in a manner consistent with all other Participating Insurance Companies investing in that Fund.

    The obligation to calculate voting privileges as provided in the Application shall be a contractual obligation of all Participating Insurance Companies under their participation agreement with the Fund. Each Participating Insurance Company will vote shares of each Fund held in its Separate Accounts for which no timely voting instructions are received, as well as shares held in its General Account or otherwise attributed to it, in the same proportion as those shares for which voting instructions are received. Each Qualified Plan will vote as required by applicable law, governing Qualified Plan documents and as provided in the Application.

    7. As long as the Commission continues to interpret the 1940 Act as requiring that pass-through voting privileges be provided to Variable Contract owners, a Fund Adviser or any General Account will vote its respective shares of a Fund in the same proportion as all votes cast on behalf of all Variable Contract owners having voting rights; provided, however, that such an Adviser or General Account shall vote its shares in such other manner as may be required by the Commission or its staff.

    8. Each Fund will comply with all provisions of the 1940 Act requiring voting by shareholders (which, for these purposes, shall be the persons having a voting interest in its shares), and, in particular, the Fund will either provide for annual meetings (except to the extent that the Commission may interpret section 16 of the 1940 Act not to require such meetings) or comply with section 16(c) of the 1940 Act (although each Fund is not, or will not be, one of those trusts of the type described in section 16(c) of the 1940 Act), as well as with section 16(a) of the 1940 Act and, if and when applicable, section 16(b) of the 1940 Act. Further, each Fund will act in accordance with the Commission's interpretations of the requirements of section 16(a) with respect to periodic elections of directors/trustees and with whatever rules the Commission may promulgate thereunder.

    9. A Fund will make its shares available to the VLI Accounts, VA Accounts, and Qualified Plans at or about the time it accepts any seed capital from its Adviser or from the General Account of a Participating Insurance Company.

    10. Each Fund has notified, or will notify, all Participants that disclosure regarding potential risks of mixed and shared funding may be appropriate in VA Account and VLI Account prospectuses or Qualified Plan documents. Each Fund will disclose, in its prospectus that: (a) shares of the Fund may be offered to both VA Accounts and VLI Accounts and, if applicable, to Qualified Plans; (b) due to differences in tax treatment and other considerations, the interests of various Variable Contract owners participating in the Fund and the interests of Qualified Plan participants investing in the Fund, if applicable, may conflict; and (c) the Fund's Board will monitor events in order to identify the existence of any material irreconcilable conflicts and to determine what action, if any, should be taken in response to any such conflicts.

    11. If and to the extent Rule 6e-2 and Rule 6e-3(T) under the 1940 Act are amended, or proposed Rule 6e-3 under the 1940 Act is adopted, to provide exemptive relief from any provision of the 1940 Act, or the rules thereunder, with respect to mixed or shared funding, on terms and conditions materially different from any exemptions granted in the order requested in the Application, then each Fund and/or Participating Insurance Companies, as appropriate, shall take such steps as may be necessary to comply with Rules 6e-2 or 6e-3(T), as amended, or Rule 6e-3, to the extent such rules are applicable.

    12. Each Participant, at least annually, shall submit to the Board of each Fund such reports, materials or data as the Board reasonably may request so that the directors/trustees may fully carry out the obligations imposed upon the Board by the conditions contained in the Application. Such reports, materials and data shall be submitted more frequently if deemed appropriate by the Board. The obligations of the Participants to provide these reports, materials and data to the Board, when it so reasonably requests, shall be a contractual obligation of all Participants under their participation agreement with the Fund.

    13. All reports of potential or existing conflicts received by a Board, and all Board action with regard to determining the existence of a conflict, notifying Participants of a conflict and determining whether any proposed action adequately remedies a conflict, will be properly recorded in the minutes of the Board or other appropriate records, and such minutes or other records shall be made available to the Commission upon request.

    14. Each Fund will not accept a purchase order from a Qualified Plan if such purchase would make the Qualified Plan an owner of 10 percent or more of the assets of a Fund unless the Qualified Plan executes an agreement with the Fund governing participation in the Fund that includes the conditions set forth herein to the extent applicable. A Qualified Plan will execute an application containing an acknowledgement of this condition at the time of its initial purchase of shares.

    Conclusion

    Applicants submit, for all of the reasons explained above, that the exemptions requested are appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13176 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Extension: Rule 10f-3; OMB Control No. 3235-0226, SEC File No. 270-237] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension and approval of the collections of information discussed below.

    Section 10(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (the “Act”) prohibits a registered investment company (“fund”) from purchasing any security during an underwriting or selling syndicate if the fund has certain relationships with a principal underwriter for the security. Congress enacted this provision in 1940 to protect funds and their shareholders by preventing underwriters from “dumping” unmarketable securities on affiliated funds.

    Rule 10f-3 (17 CFR 270.10f-3) permits a fund to engage in a securities transaction that otherwise would violate section 10(f) if, among other things: (i) Each transaction effected under the rule is reported on Form N-SAR; (ii) the fund's directors have approved procedures for purchases made in reliance on the rule, regularly review fund purchases to determine whether they comply with these procedures, and approve necessary changes to the procedures; and (iii) a written record of each transaction effected under the rule is maintained for six years, the first two of which in an easily accessible place. The written record must state: (i) From whom the securities were acquired; (ii) the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members; (iii) the terms of the transactions; and (iv) the information or materials on which the fund's board of directors has determined that the purchases were made in compliance with procedures established by the board.

