Federal Register Vol. 80, No.113,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 113 (June 12, 2015)

Page Range33397-34021
FR Document

80_FR_113
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 33574 - 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 34021 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Actions and Policies of Certain Members of the Government of Belarus and Other Persons to Undermine Belarus's Democratic Processes or InstitutionsPDF
80 FR 33569 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 33519 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 33570 - Information Collection: NRC Form 748, National Source Tracking Transaction ReportPDF
80 FR 33548 - Notice of Proposed Action: Crude Helium Sale and Auction for Fiscal Year 2016 DeliveryPDF
80 FR 33546 - Notice of Availability of Record of Decision for the John Day Basin Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 33546 - Proposed Information Collection, OMB Control Number 1004-XXXXPDF
80 FR 33550 - Notice of Relocation: Change of Street Address for Albuquerque District and Rio Puerco Field OfficesPDF
80 FR 33412 - Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo ZonePDF
80 FR 33460 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2016 Critical Use Exemption From the Phaseout of Methyl BromidePDF
80 FR 33515 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Update of Two Chapters in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost ManualPDF
80 FR 33552 - Notice of Request for Nominations and Meeting Cancellation for the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Advisory CommissionPDF
80 FR 33551 - Cancellation of the Big Cypress National Preserve Off-Road Vehicle Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 33552 - Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee 2015 Meeting SchedulePDF
80 FR 33479 - Approval of Expansion of Subzone 72B, Eli Lilly and Company, Plainfield, IndianaPDF
80 FR 33479 - Foreign-Trade Zone 8-Toledo, Ohio; Application for Reorganization (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
80 FR 33479 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 64-Jacksonville, Florida; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Saft America Inc. (Lithium-Ion Batteries); Jacksonville, FloridaPDF
80 FR 33588 - The Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Scott County, TennPDF
80 FR 33482 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 33480 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
80 FR 33412 - Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WIPDF
80 FR 33520 - Submission to OMB for Review; Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure (GSA Form 9534 Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Subpoena; Form 4 Government Certificate of Finality; Form 5 Appellant/Applicant Certificate of Finality)PDF
80 FR 33518 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Risk Management Program; Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances Under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)PDF
80 FR 33489 - Procurement List; Addition and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 33485 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 33418 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision to the New York State Implementation Plan for Carbon MonoxidePDF
80 FR 33495 - Submission to OMB for Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Construction Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (Actual Method)PDF
80 FR 33522 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Food Allergen Labeling and ReportingPDF
80 FR 33521 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Waivers of Invivo Demonstration of Bioequivalence of Animal Drugs in Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form and Type A Medicated ArticlesPDF
80 FR 33519 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 33525 - Medical Devices; Exemption From Premarket Notification: Electric Positioning ChairPDF
80 FR 33527 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; XELJANZPDF
80 FR 33497 - Submission to OMB for Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Material and WorkmanshipPDF
80 FR 33545 - Filing of Plats of Survey; NVPDF
80 FR 33532 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 33532 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 33529 - Center for Scientific Review Amended; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 33529 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 33558 - Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
80 FR 33450 - Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive MaterialsPDF
80 FR 33558 - Arts Advisory Panel MeetingsPDF
80 FR 33543 - Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Liquor Code-AmendmentPDF
80 FR 33478 - Notice of Intent To Revise a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 33497 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 33476 - Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests; California; San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Management PlanPDF
80 FR 33571 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments RequestPDF
80 FR 33540 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for Enbridge Line 6B Oil Discharges Near Marshall, MIPDF
80 FR 33456 - Kentucky Regulatory ProgramPDF
80 FR 33537 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species Habitat Conservation PlanPDF
80 FR 33520 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 33493 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 33402 - Partnership Transactions Involving Equity Interests of a PartnerPDF
80 FR 33452 - Aggregation of Basis for Partnership Distributions Involving Equity Interests of a PartnerPDF
80 FR 33451 - Partnership Transactions Involving Equity Interests of a PartnerPDF
80 FR 33551 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 33532 - Homeland Security Advisory Council-MeetingPDF
80 FR 33521 - Agency Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements Under Emergency Review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)PDF
80 FR 33425 - Mandatory Greenhouse Gas ReportingPDF
80 FR 33413 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation PlansPDF
80 FR 33585 - Operational and Signal Modifications for Compliance With Maximum Authorized Passenger Train Speeds and Other Speed RestrictionsPDF
80 FR 33475 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Biomass Crop Assistance ProgramPDF
80 FR 33511 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 33513 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 33512 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 33514 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 33499 - Application for New Awards; Charter Schools Program (CSP); Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter SchoolsPDF
80 FR 33556 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Oil Pollution ActPDF
80 FR 33492 - Notice of Active Duty Service Determinations for Civilian or Contractual GroupsPDF
80 FR 33557 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 Technical Release 91-1PDF
80 FR 33555 - Certain Sulfentrazone, Sulfentrazone Compositions, and Processes for Making Sulfentrazone; Commission's Determination Not To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337, and, on Review, To Set Aside Findings on One Issue and Correct a Typographical Error; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
80 FR 33528 - Recommendations for Preparation and Submission of Animal Food Additive Petitions; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 33526 - Assessment of Male-Mediated Developmental Risk for Pharmaceuticals; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 33574 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Expire CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) Options Every WeekPDF
80 FR 33573 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule ChangePDF
80 FR 33522 - Cell-Based Products for Animal Use; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 33523 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Device Recall AuthorityPDF
80 FR 33524 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Reclassification Petitions for Medical DevicesPDF
80 FR 33458 - Illinois; Disapproval of State Board Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2006 PM2.PDF
80 FR 33579 - Announcement of Startup in a Day Competition-Start Small ModelPDF
80 FR 33460 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Charlotte-Rock Hill; Base Year Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statements Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone StandardPDF
80 FR 33530 - Office of the Director; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 33530 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 33531 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 33529 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 33577 - Announcement of Startup in a Day Competition; Dream Big ModelPDF
80 FR 33413 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Charlotte-Rock Hill; Base Year Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statements Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone StandardPDF
80 FR 33510 - Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Announcement of Public Hearings for the Proposed New England Clean Power Link (NECPL) Transmission LinePDF
80 FR 33541 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
80 FR 33491 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew CollectionPDF
80 FR 33490 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0007, Regulation of Domestic Exchange-Traded OptionsPDF
80 FR 33517 - Chemical Safety Advisory Committee; Establishment of a Federal Advisory Committee; Request for NominationsPDF
80 FR 33572 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 33554 - Certain Welded Line Pipe From Korea and Turkey; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 33483 - NIST Cloud Computing Forum & WorkshopPDF
80 FR 33496 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 33484 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Block Island Transmission SystemPDF
80 FR 33547 - Notice of Intent To Amend the Pony Express Resource Management Plan for the Salt Lake Field Office, Utah, and Prepare an Associated Environmental Assessment for the Eastern Lake Mountains AreaPDF
80 FR 33401 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tribune, KSPDF
80 FR 33467 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna QuotasPDF
80 FR 33584 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Agricultural and Food Transporters Conference (AFTC); Granting of Renewal of ExemptionPDF
80 FR 33397 - Removal of Pilot Pairing RequirementPDF
80 FR 33988 - Revisions to Transportation Safety Requirements and Harmonization With International Atomic Energy Agency Transportation RequirementsPDF
80 FR 33582 - Environmental Impact Statement: Norfolk International Airport, Norfolk, VAPDF
80 FR 33535 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the Na Pua Makani Wind Energy Project, Oahu, HIPDF
80 FR 33553 - Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index ZonePDF
80 FR 33533 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 33583 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in MinnesotaPDF
80 FR 33425 - Authorization of Radiofrequency EquipmentPDF
80 FR 33840 - State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and MalfunctionPDF
80 FR 33590 - Investment Company Reporting ModernizationPDF
80 FR 33718 - Amendments to Form ADV and Investment Advisers Act RulesPDF

Issue

80 113 Friday, June 12, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Commodity Credit Corporation

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Forest Service

See

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Active Duty Service Determinations for Civilian or Contractual Groups, 33492-33493 2015-14383 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33521 2015-14400 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone, 33412 2015-14475 Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI, 33412-33413 2015-14447 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 33485-33490 2015-14441 2015-14442 Commodity Credit Commodity Credit Corporation NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Biomass Crop Assistance Program, 33475-33476 2015-14393 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Provisions Common to Registered Entities, 33491-33492 2015-14333 Regulation of Domestic Exchange-Traded Options, 33490-33491 2015-14332 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33496-33497 2015-14314 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Construction Rate Requirements—Price Ajustment, 33495-33496 2015-14438 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Material and Workmanship, 33497 2015-14432 Arms Sales, 33493-33495, 33497-33499 2015-14406 2015-14414
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools, 33499-33510 2015-14386 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: New England Clean Power Link Transmission Line, 33510-33511 2015-14335
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New York State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide; Revisions, 33418-33425 2015-14439 Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; etc., 33840-33985 2015-12905 South Carolina; Charlotte-Rock Hill; Base Year Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statements Requirements, 33413-33418 2015-14338 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; CFR Correction, 33413 2015-14398 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting; CFR Correction, 33425 2015-14399 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; 2016 Critical Use Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide, 33460-33467 2015-14473 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Illinois; Disapproval of State Board Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 33458-33460 2015-14348 South Carolina; Charlotte-Rock Hill; Base Year Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statements Requirements, 33460 2015-14346 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances under the Clean Air Act, 33518-33519 2015-14445 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 33519 2015-14435 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual Chapter Revisions, 33515-33517 2015-14470 Request for Nominations: Chemical Safety Advisory Committee; Establishment, 33517-33518 2015-14331 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Biomass Crop Assistance Program, 33475-33476 2015-14393 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Establishment of Class E Airspace: Tribune, KS, 33401-33402 2015-14287 Pilot Pairing Requirements, 33397-33401 2015-14248 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Norfolk International Airport, 33582-33583 2015-14202 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment, 33425-33449 2015-14072 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 33519-33520 2015-14500 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 33511-33515 2015-14387 2015-14388 2015-14389 2015-14390 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highways: Minnesota, 33583-33584 2015-14080 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Agricultural and Food Transporters Conference, 33584-33585 2015-14277 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Safety Advisories: Operational and Signal Modifications for Compliance with Maximum Authorized Passenger Train Speeds and Other Speed Restrictions, 33585-33587 2015-14394 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 33520 2015-14407 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Enbridge Line 6B Oil Discharges near Marshall, MI; Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan, 33540-33541 2015-14410 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, 33537-33540 2015-14408 Na Pua Makani Wind Energy Project Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, Oahu, HI, 33535-33537 2015-14194 Permits: Endangered Species; Marine Mammals, 33541-33543 2015-14334 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Food Allergen Labeling and Reporting, 33522 2015-14437 Medical Device Recall Authority, 33523-33524 2015-14359 Reclassification Petitions for Medical Devices, 33524-33525 2015-14358 Waivers of Invivo Demonstration of Bioequivalence of Animal Drugs in Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form and Type A Medicated Articles, 33521-33522 2015-14436 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Assessment of Male-Mediated Developmental Risk for Pharmaceuticals, 33526-33527 2015-14363 Cell-Based Products for Animal Use, 33522 2015-14360 Recommendations for Preparation and Submission of Animal Food Additive Petitions, 33528-33529 2015-14364 Medical Devices: Electric Positioning Chair; Exemption from Premarket Notification, 33525-33526 2015-14434 Regulatory Review Periods for Patent Extensions: XELJANZ, 33527-33528 2015-14433 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Expansions of Trade Zones: Subzone 72B, Eli Lilly and Co., Plainfield, IN, 33479 2015-14455 Production Activities: Saft America Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 64, Jacksonville, FL, 33479 2015-14453 Reorganizations under Alternative Site Frameworks: Foreign-Trade Zone 8, Toledo, OH, 33479-33480 2015-14454 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests; California; San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Management Plan, 33476-33478 2015-14412 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; Rules of Procedures, etc., 33520-33521 2015-14446 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Construction Rate Requirements—Price Ajustment, 33495-33496 2015-14438 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Material and Workmanship, 33497 2015-14432 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

NOTICES Meetings: Homeland Security Advisory Council; Teleconference, 33532-33533 2015-14401
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 33533-33535 2015-14190 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Liquor Code, 33543-33545 2015-14419 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Partnership Transactions Involving Equity Interests of a Partner, 33402-33412 2015-14405 PROPOSED RULES Aggregation of Basis for Partnership Distributions Involving Equity Interests of a Partner, 33452-33456 2015-14404 Partnership Transactions Involving Equity Interests of a Partner, 33451-33452 2015-14403 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy, 33480-33481 2015-14450 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 33482-33483 2015-14451 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Welded Line Pipe from Korea and Turkey, 33554-33555 2015-14319 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Sulfentrazone, Sulfentrazone Compositions, and Processes for Making Sulfentrazone, 33555-33556 2015-14380 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Consent Decrees under the Oil Pollution Act, 33556 2015-14384 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33557-33558 2015-14382 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33546-33547 2015-14484 Crude Helium Sale and Auction for Fiscal Year 2016 Delivery, 33548-33550 2015-14487 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: John Day Basin Resource Management Plan; Record of Decision, 33546 2015-14485 Plats of Survey: Nevada, 33545 2015-14431 Relocation of Albuquerque District and Rio Puerco Field Offices, 33550-33551 2015-14476 Resource Management Plans: Pony Express; Salt Lake Field Office, UT, 33547-33548 2015-14296 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Construction Rate Requirements—Price Ajustment, 33495-33496 2015-14438 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Material and Workmanship, 33497 2015-14432 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 33558 2015-14420 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Institute Food National Institute of Food and Agriculture NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33478-33479 2015-14416 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of Standards and Technology Cloud Computing Forum and Workshop, 33483-33484 2015-14316 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Charter Renewals: Office of the Director, 33530 2015-14345 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 33529-33530 2015-14341 2015-14428 National Cancer Institute, 33530-33531 2015-14342 2015-14344 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 33532 2015-14429 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 33532 2015-14430 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 33529 2015-14427 National Institute on Aging, 33531-33532 2015-14343 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas, 33467-33474 2015-14284 NOTICES Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Construction of the Block Island Transmission System, 33484-33485 2015-14310 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Big Cypress National Preserve Off-Road Vehicle Advisory Committee; Cancellation, 33551 2015-14463 Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Advisory Commission; Request for Nominations and Meeting Cancellation, 33552-33553 2015-14469 Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee, 33552 2015-14460 National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 33551-33552 2015-14402 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Transportation Safety Requirements and Harmonization with International Atomic Energy Agency Transportation Requirements; Revisions, 33988-34018 2015-14212 PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Rulemaking: Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Materials, 33450-33451 2015-14422 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Source Tracking Transaction Report, 33570-33571 2015-14497 Exemptions: Southern California Edison Co. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 33558-33569 2015-14423 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 33569-33570 2015-14619 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue NOTICES Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated with an Index Zone: Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments, 33553-33554 2015-14193 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33571 2015-14411 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 33572-33573 2015-14315 2015-14320 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Belarus; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of June 10, 2015), 34019-34021 2015-14688 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Amendments to a Form and Investment Advisers Act Rules, 33718-33838 2015-12778 Investment Company Reporting Modernization, 33590-33716 2015-12779 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 33574-33577 2015-14362 ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 33573-33574 2015-14361 NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, 33574 C1--2015--13175 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Guidance for Industry and Staff: Announcement of Startup in a Day Competition; Dream Big Model, 33577-33579 2015-14340 Startup in a Day Competition; Start Small Model, 33579-33582 2015-14347 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office PROPOSED RULES Kentucky Regulatory Program, 33456-33457 2015-14409 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Co., Scott County, TN, 33588 2015-14452 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 33590-33716 2015-12779 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 33718-33838 2015-12778 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency, 33840-33985 2015-12905 Part V Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 33988-34018 2015-14212 Part VI Presidential Documents, 34019-34021 2015-14688 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.

80 113 Friday, June 12, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 61 and 121 [Docket No.: FAA-2015-2129; Amdt. Nos. 61-134 and 121-372] RIN 2120-AK68 Removal of Pilot Pairing Requirement AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule conforms Federal Aviation Administration regulations to International Civil Aviation Organization standards and the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act, both of which no longer contain a pilot pairing requirement. Accordingly, this final rule removes the requirement for a pilot in command who has reached age 60 to be paired with a pilot under age 60 in international commercial air transport operations by air carriers conducting flag and supplemental operations, as well as for other pilots serving in certain international operations using civil airplanes on the U.S. registry. The removal of this restriction will allow all pilots serving on airplanes in international commercial air transport with more than one pilot to serve until age 65 without a requirement to be paired with a pilot under age 60.

DATES:

This action becomes effective June 12, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions concerning this document, contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, Air Transportation Division (AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8166; email [email protected]

For legal questions concerning this document, contact Sara Mikolop, Office of the Chief Counsel (AGC-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

The FAA is adopting this final rule without prior notice and public comment effective June 12, 2015. Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. Additionally, section 553(d) of the APA provides a “good cause” exception from the requirement to publish a substantive rule at least 30 days before its effective date.

Recent action by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to remove the requirement in ICAO Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing), Chapter 2 (Licenses and Ratings for Pilots), Standard 2.1.10.1 to pair a pilot in command (PIC) who has reached age 60 with a pilot under age 60, triggered the sunset of the pilot pairing limitation in 49 U.S.C. 44729(c)(1). Based on this action, as of November 13, 2014, the statutory basis for the pilot pairing requirements in §§ 61.3(j)(2), 61.77(g), and 121.383(d)(2) and (e)(2) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) no longer exists and these regulations are contrary to 49 U.S.C. 44729.

The FAA finds that notice and public comment to this immediately adopted final rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because this final rule is limited to conforming 14 CFR parts 61 and 121 with recent changes to statutory requirements pertaining to pilot age limitations. On November 13, 2014, the statutory requirement in 49 U.S.C. 44729(c)(1) for a pilot in command who had reached age 60 to be paired with a pilot under age 60 ceased to be effective, although the regulatory requirements in 14 CFR pertaining to pilot pairing remained in place.

It is contrary to the public interest to allow regulatory requirements pertaining to pilot age limitations to remain in the Code of Federal Regulations when those requirements present a direct conflict with the statutory requirements in the United States Code pertaining to pilot age limitations. Further, under section 553(d)(3) of the APA, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective upon publication to minimize any possible confusion between the statutory requirements pertaining to pilot age limitations in 49 U.S.C. 44729 and the regulatory requirements pertaining to pilot age limitations in §§ 61.3(j)(2), 61.77(g), and 121.383(d)(2) and (e)(2) of 14 CFR.

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. Additionally, the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act (Pub. L. 110-135), codified at 49 U.S.C. 44729, establishes requirements pertaining to pilot age limitations.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate regulations and rules and conform FAA requirements pertaining to pilot age limitations with the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act.

I. Overview of Immediately Adopted Final Rule

This final rule removes the requirements in §§ 61.3(j)(2), 61.77(g), and 121.383(d)(2) and (e)(2) for a PIC who has reached age 60 to be paired with a pilot under age 60 in international commercial air transport operations conducted under part 121, as well as for pilots relying on a certificate issued under part 61 and serving in certain international operations using civil airplanes on the U.S. registry. The removal of this restriction will allow all pilots serving on airplanes in international commercial air transport with more than one pilot, to serve beyond 60 years of age (until 65 years of age) without a requirement to be paired with a pilot under 60 years of age. This final rule conforms FAA regulations with ICAO standards and the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act, which no longer contain a pilot pairing requirement.

II. Background A. Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act

On December 13, 2007, the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act (Pub. L. 110-135) amended Title 49 of the United States Code by adding section 44729. Section 44729(a) raised the age limit for pilots serving in operations under part 121 1 from age 60 to age 65, subject to the limitations in section 44729(c) applicable to PICs on international flights.

1 The statute uses the term “covered operations” to describe part 121 operations. See 49 U.S.C. 44729(b).

Section 44729(c) provided a pilot pairing limitation for PICs serving on international flights. Specifically, section 44729(c)(1) states, “A pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in covered operations between the United States and another country only if there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.” The pilot pairing requirement in section 44729(c)(1) was consistent with the pilot pairing standard in ICAO Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing), Chapter 2 (Licenses and Ratings for Pilots), Standard 2.1.10.1, applicable to multi-pilot crews in effect at the time that section 44729 was added to the United States Code. Until November 13, 2014, Standard 2.1.10.1 stated:

A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.

The Agency notes that for operations with a single pilot, Standard 2.1.10.1 requires the pilot to be under age 60.

The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act also provided for a self-executing sunset of the pilot pairing requirement. Specifically, section 44729(c)(2) provides that the pilot pairing requirement in section 44729(c)(1) would cease to be effective on the date that ICAO removed the pilot pairing limitation in Standard 2.1.10.1. Section 44729(c)(2) states that “[p]aragraph [c](1), shall cease to be effective on such date as the Convention on International Civil Aviation provides that a pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in international commercial operations without regard to whether there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not attained age 60.”

B. “Part 121 Pilot Age Limit” Final Rule

On July 15, 2009, the FAA published the “Part 121 Pilot Age Limit” final rule (74 FR 34229) to conform FAA regulations to the statutory requirements in the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 44729). Based on the statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 44729, the 2009 final rule raised the pilot age limitation from 60 to 65 and added the pilot pairing requirement for pilots conducting part 121 operations and other multi-pilot operations, between or over the territory of more than one country using U.S.-registered airplanes.

In the 2009 final rule preamble, the Agency stated that it believed that the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act intended to harmonize FAA regulations with the ICAO standard pertaining to pilot age limitations and pilot pairing requirements, which would encompass international operations in addition to the part 121 operations identified by the Act. See 74 FR 34229, 34230 (July 15, 2009). The ICAO standard pertaining to pilot age limitations and pilot pairing applies to pilots serving in operations between his or her home state and another country, as well as between two territories outside of his or her home state.

Accordingly, to harmonize the Agency's regulations with the ICAO standard and further the intent of the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act, the 2009 final rule added the pilot age limitations and pilot pairing requirement for pilots conducting operations between two international territories using U.S.-registered airplanes and relying on certificates issued under part 61.2 As a result, for multi-pilot operations, the 2009 final rule increased the maximum age for a pilot to serve and added the pilot pairing requirement for part 121 operations and certain other international air service and air transportation operations using airplanes on the U.S. registry (See §§ 61.3(j), 61.77(e) and (g), and 121.383(d) and (e)).

2 The Agency notes that in accordance with 14 CFR 129.5(b), each foreign air carrier conducting operations within the United States must conduct its operations in accordance with the Standards contained in Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing), Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft), Part I (International Commercial Air Transport-Aeroplanes) or Part III (International Operations-Helicopters), as appropriate, and in Annex 8 (Airworthiness of Aircraft) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Additionally, in accordance with § 129.1(b), operations of U.S.-registered aircraft solely outside of the United States in common carriage by a foreign person or a foreign air carrier must also be in compliance with the ICAO Standards identified in § 129.5(b). Therefore, for these operations, the ICAO amendment to the pilot pairing limitation applies without further change to 14 CFR. The FAA further notes that beginning on the date the ICAO amendment became applicable (November 13, 2014), as an ICAO member state, no foreign air carrier conducting operations under part 129 may conduct operations to or from the United States with any pilot who has reached age 65. This same limitation applies to operations covered by § 129.1(b).

The 2009 final rule did not change the maximum age for pilots serving in international operations covered by § 61.3(j)(1) using a single pilot (i.e., the pilot must be under age 60). See § 61.3(j)(2) and 61.77(g). A pilot is only permitted to continue to serve upon reaching age 60 if that pilot serves as a member of a multi-pilot crew that includes a pilot under age 60. Thus, as was the case prior to the 2009 final rule, operations covered by § 61.3(j)(1) that use a single pilot can only be operated by a pilot who has not yet reached 60 years of age.

C. ICAO Amendment 172 to Annex 1, Personnel Licensing, Standard 2.1.10.1

During a meeting of the ICAO Council on March 3, 2014, Council members adopted Amendment 172 to Annex 1, Personnel Licensing. The amendment removed the requirement in Standard 2.1.10.1 to pair a PIC who has reached age 60 with a pilot under age 60, and renumbered the standard as 2.1.10. Without the pairing requirement, all pilots on multi-pilot crews serving in international air transport commercial operations may continue to serve as long as they have not reached 65 years of age.3 Amendment 172 to Annex 1, Personnel Licensing, became applicable on November 13, 2014.