    The rule also conditionally allows managed portions of fund portfolios to purchase securities offered in otherwise off-limits primary offerings. To qualify for this exemption, rule 10f-3 requires that the subadviser that is advising the purchaser be contractually prohibited from providing investment advice to any other portion of the fund's portfolio and consulting with any other of the fund's advisers that is a principal underwriter or affiliated person of a principal underwriter concerning the fund's securities transactions.

    These requirements provide a mechanism for fund boards to oversee compliance with the rule. The required recordkeeping facilitates the Commission staff's review of rule 10f-3 transactions during routine fund inspections and, when necessary, in connection with enforcement actions.

    The staff estimates that approximately 270 funds engage in a total of approximately 3,350 rule 10f-3 transactions each year.1 Rule 10f-3 requires that the purchasing fund create a written record of each transaction that includes, among other things, from whom the securities were purchased and the terms of the transaction. The staff estimates 2 that it takes an average fund approximately 30 minutes per transaction and approximately 1,675 hours 3 in the aggregate to comply with this portion of the rule.

    1 These estimates are based on staff extrapolations from filings with the Commission.

    2 Unless stated otherwise, the information collection burden estimates are based on conversations between the staff and representatives of funds.

    3 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (0.5 hours × 3,350 = 1,675 hours).

    The funds also must maintain and preserve these transactional records in accordance with the rule's recordkeeping requirement, and the staff estimates that it takes a fund approximately 20 minutes per transaction and that annually, in the aggregate, funds spend approximately 1,117 hours 4 to comply with this portion of the rule.

    4 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (20 minutes × 3,350 transactions = 67,000 minutes; 67,000 minutes/60 = 1,117 hours).

    In addition, fund boards must, no less than quarterly, examine each of these transactions to ensure that they comply with the fund's policies and procedures. The information or materials upon which the board relied to come to this determination also must be maintained and the staff estimates that it takes a fund 1 hour per quarter and, in the aggregate, approximately 1,080 hours 5 annually to comply with this rule requirement.

    5 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1 hour per quarter × 4 quarters × 270 funds = 1,080 hours).

    The staff estimates that reviewing and revising as needed written procedures for rule 10f-3 transactions takes, on average for each fund, two hours of a compliance attorney's time per year.6 Thus, annually, in the aggregate, the staff estimates that funds spend a total of approximately 540 hours 7 on monitoring and revising rule 10f-3 procedures.

    6 These averages take into account the fact that in most years, fund attorneys and boards spend little or no time modifying procedures and in other years, they spend significant time doing so.

    7 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (270 funds × 2 hours = 540 hours).

    Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that approximately 251 fund portfolios enter into subadvisory agreements each year.8 Based on discussions with industry representatives, the staff estimates that it will require approximately 3 attorney hours to draft and execute additional clauses in new subadvisory contracts in order for funds and subadvisers to be able to rely on the exemptions in rule 10f-3. Because these additional clauses are identical to the clauses that a fund would need to insert in their subadvisory contracts to rely on rules 12d3-1, 17a-10, and 17e-1, and because we believe that funds that use one such rule generally use all of these rules, we apportion this 3 hour time burden equally to all four rules. Therefore, we estimate that the burden allocated to rule 10f-3 for this contract change would be 0.75 hours.9 Assuming that all 251 funds that enter into new subadvisory contracts each year make the modification to their contract required by the rule, we estimate that the rule's contract modification requirement will result in 188 burden hours annually.10

    8 Based on information in Commission filings, we estimate that 38 percent of funds are advised by subadvisers.

    9 This estimate is based on the following calculation (3 hours ÷ 4 rules = .75 hours).

    10 These estimates are based on the following calculations: (0.75 hours × 251 portfolios = 188 burden hours).

    The staff estimates, therefore, that rule 10f-3 imposes an information collection burden of 4,060 hours.11 This estimate does not include the time spent filing transaction reports on Form N-SAR, which is encompassed in the information collection burden estimate for that form.

    11 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1,675 hours + 1,117 hours + 1,080 hours + 188 hours = 4,060 total burden hours).

    The collection of information required by rule 10f-3 is necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13381 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75051; File No. SR-BX-2015-030] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. May 27, 2015.

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on May 19, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (“BX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change with respect to amendments of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the “Charter”) and By-Laws (the “By-Laws”) of its parent corporation, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (“NASDAQ OMX” or the “Company”), to change the name of the Company to Nasdaq, Inc. The proposed amendments will be implemented on a date designated by NASDAQ OMX following approval by the Commission. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    As part of an ongoing global rebranding initiative, the Company has begun to refer to itself, both internally and externally, as Nasdaq, rather than NASDAQ OMX. For purposes of consistency with its marketing, communications and other materials, the Company has decided to change the legal names of NASDAQ OMX and certain of its subsidiaries to eliminate references to OMX. The Company therefore proposes to amend its Charter and By-Laws to change its legal name from The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. to Nasdaq, Inc.

    Specifically, the Company proposes to file a Certificate of Amendment to its Charter with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware to amend Article First of the Charter to reflect the new name. In addition, the Company proposes to amend the title and Article I(f) of the By-Laws to reflect the new name.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,3 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,4 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest. The Company is proposing amendments to its Charter and By-Laws to effectuate its name change to Nasdaq, Inc. The Exchange believes that the changes will protect investors and the public interest by eliminating confusion that may exist because of differences between the Company's corporate name and its current global branding.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of NASDAQ OMX and not to the operations of the Exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

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

    Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-BX-2015-030 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-030. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-030 and should be submitted on or before June 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.5

    5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13173 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75058; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-012] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the Scope of the Definition of “Asset-Backed Security” for Purposes of Reporting to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) System May 28, 2015.

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on May 19, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated the proposed rule cha