3 Amendment 172 to Annex 1, Personnel Licensing, does not change the existing maximum age permitted for pilots engaged in single-pilot operations. Pilots serving in single-pilot operations must be under age 60.

D. Effect of ICAO Amendment and Sunset of 49 U.S.C. 44729(c)(1) on FAA Regulations

As previously discussed, 49 U.S.C. 44729(c)(2) states that the pilot pairing requirement in 49 U.S.C. 44729(c)(1) ceases to be effective when ICAO removes the pilot pairing requirement from Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing), Chapter 2 (Licenses and Ratings for Pilots), Standard 2.1.10.1. On November 13, 2014, the revised Standard 2.1.10, that no longer contains the pilot pairing requirement, became applicable. Accordingly, on November 13, 2014, the pilot pairing limitation of 49 U.S.C. 44729(c)(1) ceased to be effective.

The FAA subsequently published a Notice of Policy (79 FR 67346, November 13, 2014) explaining that once the pilot pairing limitation of 49 U.S.C. 44729(c)(1) ceased to be effective, the statutory basis for the pilot pairing requirements in 14 CFR 61.3(j)(2), 61.77(g) and 121.383(d)(2) and (e)(2) would no longer exist, and those regulations would be contrary to 49 U.S.C. 44729. Based on the foregoing, in the Notice of Policy, the FAA further stated that it would no longer enforce the pilot pairing requirements contained in 14 CFR 61.3(j)(2), 61.77(g), and 121.383(d)(2) and (e)(2) as of the date the ICAO amendment became applicable and corresponding sunset of 49 U.S.C. 44729(c)(1). The ICAO amendment became applicable and the sunset of 49 U.S.C. 44729(c)(1) took place on November 13, 2014.

III. Discussion of Immediately Adopted Final Rule

This final rule conforms FAA regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) with the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act by removing the current pilot pairing requirements from parts 121 and 61. Specifically, the Agency has amended § 121.383(d) and (e) to allow all pilots serving in part 121 operations of any kind (i.e., domestic, flag, or supplemental) to serve as long as that pilot has not reached his or her 65th birthday. Additionally, the Agency has amended §§ 61.3 and 61.77 to allow all pilots relying on a certificate issued under part 61 and serving in certain international operations using civil airplanes on the U.S. registry to continue to serve in multi-pilot crews as long as they have not reached their 65th birthday. The maximum age for pilots serving in single pilot crews in operations covered by § 61.3(j)(1) has not changed.

This rulemaking provides relieving changes that create the opportunity for scheduling efficiencies because only the maximum pilot age of 65 needs to be considered in bidding for, or flying international flights. All pilots serving in any kind of part 121 operation (i.e., domestic, flag, or supplemental) may continue to serve until they reach their 65th birthday, regardless of the age of the other pilot(s) on their flightcrew. This rulemaking also provides relieving changes for certain other pilots with certificates issued in accordance with part 61, who serve with multi-pilot crews in international operations using civil airplanes on the U.S. registry.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.

Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:

This final rule is relieving in that it removes the requirement to pair a pilot who has reached age 60 with a pilot who is under age 60 in international operations covered by part 121 and certain other international operations identified in §§ 61.3 and 61.77. The removal of this pilot pairing requirement eases flight scheduling and crew rest requirement costs because, for multi-pilot operations, only the maximum pilot age of 65 needs to be considered in bidding for, or flying international flights covered by part 121 and certain other international operations. The expected outcome will be lower costs. Therefore, a regulatory evaluation was not prepared.

FAA has therefore determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and it is not “significant” as defined in DOT's regulatory policies and procedures provided in DOT 2100.5.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

The FAA believes that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This final rule removes the age-based pilot pairing requirements from parts 121 and 61. The expected result will be reduced costs or minimal cost for any small entity affected by this rulemaking action. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it conforms to international standards regarding pilot age limits and, therefore, does not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this immediately adopted final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. The FAA has determined that this action would eliminate differences between U.S. aviation standards and those of other civil aviation authorities by conforming FAA regulations to the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices.

G. Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The Agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; therefore, this final rule does not have Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the Executive Order, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information A. Rulemaking Documents

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet—

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or

3. Access the Government Publishing Office's Web page at: http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 61

Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS 1. The authority citation for part 61 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 44729, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

2. Amend § 61.3 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (j)(1) introductory text; b. Remove paragraph (j)(2); and c. Redesignate paragraph (j)(3) as paragraph (j)(2).

The revision reads as follows:

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings and authorizations.

(j) * * *

(1) Age limitation. No person who holds a pilot certificate issued under this part may serve as a pilot on a civil airplane of U.S. registry in the following operations if the person has reached his or her 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot, his or her 65th birthday:

3. Amend § 61.77 as follows: A. Revise paragraph (e) introductory text; B. Remove paragraph (g); and C. Redesignate paragraphs (h) through (j) as paragraphs (g) through (i), respectively.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 61.77 Special purpose pilot authorization: Operation of a civil aircraft of the United States and leased by a non-U.S. citizen.

(e) Age limitation. No person who holds a special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part may serve as a pilot on a civil airplane of U.S. registry in the following operations if the person has reached his or her 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot, his or her 65th birthday:

PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 4. The authority citation for part 121 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44729, 44732, 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).

5. Amend § 121.383 by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
§ 121.383 Airman: Limitations on use of services.

(d) No certificate holder may use the services of any person as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under this part if that person has reached his or her 65th birthday.

(e) No pilot may serve as a pilot in operations under this part if that person has reached his or her 65th birthday.

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2015. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-14248 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0744; Airspace Docket No. 14-ACE-5] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tribune, KS AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace at Tribune, KS. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Tribune Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, August 20, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. The Order is also 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.

FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Tribune Municipal Airport, Tribune, KS.

History

On November 20, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tribune Municipal Airport, Tribune, KS, (79 FR 69072). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Tribune Municipal Airport, Tribune, KS, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at the airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E. “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ACE KS E5 Tribune, KS [New] Tribune Municipal Airport, KS (Lat. 38°27′05″ N., long. 101°45′00″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Tribune Municipal Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 5, 2015. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-14287 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9722] RIN 1545-BM35 Partnership Transactions Involving Equity Interests of a Partner AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final and temporary regulations.

SUMMARY:

This document contains final and temporary regulations that prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner. These regulations affect partnerships and their partners. The text of these temporary regulations serves as the text of proposed regulations (REG-149518-03) published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register.

DATES:

Effective Date: These regulations are effective on June 12, 2015.

Applicability Date: For dates of applicability, see §§ 1.337(d)-3T(i) and 1.732-1T(c)(5).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Concerning the final and temporary regulations, Kevin I. Babitz, (202) 317-6852.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The General Utilities Doctrine and Its Repeal

In General Utilities & Operating Co. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 200 (1935), the Supreme Court held that corporations generally could distribute appreciated property to their shareholders without the recognition of any corporate level gain (the General Utilities doctrine). Beginning in 1969, Congress enacted a series of exceptions to the General Utilities doctrine, starting with certain non-liquidating distributions of depreciable property. In the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Public Law 97-248, 96 Stat. 324, Congress enacted current section 311(b) (originally designated as section 311(d)), which required a corporation to recognize gain on appreciated property distributed to a shareholder in redemption of shares. In 1984, Congress enacted legislation that required gain recognition for all non-liquidating distributions. Finally, as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, (the Act), Congress repealed what remained of the General Utilities doctrine by enacting section 336(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to apply gain and loss recognition to liquidating distributions. Under current law, sections 311(b) and 336(a) of the Code require a corporation that distributes appreciated property to its shareholders to recognize gain determined as if the property were sold to the shareholders for its fair market value. Additionally, section 631 of the Act added section 337(d) to the Code to permit the Secretary to prescribe regulations that are necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the General Utilities repeal, “including regulations to ensure that [the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine] may not be circumvented through the use of any provision of law or regulations.”

1992 Proposed Regulations

After the enactment of sections 311(b) and 337(d), the Treasury Department and the IRS became aware of transactions in which taxpayers used a partnership to postpone or avoid completely gain generally required to be recognized under section 311(b). In one example of this transaction, a corporation entered into a partnership and contributed appreciated property. The partnership then acquired stock of that corporate partner, and later made a liquidating distribution of this stock to the corporate partner. Under section 731(a), the corporate partner did not recognize gain on the partnership's distribution of its stock. By means of this transaction, the corporation had disposed of the appreciated property it formerly held and had acquired its own stock, permanently avoiding its gain in the appreciated property. If the corporation had directly exchanged the appreciated property for its own stock, section 311(b) would have required the corporation to recognize gain upon the exchange.

In response to this type of transaction, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 89-37, 1989-1 CB 679, on March 9, 1989. Notice 89-37 announced that future regulations under section 337(d) would address the use of partnerships to avoid the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine. Specifically, the Treasury Department and the IRS determined that, in certain circumstances, the acquisition (or ownership) by a partnership of stock in one of its corporate partners (or stock of any member of the affiliated group of which the partner is a member) results in avoidance of the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine. Such avoidance occurs to the extent that a corporate partner, in substance, relinquishes an interest in appreciated property in exchange for an interest in its stock (or the stock of an affiliate). The Notice provided that section 311(b), rather than section 731(a), would apply when a partner received a distribution of its own stock, and that the partner would recognize gain whenever a pre-distribution transaction has the economic effect of an exchange of appreciated property for the partner's own stock.

On December 15, 1992, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking under section 337(d) (PS-91-90, REG-208989-90, 1993-1 CB 919) in the Federal Register (57 FR 59324) addressing partnership transactions involving stock of a partner (the 1992 proposed regulations). The 1992 proposed regulations adopted two rules to protect the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine: the deemed redemption rule (the 1992 deemed redemption rule) and the distribution rule (the 1992 distribution rule). The 1992 proposed regulations also provided de minimis and inadvertence exceptions to these two rules.

The 1992 deemed redemption rule addressed pre-distribution transactions involving corporate partner stock owned or acquired by the partnership. The Treasury Department and the IRS believed that certain of these transactions created the economic effect of an exchange of appreciated property for corporate partner stock. The 1992 deemed redemption rule provided that a corporate partner recognizes gain at the time of, and to the extent that, any transaction (or series of transactions) has the economic effect of an exchange by the partner of its interest in appreciated property for an interest in its stock (or the stock of any member of the affiliated group of which such partner is a member) owned, acquired, or distributed by the partnership.

The 1992 distribution rule provided that a partnership's distribution to a partner of the partner's stock is treated as a redemption or an exchange of the stock of the partner for a portion of the partner's partnership interest with a value equal to the distributed stock. Thus, the 1992 distribution rule applied section 311(b) principles to the distribution to trigger gain to the corporate partner, rather than applying section 731, which would not have required gain recognition. The 1992 distribution rule ensured that section 311(b) would apply to any acquisition by the corporate partner of its own stock where the 1992 deemed redemption rule had not applied. The preamble to the 1992 proposed regulations indicated that commenters on the Notice raised concerns that the 1992 distribution rule could duplicate gain recognition and suggested a modified approach. However, the 1992 proposed regulations rejected the modified approach as overly complex.

As noted previously, the 1992 proposed regulations applied to stock of a partner, to stock of a partner's affiliate, and to other equity interests in the partner or affiliate. The 1992 proposed regulations used a modified affiliation standard to determine whether a partner and another corporation were affiliates. The 1992 proposed regulations treated a corporation as an affiliate of a partner at the time of a deemed redemption or distribution by the partnership if, immediately thereafter, the partner and corporation were members of an affiliated group as defined in section 1504(a) without regard to section 1504(b) (section 337(d) affiliation). On January 19, 1993, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 93-2, 1993-1 CB 292, which stated that the 1992 proposed regulations would be amended to limit the application of the regulations to transactions in which section 337(d) affiliation existed immediately before the deemed redemption or distribution. The Treasury Department and the IRS indicated that further study was required for cases in which section 337(d) affiliation did not exist prior to a distribution of stock by a partnership to a corporate partner, but resulted from the distribution.

The Treasury Department and the IRS received several written comments in response to Notice 89-37, the 1992 proposed regulations, and Notice 93-2. Commenters largely supported the 1992 deemed redemption rule, though some suggested modifications. Some commenters, however, opposed the 1992 distribution rule, asserting that the rule is overly broad and inconsistent with the deemed redemption rule. These comments are discussed in detail in the Explanation of Provisions section of this preamble.

After considering these comment letters, and taking into account subsequent changes in relevant law as described in part 1 of this preamble, the Treasury Department and the IRS are withdrawing the 1992 proposed regulations and simultaneously issuing temporary and final regulations that also serve as the text of new proposed regulations published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

Explanation of Provisions

The purpose of these regulations authorized under section 337(d) is to prevent corporate taxpayers from using a partnership to circumvent gain required to be recognized under section 311(b) or section 336(a). These regulations, including the rules governing the amount and timing of recognized gain, must be applied in a manner consistent with, and which reasonably carries out, this purpose.

These regulations apply when a partnership, either directly or indirectly, owns, acquires, or distributes Stock of the Corporate Partner (as defined in part 1 of this preamble). Under these regulations, a Corporate Partner (as defined in part 1 of this preamble) may recognize gain when it is treated as acquiring or increasing its interest in Stock of the Corporate Partner held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property in a manner that avoids gain recognition under section 311(b) or section 336(a). The regulations also provide exceptions under which a Corporate Partner is not required to recognize gain.

These regulations retain the 1992 deemed redemption rule with the modifications described in part 2 of this preamble. However, these regulations remove the 1992 distribution rule in response to comments. In its place, these regulations apply the deemed redemption rule to partnership distributions of Stock of the Corporate Partner to the Corporate Partner as though the partnership amended its agreement, immediately before the distribution, to allocate 100 percent of the distributed stock to the Corporate Partner.

1. Scope and Definitions

These regulations apply to certain partnerships that hold stock of a Corporate Partner. For this purpose, a “Corporate Partner” is defined as a person that holds or acquires an interest in a partnership and that is classified as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. The regulations define “Stock of the Corporate Partner” expansively to include the Corporate Partner's stock, or other equity interests, including options, warrants, and similar interests, in the Corporate Partner or a corporation that controls (within the meaning of section 304(c)) the Corporate Partner. Stock of the Corporate Partner also includes interests in any entity to the extent that the value of the interest is attributable to Stock of the Corporate Partner.

These definitions of Corporate Partner and Stock of the Corporate Partner are consistent with those set forth in the 1992 proposed regulations except for two changes. First, these regulations modify the definition of Stock of the Corporate Partner. Based on changes in the law and comments received, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the scope of the definition of “Stock of a Partner” in the 1992 proposed regulations was too narrow in certain instances and too broad in others. These regulations broaden the definition of Stock of a Corporate Partner to include stock or other equity interests of any corporation that controls the Corporate Partner within the meaning of section 304(c) (section 304(c) control), whereas the 1992 proposed regulations' definition was limited to stock or other equity interests issued by the Corporate Partner and its section 337(d) affiliates. Section 304(c) control generally exists when there is ownership of stock of a corporation possessing at least 50 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of the corporation's stock that is entitled to vote or at least 50 percent of the value of the shares of all classes of stock of the corporation, while control of a corporation under section 1504(a)(2) requires ownership of stock of the corporation possessing at least 80 percent of the total voting power of the stock of the corporation and at least 80 percent of the total value of the stock of the corporation. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe the lower threshold for control set forth in section 304(c) is the more appropriate standard for this purpose because General Utilities repeal could be avoided by acquiring stock of a corporation that owns less than 80 percent of the vote and value of the Corporate Partner's stock. In addition, these regulations narrow the definition of Stock of a Corporate Partner to exclude stock of any corporation that does not possess section 304(c) control of the Corporate Partner, even if the corporation is a section 337(d) affiliate or a member of the same consolidated group as the Corporate Partner. The enactment of sections 732(f) and 755(c) subsequent to the issuance of the 1992 proposed regulations generally have served to prevent abusive transactions involving partnerships that own stock of lower tier section 337(d) affiliates of the Corporate Partner. Accordingly, these regulations do not apply to a partnership that owns, acquires, or distributes stock of any section 337(d) affiliate of the Corporate Partner unless that affiliate possesses section 304(c) control of the Corporate Partner. The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to study the application of these provisions and plan to issue additional guidance as needed to address further abuses in this area. Comments are requested regarding such guidance.

Second, these regulations add an exception for certain related-party partners. Under this exception, Stock of the Corporate Partner does not include any stock or other equity interest held or acquired by a partnership if all interests in the partnership's capital and profits are held by members of an affiliated group defined in section 1504(a) that includes the Corporate Partner. Thus, these regulations do not apply if, for example, a domestic corporation and its wholly owned domestic subsidiary (each of which is an includible corporation under section 1504(b)) are the only partners in a partnership and either corporation contributes stock of another affiliate. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that this additional exception is appropriate because the purpose of these regulations is not implicated if a partnership is owned entirely by affiliated corporations. The Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on whether this exception should be extended, for example, to partnerships owned by controlled foreign corporations that are owned entirely by a single affiliated group.

For partnerships that hold Stock of the Corporate Partner, these regulations apply to a transaction (or series of transactions) that is a “Section 337(d) Transaction.” These regulations define a Section 337(d) Transaction as a transaction that has the effect of an exchange by a Corporate Partner of its interest in appreciated property for an interest in Stock of the Corporate Partner owned, acquired, or distributed by a partnership. For example, a Section 337(d) Transaction may occur if: (i) A Corporate Partner contributes appreciated property to a partnership that owns Stock of the Corporate Partner; (ii) a partnership acquires Stock of the Corporate Partner; (iii) a partnership that owns Stock of the Corporate Partner distributes appreciated property to a partner other than the Corporate Partner; (iv) a partnership distributes stock of the Corporate Partner to the Corporate Partner; or (v) a partnership agreement is amended in a manner that increases a Corporate Partner's interest in the Stock of the Corporate Partner (including in connection with a contribution to, or distribution from, a partnership).

If a partnership engages in a Section 337(d) Transaction, the Corporate Partner must recognize gain. The regulations define a “Gain Percentage” that the partnership uses to quantify the amount of gain recognized. The computation of the Gain Percentage is set forth in part 2 of this preamble.

2. Deemed Redemption Rule

These regulations largely retain the 1992 deemed redemption rule. If a transaction is a Section 337(d) Transaction described in part 1 of this preamble, a Corporate Partner must recognize gain under the deemed redemption rule. To determine the amount of gain, the Corporate Partner must first determine the amount of appreciated property (other than Stock of the Corporate Partner) effectively exchanged for Stock of the Corporate Partner (by value) and then calculate the amount of taxable gain recognized.

These regulations set forth general principles that apply in determining the amount of appreciated property effectively exchanged for Stock of the Corporate Partner. These general principles require that the Corporate Partner's economic interest with respect to both Stock of the Corporate Partner and all other appreciated property of the partnership be determined based on all facts and circumstances, including the allocation and distribution rights set forth in the partnership agreement. The deemed redemption rule applies only to the extent that the transaction has the effect of an exchange by the Corporate Partner of its interest in appreciated property for Stock of the Corporate Partner. Thus, these regulations do not apply to the extent a transaction has the effect of an exchange by a Corporate Partner of non-appreciated property for Stock of the Corporate Partner or has the effect of an exchange by a Corporate Partner of appreciated property for property other than Stock of the Corporate Partner.

A Corporate Partner must recognize gain under these regulations even if the Section 337(d) Transaction would not otherwise change the Corporate Partner's allocable share of gain under section 704(c). For example, if a Corporate Partner contributes appreciated property to a newly-formed partnership and an individual contributes cash that the partnership subsequently uses to purchase Stock of the Corporate Partner, then the purchase of the stock is a Section 337(d) Transaction even though the Corporate Partner's allocable share of gain in the appreciated property under section 704(c) is the same before and after the purchase. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that this gain recognition is appropriate because a Section 337(d) Transaction may create an immediate benefit to the Corporate Partner equivalent to the benefit associated with the redemption of corporate stock in exchange for appreciated property. See Example 4 of § 1.337(d)-3T(h) in these regulations.

If the Corporate Partner has an existing interest in the partnership's Stock of the Corporate Partner prior to the Section 337(d) Transaction, the deemed redemption rule applies only with respect to the Corporate Partner's incremental increase in the Stock of the Corporate Partner. For example, changing allocations to increase a Corporate Partner's interest in the Stock of the Corporate Partner from 50 percent to 80 percent and to decrease the Corporate Partner's interest in other appreciated property from 80 percent to 50 percent would have the effect of an exchange by the Corporate Partner of the 30-percent incremental decrease in its interest in the appreciated property for the 30-percent incremental increase in the Stock of the Corporate Partner. See Example 5 of § 1.337(d)-3T(h) in these regulations.

For purposes of recognizing gain under the deemed redemption rule, the Corporate Partner's interest in an identified share of Stock of the Corporate Partner will never be less than the Corporate Partner's largest interest (by value) in that share of Stock of the Corporate Partner that was taken into account when the partnership previously determined whether there had been a Section 337(d) Transaction (regardless of whether the Corporate Partner recognized gain in the earlier transaction). See Example 6 of § 1.337(d)-3T(h) in these regulations. This rule ensures that alternating increases and decreases in a Corporate Partner's interest in Stock of the Corporate Partner do not cause duplicate gain recognition. This limitation does not apply if any reduction in the Corporate Partner's interest in the identified share of Stock of the Corporate Partner occurred as part of a plan or arrangement to circumvent the purpose of these regulations. See Example 7 of § 1.337(d)-3T(h) in these regulations.

In certain limited circumstances, a partnership's acquisition of Stock of the Corporate Partner does not have the effect of an exchange of appreciated property for that stock. For example, as one commenter asserted, if a partnership with an operating business uses the cash generated in that business to purchase Stock of the Corporate Partner, the deemed redemption rule should not apply to the stock purchase because the Corporate Partner's share in appreciated property has not been reduced, and thus no exchange has occurred. The Treasury Department and the IRS acknowledge that such stock acquisitions would not contravene the purposes of these regulations. Accordingly, these regulations adopt this comment and do not apply to stock purchases or other transactions that do not have the effect of an exchange of appreciated property for Stock of the Corporate Partner.

If a transaction is a Section 337(d) Transaction, the deemed redemption rule requires the Corporate Partner to recognize a percentage of its total gain in partnership appreciated property equal to a fraction, the numerator of which is the Corporate Partner's interest (by value) in appreciated property effectively exchanged for Stock of the Corporate Partner under the deemed redemption rule, and the denominator of which is the Corporate Partner's interest (by value) in appreciated property immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction. This fraction is defined in these regulations as the “Gain Percentage.” The Corporate Partner's gain under the deemed redemption rule equals the product of (i) the Corporate Partner's Gain Percentage and (ii) the gain from the appreciated property that is the subject of the exchange that the that the Corporate Partner would recognize if, immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction, all assets of the partnership and any assets contributed to the partnership in the section 337(d) Transaction were sold in a fully taxable transaction for cash in an amount equal to the fair market value of such property (taking into account section 7701(g)), reduced, but not below zero, by any gain the Corporate Partner is required to recognize with respect to the appreciated property in the Section 337(d) Transaction under any other section of the Code. For example, if a Corporate Partner would be allocated $100x of tax gain on a sale of appreciated partnership property (other than Stock of the Corporate Partner) and the Corporate Partner's interest in that appreciated partnership property (determined under all facts and circumstances) is $500x, and if the partnership engages in a Section 337(d) Transaction that reduces the Corporate Partner's interest in appreciated partnership property by $200x and increases the Corporate Partner's interest in Stock of the Corporate Partner by $200x, then the Corporate Partner's Gain Percentage equals 40% (200x/500x), and the Corporate Partner's gain under the deemed redemption rule is $40x (40% of $100x).

The gain from the hypothetical sale used to compute gain under the deemed redemption rule is determined by applying the principles of section 704(c), which generally requires the partnership to take into account variations between the adjusted tax basis and fair market value of partnership property at the time it is contributed to the partnership and upon certain other events that allow or require the value of partnership property to be redetermined under § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(f). See Examples 3 and 5 of § 1.337(d)-3T(h) in these regulations. A partner's share of gain under section 704(c) for this purpose includes any remedial allocations under § 1.704-3(d) for a partnership that has elected under section 704(c) to report notional items of offsetting tax gain and loss to its partners to eliminate distortions that may arise when the partnership's total tax gain or loss on the sale of partnership property is less than all partners' aggregate share of gain or loss from the property.

These regulations also contain two rules related to the effect of the deemed redemption rule on partner and partnership basis. First, these regulations require the Corporate Partner to increase its basis in its partnership interest by an amount equal to the gain that the Corporate Partner recognizes in a Section 337(d) Transaction. This basis increase is necessary to prevent the Corporate Partner from recognizing gain a second time when the partnership liquidates (or, if property is distributed to the Corporate Partner, when that property is sold).

Second, the regulations require the partnership to increase its adjusted tax basis in the appreciated property that is treated as the subject of a Section 337(d) Transaction by the amount of gain that the Corporate Partner recognized with respect to that property as a result of the Section 337(d) Transaction. This basis increase applies regardless of whether the partnership has elected under section 754 to adjust the basis of partnership property. This rule prevents the Corporate Partner from recognizing gain a second time when the partnership sells the property that was effectively exchanged under the deemed redemption rule.

One commenter suggested that when a partnership owns or acquires stock in a Corporate Partner's subsidiary or a sister of the Corporate Partner and the stock is not issued as part of the transaction, the deemed redemption rule should not apply unless and until a subsequent transaction relating to the stock creates tax consequences that are inconsistent with General Utilities repeal. As discussed in part 1 of this preamble, these regulations only apply to Stock of a Corporate Partner, which under these regulations, does not include stock in a Corporate Partner's sister corporation or subsidiary unless such corporation possesses section 304(c) control of the Corporate Partner. Such control could exist, if, for example, a Corporate Partner's subsidiary were to own so-called “hook stock” in the Corporate Partner. If such control of the Corporate Partner does exist, then it is appropriate to treat stock of a Corporate Partner's subsidiary or sister corporation as Stock of the Corporate Partner because the value of that sister or subsidiary corporation's stock owned or acquired by the partnership is in part attributable to the Corporate Partner's stock.

Another commenter suggested that the deemed redemption rule is no longer necessary. The commenter explained that the acquisition of Stock of the Corporate Partner is not the appropriate time to impose tax and that the 1992 distribution rule and changes in the law since 1989 make it more difficult to exit a partnership tax-free. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not adopt this comment because a Section 337(d) Transaction may create an immediate benefit to the Corporate Partner equivalent to the benefit associated with the redemption of corporate stock in exchange for appreciated property. If the deemed redemption rule does not apply at the time of this exchange, the Corporate Partner can defer paying tax on this economic benefit in a manner that is inconsistent with section 311(b).

3. Partnership Distributions of Stock of the Corporate Partner

The 1992 distribution rule required a Corporate Partner to recognize gain when the partnership distributes Stock of the Corporate Partner to the Corporate Partner. Commenters noted a number of concerns with this rule and recommended eliminating it.

Several commenters noted that the rule was overly broad because it could cause the Corporate Partner to recognize gain in an amount that exceeded the appreciation in property effectively exchanged for the stock. For example, the rule could require a Corporate Partner to recognize gain upon a partnership's distribution of appreciated Stock of the Corporate Partner even though the partnership held no other appreciated property. One commenter stated that the 1992 distribution rule would therefore require the Corporate Partner to recognize gain on appreciation inherent in its partnership interest, even though the distribution does not implicate the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine and even though section 1032 provides for nonrecognition of gain on the distribution. The commenter maintained that the 1992 distribution rule should not apply when a Corporate Partner merely exchanges an indirect interest in its own stock for a direct interest in its own stock.

The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with these comments and adopt new rules governing the tax consequences of a distribution of Stock of the Corporate Partner to that Corporate Partner. Instead of adopting the 1992 distribution rule, these regulations extend the deemed redemption rule to certain distributions to the Corporate Partner of Stock of the Corporate Partner. These new rules governing distributions apply only if the distributed stock has previously been the subject of a Section 337(d) Transaction or becomes the subject of a Section 337(d) Transaction as a result of the distribution (a section 337(d) distribution). Additionally, these regulations do not apply to a distribution to the Corporate Partner of the Stock of the Corporate Partner to which section 732(f) applies at the time of the distribution. If the deemed redemption rule applies to a distribution, these regulations deem the partnership to amend its agreement immediately before the distribution to allocate 100 percent of the distributed stock to the Corporate Partner and to allocate an appropriately reduced interest in other partnership property away from the Corporate Partner. This deemed allocation is solely for purposes of recognizing gain under these regulations, and no inference is intended with regard to the treatment of such allocations generally.

If a distribution is a section 337(d) distribution, then in addition to any gain recognized under the deemed redemption rule upon the distribution of Stock of the Corporate Partner to the Corporate Partner, these regulations also require the Corporate Partner to recognize gain to the extent that the partnership's basis in the distributed Stock of the Corporate Partner exceeds the Corporate Partner's basis in its partnership interest (as reduced by any cash distributed in the transaction) immediately before the distribution. Recognition of gain in this circumstance is necessary to prevent the Corporate Partner from shifting basis away from its own stock onto other property of the partnership. The regulations provide an exception to this additional gain recognition rule if the gain recognition or basis reduction rules of section 732(f) apply at the time of the distribution. Although this exception generally ensures that gain recognized as a result of these regulations will not be duplicated as a result of section 732(f), duplication may still result in certain circumstances. For example, if a Corporate Partner recognizes gain under section 337(d) on a partnership distribution and section 732(f) does not apply to the distribution because the section 732(f) control requirement is not satisfied at the time of the distribution, but the control requirement is subsequently satisfied triggering section 732(f), then the Corporate Partner could recognize gain under both provisions. The Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on how the rules in these regulations should be coordinated with section 732(f).

These regulations set forth two rules under sections 337 and 732 to coordinate the effects of the rule requiring gain recognition when the Stock of the Corporate Partner is stepped down on a section 337(d) distribution with existing rules for determining the basis of property upon partnership distributions. The first rule applies for purposes of determining the basis of property distributed to the Corporate Partner (other than the basis of the Corporate Partner in its own stock), the basis of the Corporate Partner's remaining partnership interest, and the partnership's basis in undistributed Stock of the Corporate Partner, and for purposes of computing gain on the distribution. For these purposes, the basis of Stock of the Corporate Partner distributed to the Corporate Partner equals the greater of: (i) The partnership's basis of that distributed Stock of the Corporate Partner immediately before the distribution, or (ii) the fair market value of that distributed Stock of the Corporate Partner immediately before the distribution less the Corporate Partner's allocable share of gain from all of the Stock of the Corporate Partner if the partnership sold all of its assets in a fully taxable transaction for cash in an amount equal to the fair market value of such property (taking into account section 7701(g)) immediately before the distribution. See Examples 2 and 3 of § 1.337(d)-3T(h) in these regulations. This special rule is necessary to prevent basis from shifting away from distributed Stock of the Corporate Partner to other property. This basis shift could occur, for example, upon a distribution of less than all of the partnership's Stock of the Corporate Partner to the Corporate Partner. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on this rule, including comments on whether its objectives would be better achieved through guidance under section 732 providing that on a distribution of a partial interest in partnership property, the basis of the distributed property in the hands of the distributee partner is determined by taking the principles of section 704(c) into account.

A second rule applies when a Corporate Partner receives both Stock of the Corporate Partner and other property in a section 337(d) distribution. Under this rule, the basis to be allocated to the properties distributed under section 732(a) or (b) is allocated first to the Stock of the Corporate Partner before taking into account the distribution of any other property (other than cash). Therefore, before taking into account the distribution of other property, the Corporate Partner will reduce its basis in its partnership interest by the Corporate Partner's basis in the distributed Stock of the Corporate Partner (but not below zero). The Corporate Partner will determine its basis in other distributed partnership property and in its remaining partnership interest after giving effect to this reduction. This rule, which governs the application of sections 732(a) and 732(b), is being promulgated pursuant to the specific statutory grant of authority in section 337(d)(1) to ensure that the purposes of the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine are not circumvented through the use of any provision of law or regulations.

When a Corporate Partner receives a partnership distribution of its own stock, it is unclear under existing law whether the Corporate Partner has basis in that stock. (See, for example, Rev. Rul. 2006-2, 2006-1 CB 261.) The resolution of this question is beyond the scope of these regulations. However, because the distribution to a Corporate Partner of its own stock affects the Corporate Partner's basis in other distributed property and any retained partnership interest, these regulations require the partnership and the Corporate Partner to determine the basis of other distributed property and any retained partnership interest by reference to the partnership's basis in the distributed Stock of the Corporate Partner. That is, the Corporate Partner determines its basis in other distributed property and in any retained partnership interest as though the distributed stock was stock other than Stock of the Corporate Partner. Similarly, the regulations compute any gain recognition on the distribution by comparing the Corporate Partner's basis in its partnership interest to the basis of that Stock of the Corporate Partner in the hands of the partnership (without regard to whether the Corporate Partner can have basis in the distributed stock). No inference is intended with respect to the question of whether a corporation has or does not have basis in its own stock.

4. De Minimis and Inadvertence Exceptions

These regulations retain the de minimis and inadvertence exceptions from the 1992 proposed regulations, but make small modifications to the de minimis rule to reduce burden. As set forth in these regulations, the de minimis rule provides that these regulations do not apply to a Corporate Partner if three conditions are satisfied. These conditions are tested upon the occurrence of a Section 337(d) Transaction and upon any subsequent revaluation event described in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(f).

The first condition requires that both the Corporate Partner and any persons related to the Corporate Partner under section 267(b) or section 707(b) own, in the aggregate, less than five percent of the partnership. The second condition requires that the partnership hold Stock of the Corporate Partner worth less than two percent of the value of the partnership's gross assets, including Stock of the Corporate Partner. The third condition requires that the partnership has never, at any point in time, held more than $1,000,000 in Stock of the Corporate Partner or more than two percent of any particular class of Stock of the Corporate Partner. The 1992 proposed regulations contained similar conditions, but capped the permissible value of the partnership's Stock of the Corporate Partner at $250,000.

These regulations provide a special rule that applies if the conditions of the de minimis rule are satisfied at the time of a Section 337(d) Transaction, but are not satisfied at the time of a subsequent Section 337(d) Transaction or revaluation event described in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(f). This rule provides that, solely for purposes of the deemed redemption rule, a Corporate Partner may determine its gain on the subsequent acquisition or revaluation event as if it had already recognized gain at the previous event. Accordingly, the Corporate Partner would only recognize gain with respect to appreciation arising between the earlier acquisition or revaluation event and the subsequent event. Neither the Corporate Partner nor the partnership increases its basis by the gain the Corporate Partner would have recognized if the de minimis rule did not apply to the prior acquisition or revaluation event.

These regulations also contain an inadvertence exception. The inadvertence exception provides that these regulations do not apply to Section 337(d) Transactions in which the partnership satisfies two requirements. First, the partnership must dispose of, by sale or distribution, the Stock of the Corporate Partner before the due date (including extensions) of its federal income tax return for the taxable year in which the partnership acquired the stock (or in which the Corporate Partner joined the partnership, if applicable). Second, the partnership must not have distributed the Stock of the Corporate Partner to the Corporate Partner or a person possessing section 304(c) control of the Corporate Partner. Other than broadening and narrowing the scope of related distributees as a result of the modified definition of Stock of the Corporate Partner, this inadvertence exception is generally unchanged from the 1992 proposed regulations. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS will consider comments with respect to removing the prohibition against distributions of Stock of the Corporate Partner to the Corporate Partner in light of the enactment of section 737, which requires a partner to recognize gain on property with built-in gain contributed to a partnership when the partnership distributes other property to the partner within seven years of the contribution.

5. Tiered Partnerships

The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that taxpayers could use tiered partnerships to circumvent these regulations. Therefore, these regulations require taxpayers to apply these regulations to tiered partnerships in a manner consistent with the regulations' purpose. See Example 8 of § 1.337(d)-3T(h) in these regulations.

Effective/Applicability Date

These regulations apply to transactions occurring on or after June 12, 2015.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this Treasury Decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. For the applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Drafting Information

The principal authors of these regulations are Joseph R. Worst and Kevin I. Babitz, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Amendment to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

PART I—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read as follows: Authority:

26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Section 1.337(d)-3T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 337(d). * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.337(d)-3T is added to read as follows:
§ 1.337(d)-3T Gain recognition upon certain partnership transactions involving a partner's stock (temporary).

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to prevent corporate taxpayers from using a partnership to circumvent gain required to be recognized under section 311(b) or section 336(a). The rules of this section, including the determination of the amount of gain, must be applied in a manner that is consistent with and that reasonably carries out this purpose.

(b) In general. This section applies when a partnership, either directly or indirectly, owns, acquires, or distributes Stock of the Corporate Partner (within the meaning of paragraph (c)(2) of this section). Under paragraphs (d) or (e) of this section, a Corporate Partner (within the meaning of paragraph (c)(1) of this section) is required to recognize gain when a transaction has the effect of the Corporate Partner acquiring or increasing an interest in its own stock in exchange for appreciated property in a manner that contravenes the purpose of this section as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. Paragraph (f) of this section sets forth exceptions under which a Corporate Partner does not recognize gain.

(c) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this section:

(1) Corporate Partner. A Corporate Partner is a person that is classified as a corporation for federal income tax purposes and holds or acquires an interest in a partnership.

(2) Stock of the Corporate Partner—(i) In general. With respect to a Corporate Partner, Stock of the Corporate Partner includes the Corporate Partner's stock, or other equity interests, including options, warrants, and similar interests, in the Corporate Partner or a corporation that controls (within the meaning of section 304(c)) the Corporate Partner. Stock of the Corporate Partner also includes interests in any entity to the extent that the value of the interest is attributable to Stock of the Corporate Partner.

(ii) Affiliated partner exception. Stock of the Corporate Partner does not include any stock or other equity interests held or acquired by a partnership if all interests in the partnership's capital and profits are held by members of an affiliated group as defined in section 1504(a) that includes the Corporate Partner.

(3) Section 337(d) Transaction. A Section 337(d) Transaction is a transaction (or series of transactions) that has the effect of an exchange by a Corporate Partner of its interest in appreciated property for an interest in Stock of the Corporate Partner owned, acquired, or distributed by a partnership. For example, a Section 337(d) Transaction may occur when—

(i) A Corporate Partner contributes appreciated property to a partnership that owns Stock of the Corporate Partner;

(ii) A partnership acquires Stock of the Corporate Partner;

(iii) A partnership that owns Stock of the Corporate Partner distributes appreciated property to a partner other than a Corporate Partner;

(iv) A partnership distributes Stock of the Corporate Partner to the Corporate Partner; or

(v) A partnership agreement is amended in a manner that increases a Corporate Partner's interest in Stock of the Corporate Partner (including in connection with a contribution to, or distribution from, a partnership).

(4) Gain Percentage. A Corporate Partner's Gain Percentage equals a fraction, the numerator of which is the Corporate Partner's interest (by value) in appreciated property effectively exchanged for Stock of the Corporate Partner under the test described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, and the denominator of which is the Corporate Partner's interest (by value) in that appreciated property immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction. Paragraph (d) of this section requires a partnership to multiply the Gain Percentage by the Corporate Partner's aggregate gain in appreciated property to determine gain recognized under this section.

(d) Deemed redemption rule—(1) In general. A Corporate Partner in a partnership that engages in a Section 337(d) Transaction recognizes gain at the time, and to the extent, that the Corporate Partner's interest in appreciated property (other than Stock of the Corporate Partner) is reduced in exchange for an increased interest in Stock of the Corporate Partner, as determined under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This section does not apply to the extent a transaction has the effect of an exchange by a Corporate Partner of non-appreciated property for Stock of the Corporate Partner or has the effect of an exchange by a Corporate Partner for property other than Stock of the Corporate Partner.

(2) Corporate Partner's Interest in Partnership Property. The Corporate Partner's interest with respect to both Stock of the Corporate Partner and the appreciated property that is the subject of the exchange is determined based on all facts and circumstances, including the allocation and distribution rights set forth in the partnership agreement. The Corporate Partner's interest in an identified share of Stock of the Corporate Partner will never be less than the Corporate Partner's largest interest (by value) in that share of Stock of the Corporate Partner that was taken into account when the partnership previously determined whether there had been a Section 337(d) Transaction with respect to such share (regardless of whether the Corporate Partner recognized gain in the earlier transaction). See Example 6 of paragraph (h) of this section. However, this limitation will not apply if any reduction in the Corporate Partner's interest in the identified share of Stock of the Corporate Partner occurred as part of a plan or arrangement to circumvent the purpose of this section. See Example 7 of paragraph (h) of this section.

(3) Amount of gain recognized on the exchange. The amount of gain the Corporate Partner recognizes under paragraph (d)(1) of this section equals the product of the Corporate Partner's Gain Percentage and the gain from the appreciated property that is the subject of the exchange that the Corporate Partner would recognize if, immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction, all assets of the partnership and any assets contributed to the partnership in the Section 337(d) Transaction were sold in a fully taxable transaction for cash in an amount equal to the fair market value of such property (taking into account section 7701(g)), reduced, but not below zero, by any gain the Corporate Partner is required to recognize with respect to the appreciated property in the Section 337(d) Transaction under any other provision of this chapter. This gain is computed taking into account allocations of tax items applying the principles of section 704(c), including any remedial allocations under § 1.704-3(d).

(4) Basis adjustments—(i) Corporate Partner's basis in the partnership interest. The basis of the Corporate Partner's interest in the partnership is increased by the amount of gain that the Corporate Partner recognizes under this paragraph (d).

(ii) Partnership's basis in partnership property. The partnership's adjusted tax basis in the appreciated property that is treated as the subject of the exchange under this paragraph (d) is increased by the amount of gain recognized with respect to that property by the Corporate Partner as a result of that exchange, regardless of whether the partnership has an election in effect under section 754.

(e) Distribution of Stock of the Corporate Partner—(1) In general. This paragraph (e) applies to distributions to the Corporate Partner of Stock of the Corporate Partner to which section 732(f) does not apply and that have previously been the subject of a Section 337(d) Transaction or become the subject of a Section 337(d) Transaction as a result of the distribution. Upon the distribution of Stock of the Corporate Partner to the Corporate Partner, paragraph (d) of this section will apply as though immediately before the distribution the partners amended the partnership agreement to allocate to the Corporate Partner a 100 percent interest in that portion of the Stock of the Corporate Partner that is distributed and to allocate an appropriately reduced interest in other partnership property away from the Corporate Partner.

(2) Basis rules—(i) Basis allocation on distributions of stock and other property. If, as part of the same transaction, a partnership distributes Stock of the Corporate Partner and other property (other than cash) to the Corporate Partner, see § 1.732-1T(c)(1)(iii) for a rule allocating basis first to the Stock of the Corporate Partner before the distribution of the other property.

(ii) Computation of Basis. For purposes of determining the basis of property distributed to the Corporate Partner (other than the basis of the Corporate Partner in its own stock), the basis of the Corporate Partner's remaining partnership interest, and the partnership's basis in undistributed Stock of the Corporate Partner, and for purposes of computing gain under paragraph (e)(3) of this section, the partnership's basis of Stock of the Corporate Partner distributed to the Corporate Partner equals the greater of—

(A) The partnership's basis of that distributed Stock of the Corporate Partner immediately before the distribution, or

(B) The fair market value of that distributed Stock of the Corporate Partner immediately before the distribution less the Corporate Partner's allocable share of gain from all of the Stock of the Corporate Partner if the partnership sold all of its assets in a fully taxable transaction for cash in an amount equal to the fair market value of such property (taking into account section 7701(g)) immediately before the distribution.

(3) Gain recognition. The Corporate Partner will recognize gain on a distribution of Stock of the Corporate Partner to the Corporate Partner to the extent that the partnership's basis in the distributed Stock of the Corporate Partner (as determined under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section) exceeds the Corporate Partner's basis in its partnership interest (as reduced by any cash distributed in the transaction) immediately before the distribution.

(f) Exceptions—(1) De minimis rule—(i) In general. This section does not apply to a Corporate Partner if at the time that the partnership acquires Stock of the Corporate Partner or at the time of a revaluation event as described in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(f) (without regard to whether or not the partnership revalues its assets)—

(A) The Corporate Partner and any persons related to the Corporate Partner under section 267(b) or section 707(b) own in the aggregate less than five percent of the partnership;

(B) The partnership holds Stock of the Corporate Partner with a value of less than two percent of the partnership's gross assets (including the Stock of the Corporate Partner); and

(C) The partnership has never, at any point in time, held in the aggregate—

(1) Stock of the Corporate Partner with a fair market value greater than $1,000,000; or

(2) More than two percent of any particular class of Stock of the Corporate Partner.

(ii) De minimis rule ceases to apply. If a partnership satisfies the conditions of the de minimis rule of paragraph (f)(1) of this section upon an acquisition of Stock of the Corporate Partner or revaluation event as described in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(f), but later fails to satisfy the conditions of the de minimis rule upon a subsequent acquisition or revaluation event, then solely for purposes of paragraph (d) of this section, the Corporate Partner may compute its gain on the subsequent acquisition or revaluation event as if it had already recognized gain at the previous event. Neither the Corporate Partner nor the partnership increases its basis by the gain the Corporate Partner would have recognized if the de minimis rule of paragraph (f)(1) of this section did not apply to the prior acquisition or revaluation event.

(2) Inadvertence rule. Unless acquired as part of a plan to circumvent the purpose of this section, this section does not apply to Stock of the Corporate Partner that—

(i) Is disposed of (by sale or distribution) by the partnership before the due date (including extensions) of its federal income tax return for the taxable year during which the Stock of the Corporate Partner is acquired (or for the taxable year in which the Corporate Partner becomes a partner, whichever is applicable); and

(ii) Is not distributed to the Corporate Partner or a corporation possessing section 304(c) control of the Corporate Partner.

(g) Tiered partnerships. The rules of this section shall apply to tiered partnerships in a manner that is consistent with the purpose set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.

(h) Examples. The following examples illustrate the principles of this section. All amounts in the following examples are reported in millions of dollars:

Example 1.

Deemed redemption rule—contribution of Stock of a Corporate Partner. (i) In Year 1, X, a corporation, and A, an individual, form partnership AX as equal partners in all respects. X contributes Asset 1 with a fair market value of $100 and a basis of $20. A contributes X stock, which is Stock of the Corporate Partner, with a basis and fair market value of $100.

(ii) Because A and X are equal partners in AX in all respects, the partnership formation causes X's interest in X stock to increase from $0 to $50 and its interest in Asset 1 to decrease from $100 to $50. Thus, the partnership formation is a Section 337(d) Transaction because the formation has the effect of an exchange by X of $50 of Asset 1 for $50 of X stock.

(iii) X must recognize gain under paragraph (d) of this section with respect to Asset 1 to prevent the circumvention of section 311(b) principles. X's gain equals the product of X's Gain Percentage and the gain from Asset 1 that X would recognize (decreased, but not below zero, by any gain that X recognized with respect to Asset 1 in the Section 337(d) Transaction under any other provision of this chapter) if, immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction, all assets were sold in a fully taxable transaction for cash in an amount equal to the fair market value of such property. If Asset 1 had been sold in a fully taxable transaction immediately before the formation of partnership AX, X's allocable share of gain would have been $80. X's Gain Percentage is 50% (equal to a fraction, the numerator of which is X's $50 interest in Asset 1 effectively exchanged for X stock, and the denominator of which is X's $100 interest in Asset 1 immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction). Thus, X recognizes $40 of gain ($80 multiplied by 50%) under the deemed redemption rule in paragraph (d) of this section. Under paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section, X's basis in its AX partnership interest increases from $20 to $60. Under paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, AX's basis in Asset 1 increases from $20 to $60 because Asset 1 is the appreciated property treated as the subject of the exchange.

Example 2.

Distribution of Stock of the Corporate Partner—pro rata distribution. (i) The facts are the same as in Example 1(i). AX liquidates in Year 9, when Asset 1 and the X stock each have a fair market value of $200. X and A each receive 50% of Asset 1 and 50% of the X stock in the liquidation. At the time AX liquidates, X's basis in its AX partnership interest is $60 and A's basis in its AX partnership interest is $100.

(ii) When AX liquidates, X's interests in its stock and in Asset 1 do not change. Thus, the liquidation is not a Section 337(d) Transaction because it does not have the effect of an exchange by X of appreciated property for Stock of the Corporate Partner.

(iii) Paragraph (e) of this section applies because the distributed X stock was the subject of a previous Section 337(d) Transaction and because section 732(f) does not apply. Under § 1.732-1T(c)(1)(iii), the distribution to X of X stock is deemed to immediately precede the distribution of 50% of Asset 1 to X for purposes of determining X's basis in the distributed property. For purposes of determining X's basis in Asset 1 and X's gain on distribution, the basis of the distributed X stock is treated as $50, the greater of $50 (50% of the stock's $100 basis in the hands of the partnership), or $50, the fair market value of that distributed X stock ($100) less X's allocable share of gain from the distributed X stock if AX had sold all of its assets in a fully taxable transaction for cash in an amount equal to the fair market value of such property immediately before the distribution ($50). Thus, X reduces its basis in its partnership interest by $50 prior to the distribution of Asset 1. Accordingly, X's basis in the distributed portion of Asset 1 is $10. Because AX's basis in the distributed X stock immediately before the distribution ($50) does not exceed X's basis in its AX partnership interest immediately before the distribution ($60), X recognizes no gain under paragraph (e)(3) of this section.

Example 3.

Distribution of Stock of the Corporate Partner—non pro rata distribution. (i) The facts are the same as Example 2(i), except that when AX liquidates, X receives 75% of the X stock and 25% of Asset 1 and A receives 25% of the X stock and 75% of Asset 1.

(ii) The liquidation of AX causes X's interest in X stock to increase from $100 to $150 and its interest in Asset 1 to decrease from $100 to $50. Thus, AX's liquidating distributions of X stock and Asset 1 to X are a Section 337(d) Transaction because the distributions have the effect of an exchange by X of $50 of Asset 1 for $50 of X stock.

(iii) X must recognize gain with respect to Asset 1 to prevent the circumvention of section 311(b) principles. Under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, paragraph (d) of this section is applied as if X and A amended the AX partnership agreement to allocate to X a 100% interest in the distributed portion of the X stock. X must recognize gain equal to the product of X's Gain Percentage and the gain from Asset 1 that X would have recognized (decreased, but not below zero, by any gain X recognized with respect to Asset 1 in the Section 337(d) Transaction under any other provision of this chapter) if, immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction, AX had sold all of its assets in a fully taxable transaction for cash in an amount equal to the fair market value of such property.

(iv) If Asset 1 had been sold in a fully taxable transaction immediately before the amendment of the AX partnership agreement, X's allocable share of gain would have been $90, or the sum of X's $40 remaining gain under section 704(c) and $50 of the $100 post-contribution appreciation. X's Gain Percentage is 50% (equal to a fraction, the numerator of which is X's $50 interest in Asset 1 effectively exchanged for X stock, and the denominator of which is X's $100 interest in Asset 1 immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction). Thus, X recognizes $45 of gain ($90 multiplied by 50%) under the deemed redemption rule in paragraph (d) of this section. Under paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section, X's basis in its AX partnership interest increases from $60 to $105. Under paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, AX's basis in Asset 1 increases from $60 to $105 because Asset 1 is the appreciated property treated as the subject of the exchange.

(v) Paragraph (e) of this section applies because the distributed X stock was the subject of a previous Section 337(d) Transaction and because section 732(f) does not apply. Under § 1.732-1T(c)(1)(iii), AX is treated as first distributing the X stock to X before the distribution of 25% of Asset 1. For purposes of determining X's basis in Asset 1 and X's gain on distribution, the basis of the distributed X stock is treated as $100, the greater of $75 (75% of the stock's $100 basis in the hands of the partnership) or $100, the fair market value of the distributed X stock ($150) less X's allocable share of gain if the partnership had sold all of the X stock immediately before the distribution for cash in an amount equal to its fair market value ($50). Thus, X will reduce its basis in its partnership interest by $100 prior to the distribution of Asset 1. Accordingly, X's basis in the distributed portion of Asset 1 is $5. Because AX's basis in the distributed X stock immediately before the distribution as computed for purposes of this section ($100) does not exceed X's basis in its AX partnership interest immediately before the distribution ($105), X recognizes no additional gain under paragraph (e)(3) of this section.

Example 4.

Deemed redemption rule—subsequent purchase of Stock of the Corporate Partner. The facts are the same as Example 1(i), except that A contributes cash of $100 instead of X stock. In a later year, when the value of Asset 1 has not changed, AX uses the contributed cash to purchase X stock for $100. AX's purchase of X stock has the effect of an exchange by X of appreciated property for X stock, and thus, is a Section 337(d) Transaction. X must recognize gain at the time, and to the extent, that X's share of appreciated property (other than X stock) is reduced in exchange for X stock. Thus, the consequences of the partnership's purchase of X stock are the same as those described in Example 1(ii) and (iii), resulting in X recognizing $40 of gain.

Example 5.

Change in allocation ratios—amendment of partnership agreement. (i) The facts are the same as Example 2(i), except that in Year 9, AX does not liquidate, and the AX partnership agreement is amended to allocate to X 80% of the income, gain, loss, and deduction from the X stock and to allocate to A 80% of the income, gain, loss, and deduction from Asset 1. If AX had sold the partnership assets immediately before the change to the partnership agreement, X would have been allocated $90 of gain from Asset 1 and $50 of gain from the X stock.

(ii) The amendment to the AX partnership agreement causes X's interest in its stock to increase from $100 (50% of the stock value immediately before the amendment of the agreement) to $160 (80% of stock value immediately following amendment of agreement) and its interest in Asset 1 to decrease from $100 to $40. Thus, the amendment of the partnership agreement is a Section 337(d) Transaction because the amendment has the effect of an exchange by X of $60 of Asset 1 for $60 of its stock.

(iii) X must recognize gain equal to the product of X's Gain Percentage and the gain from Asset 1 that X would have recognized (decreased, but not below zero, by any gain X recognized with respect to Asset 1 in the Section 337(d) Transaction under any other provision of this chapter) if, immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction, AX had sold all of its assets in a fully taxable transaction for cash in an amount equal to the fair market value of such property. If Asset 1 had been sold in a fully taxable transaction immediately before the amendment of the AX partnership agreement, X's allocable share of gain would have been $90, or the sum of X's $40 remaining gain under section 704(c) and 50% of the $100 post-contribution appreciation. X's Gain Percentage is 60% (equal to a fraction, the numerator of which is X's $60 interest in Asset 1 effectively exchanged for X stock, and the denominator of which is X's $100 interest in Asset 1 immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction). Thus, X recognizes $54 of gain ($90 multiplied by 60%) under the deemed redemption rule in paragraph (d) of this section. Under paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section, X's basis in its AX partnership interest increases from $60 to $114. Under paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, AX's basis in Asset 1 increases from $60 to $114 because Asset 1 is the appreciated property treated as the subject of the exchange.

Example 6.

Change in allocation ratios—admission and exit of a partner. (i) The facts are the same as Example 1(i). In addition, in Year 2, when the values of Asset 1 and the X stock have not changed, B contributes $100 of cash to AX in exchange for a one-third interest in the partnership. Upon the admission of B as a partner, X's interest in Asset 1 decreases from $50 to $33.33, and its interest in B's contributed cash increases. B's admission is not a Section 337(d) Transaction because it does not have the effect of an exchange by X of its interest in Asset 1 for X stock. Accordingly, X does not recognize gain under paragraph (d) of this section.

(ii) In Year 9, when the values of Asset 1 and the X stock have not changed, the partnership distributes $50 of cash and 50% of Asset 1 (valued at $50) to B in liquidation of B's interest. X and A are equal partners in all respects after the distribution. Upon the liquidation of B's interest, X's interest in Asset 1 decreases from $33.33 to $25, and its interest in X stock increases from $33.33 to $50. AX's liquidation of B's interest has the effect of an exchange by X of appreciated property for X stock, and thus, is a Section 337(d) Transaction.

(iii) Pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section, X's interest in X stock and other appreciated property held by the partnership is determined based on all facts and circumstances, including allocation and distribution rights in the partnership agreement. However, paragraph (d)(2) of this section also requires that X's interest in its stock for purposes of paragraph (d) will never be less than the Corporate Partner's largest interest (by value) in those shares of Stock of the Corporate Partner taken into account when the partnership previously determined whether there had been a Section 337(d) Transaction (regardless of whether the Corporate Partner recognized gain in the earlier transaction). Although X's interest in X stock increases to $50 upon AX's liquidation of B's interest, X's largest interest previously taken into account under paragraph (d)(1) of this section was $50. Thus, X's interest in its stock is not considered to be increased, and X therefore recognizes no gain under paragraph (d) of this section, provided that the transactions did not occur as part of a plan or arrangement to circumvent the purpose of this section.

Example 7.

Change in allocation ratios—plan to circumvent purpose of this section. (i) In Year 1, X, a corporation, and A, an individual, contribute a small amount of capital to newly-formed partnership AX, with X receiving a 99% interest in AX and A receiving a 1% interest in AX. AX borrows $100 from a third-party lender and uses the proceeds to purchase X stock, which is Stock of the Corporate Partner. Later, as part of a plan or arrangement to circumvent the purposes of this section, A contributes $100 of cash, which AX uses to repay the loan, and X contributes Asset 1 with a fair market value of $100 and basis of $20. After these contributions, A and X are equal partners in AX in all respects.

(ii) Pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section, X's interest in X stock and other appreciated property held by the partnership is determined based on all facts and circumstances, including allocation and distribution rights in the partnership agreement. Generally pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section, X's interest in X stock for purposes of paragraph (d) will never be less than the Corporate Partner's largest interest (by value) in those shares of Stock of the Corporate Partner taken into account when the partnership previously determined whether there had been a Section 337(d) Transaction (regardless of whether the Corporate Partner recognized gain in the earlier transaction). This limitation does not apply, however, if the reduction in X's interest in X's stock occurred as part of a plan or arrangement to circumvent the purpose of this section. Because the transactions described in this example are part of a plan or arrangement to circumvent the purpose of this section, the limitation in paragraph (d)(2) of this section does not apply. Accordingly, the deemed redemption rule under paragraph (d) of this section applies to the transactions with the consequences described in Example 1(iii) of this section, resulting in X recognizing $40 of gain.

Example 8.

Tiered partnership. (i) In Year 1, X, a corporation, and A, an individual, form partnership UTP. X contributes Asset 1 with a fair market value of $80 and a basis of $0 in exchange for an 80% interest in UTP. A contributes $20 of cash in exchange for a 20% interest in UTP. UTP and B, an individual, form partnership LTP as equal partners. UTP contributes Asset 1 and $20 of cash. B contributes X stock, which is Stock of the Corporate Partner, with a basis and fair market value of $100.

(ii) Pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section, the rules of this section shall apply to tiered partnerships in a manner that is consistent with the purpose set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. Pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, if X is in a partnership that engages in a Section 337(d) Transaction, X must recognize gain at the time, and to the extent, that X's share of appreciated property is reduced in exchange for X stock. The formation of LTP causes X's interest in X stock to increase from $0 to $40 and its interest in Asset 1 to decrease from $64 to $32. Thus, LTP's formation is a Section 337(d) Transaction because the formation has the effect of an exchange by X of $32 of Asset 1 for $32 of X stock.

(iii) X must recognize gain with respect to Asset 1 to prevent the circumvention of section 311(b) principles. X must recognize gain equal to the product of X's Gain Percentage and the gain from Asset 1 (decreased, but not below zero, by any gain X recognized with respect to Asset 1 in the Section 337(d) Transaction under any other provision of this chapter) that X would recognize if, immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction, all assets were sold in a fully taxable transaction for cash in an amount equal to the fair market value of such property. If Asset 1 had been sold in a fully taxable transaction immediately before LTP's formation, X's allocable share of gain would have been $80 pursuant to section 704(c). X's Gain Percentage is 50% (equal to a fraction, the numerator of which is X's $32 interest in Asset 1 effectively exchanged for X stock, and the denominator of which is X's $64 interest in Asset 1 immediately before the Section 337(d) Transaction). Thus, X recognizes $40 of gain ($80 multiplied by 50%) under the deemed redemption rule in paragraph (d) of this section. Under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii) of this section, X's basis in its UTP partnership interest increases from $0 to $40, UTP's basis in its LTP partnership interest increases from $20 to $60, and LTP's basis in Asset 1 increases from $0 to $40 pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section.

(i) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to transactions occurring on or after June 12, 2015.

(j) Expiration date. This section expires on June 11, 2018.

Par. 3. Section 1.732-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (5) to read as follows:
§ 1.732-1 Basis of distributed property other than money.

(c) * * * (1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.732-1T(c)(1).

(5) Effective/applicability date—(i) In general. This paragraph (c) applies to distributions of property from a partnership that occur on or after December 15, 1999.

(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.732-1T(c)(5)(ii).

Par. 4. Section 1.732-1T is added to read as follows:
§ 1.732-1T Basis of distributed property other than money (temporary).

(a) and (b) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.732-1(a) and (b).

(c) Allocation of basis among properties distributed to a partner—(1) General rule—(i) Unrealized receivables and inventory items. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, the basis to be allocated to properties distributed to a partner under section 732(a)(2) or (b) is allocated first to any unrealized receivables (as defined in section 751(c)) and inventory items (as defined in section 751(d)(2)) in an amount equal to the adjusted basis of each such property to the partnership immediately before the distribution. If the basis to be allocated is less than the sum of the adjusted bases to the partnership of the distributed unrealized receivables and inventory items, the adjusted basis of the distributed property must be decreased in the manner provided in § 1.732-1(c)(2)(i). See § 1.460-4(k)(2)(iv)(D) for a rule determining the partnership's basis in long-term contract accounted for under a long-term contract method of accounting.

(ii) Other distributed property. Any basis not allocated to unrealized receivables or inventory items under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section or to stock of persons that control the corporate partner or to the corporate partner's stock under paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section is allocated to any other property distributed to the partner in the same transaction by assigning to each distributed property an amount equal to the adjusted basis of the property to the partnership immediately before the distribution. However, if the sum of the adjusted bases to the partnership of such other distributed property does not equal the basis to be allocated among the distributed property, any increase or decrease required to make the amounts equal is allocated among the distributed property as provided in § 1.732-1(c)(2).

(iii) Stock distributed to the corporate partner. If a partnership makes a distribution described in § 1.337(d)-3T(e)(1), then for purposes of this section, the basis to be allocated to properties distributed under section 732(a)(2) or (b) is allocated first to the Stock of the Corporate Partner, as defined in § 1.337(d)-3T(c)(2), before the distribution of any other property (other than cash). The amount allocated to the Stock of the Corporate Partner is as provided in § 1.337(d)-3T(e)(2).

(2) through (5)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.732-1(c)(2) through (c)(5)(i).

(ii) Exception. Nothwithstanding paragraph (c)(5)(i), the first sentence of each of paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this section, and paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section in its entirety, apply to distributions of Stock of the Corporate Partner, as defined in § 1.337(d)-3T(c)(2), that occur on or after June 12, 2015.

(d) and (e) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.732-1(d) and (e).

(f) Expiration date. This section expires on June 11, 2018.

John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: June 1, 2015. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2015-14405 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0421] Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

At various times throughout the month of July, the Coast Guard will enforce certain safety zones that are codified in regulation. This action is necessary and intended for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during this event. During each enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(13) will be enforced on July 3, 2015 from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this notice, call or email Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd. Buffalo, NY 14203; Coast Guard telephone 716-843-9343, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:

Tom Graves Memorial Fireworks, Port Bay, NY; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(13) will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2015.

Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter one of these safety zones may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter one of these safety zones shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that this safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

Dated: June 1, 2015. B.W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2015-14475 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [USCG-2012-0375] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI for annual fireworks displays in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone at specified times from June 6, 2015 until September 12, 2015. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks displays. During the aforementioned periods, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.935 will be enforced at specified times from June 6, 2015 until September 12, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7148, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI, at the following times for the following events:

(1) Pridefest fireworks display on June 6, 2015 from 9:15 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.;

(2) Polish Fest fireworks display on June 13, 2015 from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;

(3) Summerfest fireworks display on each day of June 24, 2015 and July 2, 2015 from 9:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.;

(4) Festa Italiana fireworks display on each day of July 17, 18, and 19, 2015 from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;

(5) German Fest fireworks display on each day of July 24 and 25, 2015 from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;

(6) Irish Fest fireworks display on August 13, 2015 from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;

(7) Indian Summer fireworks display on each day of September 11 and 12, 2015 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.

This safety zone will encompass the waters of Lake Michigan within Milwaukee Harbor including the Harbor Island Lagoon enclosed by a line connecting the following points: beginning at 43°02′00″ N., 087°53′53″ W.; then south to 43°01′44″ N., 087°53′53″ W.; then east to 43°01′44″ N., 087°53′25″ W.; then north to 43°02′00″ N., 087°53′25″ W.; then west to the point of origin. All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.935 Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement periods via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Dated: May 29, 2015. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-14447 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans CFR Correction

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52 (§§ 52.01 to 52.1018), revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 49, in § 52.21, paragraph (aa)(10)(v) is reinstated to read as follows:

§ 52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

(aa) * * *

(10) * * *

(v) If the compliance date for a State or Federal requirement that applies to the PAL source occurs during the PAL effective period, and if the Administrator has not already adjusted for such requirement, the PAL shall be adjusted at the time of PAL permit renewal or title V permit renewal, whichever occurs first.

[FR Doc. 2015-14398 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0915; FRL-9928-88-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Charlotte-Rock Hill; Base Year Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statements Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve the portions of the state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of South Carolina, through South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on August 8, 2014, and August 22, 2014, that address the base year emissions inventory and emissions statements requirements for the State's portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill North Carolina-South Carolina 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “bi-state Charlotte Area” or “Area”). Annual emissions reporting (i.e., emissions statements) and a base year emissions inventory are required for all ozone nonattainment areas. The Area is comprised of the entire county of Mecklenburg and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Rowan, and Union Counties in North Carolina and a portion of York County in South Carolina. EPA has published proposed and direct final actions on the emissions inventory and emissions statements requirements for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area in separate rulemaking documents.

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective August 11, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 13, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0915, by one of the following methods:

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

2. Email: [email protected].

3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.

4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0915,” Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's 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-R04-OAR-2014-0915. 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 through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached at (404) 562-9088 and via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

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

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The bi-state Charlotte Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time of designation, the bi-state Charlotte Area was classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On March 6, 2015, EPA finalized a rule entitled “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (SIP Requirements Rule) that establishes the requirements that state, tribal, and local air quality management agencies must meet as they develop implementation plans for areas where air quality exceeds the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1 See 80 FR 12264. This rule establishes nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA, including an attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012, effective date, for areas classified as marginal for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the attainment date for the bi-state Charlotte Area is July 20, 2015.

1 The SIP Requirements Rule addresses a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology, reasonably available control measures, major new source review, emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. The rule also revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS and establishes anti-backsliding requirements.

Based on the nonattainment designation, South Carolina was required to develop a SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements for the Area. Specifically, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and section 182(a)(1), South Carolina was required to submit a SIP revision addressing the emissions statements and emissions inventory requirements, respectively.

Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOC. Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires each state with ozone nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision requiring annual emissions statements to be submitted to the state by the owner or operator of each NOX or VOC stationary source 2 located within a nonattainment area showing the actual emissions of NOX and VOC from that source. The first statement is due three years from the area's nonattainment designation, and subsequent statements are due at least annually thereafter. Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states with areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit a SIP revision providing a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area. NOX and VOCs are the relevant pollutants because they are the precursors of ozone.

2 A state may waive the emission statement requirement for any class or category of stationary sources which emit less than 25 tons per year of VOCs or NOX if the state meets the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).

On August 8, 2014, South Carolina submitted a SIP revision that, among other things, addressed emissions statements requirements related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. Additionally, on August 22, 2014, South Carolina submitted a SIP revision that included a base year emissions inventory for the Area. EPA is now taking action to approve the portion of the August 8, 2014 SIP revision related to emissions statements as meeting the requirements of sections 110 and 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA and to approve the portion of the August 22, 2014 SIP revision related to the base year inventory as meeting the requirements of sections 110 and 182(a)(1) of the CAA.3 More information on EPA's analysis of South Carolina's SIP revisions provided below.

3 Regarding the emissions statements requirements, today's direct final rulemaking is only approving certain revisions to Section III, Emissions Inventory and Emission Statements, of state Regulation No. 61-62.1 into the SIP. See sections II.b. and III, below, for further detail. EPA will act on the remaining portions of South Carolina's August 8, 2014, SIP revision in a separate action.

II. Analysis of State's Submittal a. Base Year Emission Inventory

As discussed above, section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in each ozone non-attainment area. The section 182(a)(1) base year inventory is defined in the SIP Requirements Rule as “a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and NOX emitted within the boundaries of the nonattainment area as required by CAA section 182(a)(1).” See 40 CFR 51.1100(bb). The inventory year must be selected consistent with the baseline year for the RFP plan as required by 40 CFR 51.1110(b),4 and the inventory must include actual ozone season day emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.1100(cc) 5 and contain data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(a), (c), (e). In addition, the point source emissions included in the inventory must be reported according to the point source emissions thresholds of the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. 40 CFR 51.1115(d).

4 40 CFR 51.1110(b) states that “at the time of designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS the baseline emissions inventory shall be the emissions inventory for the most recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory is required to be submitted to EPA under the provisions of subpart A of this part. States may use an alternative baseline emissions inventory provided the state demonstrates why it is appropriate to use the alternative baseline year, and provided that the year selected is between the years 2008 to 2012.”

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

South Carolina selected 2011 as the base year for the emissions inventory which is the year corresponding with the first triennial inventory under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. This base year is one of the three years of ambient data used to designate the Area as a nonattainment area and therefore represents emissions associated with nonattainment conditions. The emissions inventory is based on data developed and submitted by SC DHEC to EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and it contains data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.6

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

South Carolina's emissions inventory for its portion of the Area provides 2011 typical average summer day emissions data for NOX and VOCs for the following general source categories: stationary point, area, non-road mobile, on-road mobile, and events.7 A detailed discussion of the inventory development is located in Appendix A of the South Carolina submittal which is provided in the docket for this action. The table below provides a summary of the emissions inventory.

7 South Carolina included events (i.e. wildfires and prescribed fires) to account for actual event source emissions.

Table 1—2011 Emissions for the South Carolina, York County Portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area [Tons per summer day] County Point NOX VOC Area NOX VOC Non-road mobile NOX VOC On-road mobile NOX VOC Events NOX VOC York County * 4.71 4.02 0.93 6.93 2.63 1.78 11.43 5.30 0.04 0.42 * Only a portion of York County is located in the nonattainment area.

The emissions reported for York County reflect the emissions for only the nonattainment portion of the county. The inventory contains point source emissions data for facilities located within the South Carolina portion of the Area based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping. For the remaining emissions categories, emissions from the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area were determined based on the population of the portion of York County that is included in the Area. More detail on the emissions inventory for individual sources categories is provided below and in Appendix A of the State's August 22, 2014 submittal.

Point sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. The point source emissions inventory for South Carolina's portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area was developed from facility-specific emissions data. A detailed account of the point sources can be found in Appendix A of the August 22, 2014, submittal, which is located in the docket for today's action. The point source emissions data meets the point source emissions thresholds of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.

Area sources are small emission stationary sources which, due to their large number, collectively have significant emissions (e.g., dry cleaners, service stations). Emissions for these sources were estimated by multiplying an emission factor by such indicators of collective emissions activity as production, number of employees, or population. These emissions were estimated at the county level. South Carolina developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for area sources.8 A detailed account of the area sources can be found in Appendix A of the August 22, 2014, submittal.

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

On-road mobile sources include vehicles used on roads for transportation of passengers or freight. South Carolina developed its on-road emissions inventory using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model for each ozone nonattainment county.9 County level on-road modeling was conducted using county-specific vehicle population and other local data. South Carolina developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for on-road mobile sources.10 A detailed account of the on-road sources can be found in Appendix A of the August 22, 2014, submittal.

9 South Carolina used MOVES version 2010b because this was the latest version available at the time that the State submitted its SIP revision.

10 This guidance includes: Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-05-001 (August 2005, updated November 2005); Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes, EPA-420-B-09-046 (December 2009); and Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity, EPA-420-B-10-023 (April 2010).

Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment used for construction, agriculture, recreation, and other purposes that do not use roadways (e.g., lawn mowers, construction equipment, railroad locomotives, and aircraft). South Carolina calculated emissions for most of the non-road mobile sources using EPA's NONROAD2008a model 11 and developed its non-road mobile source inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for non-road mobile sources.12 The railroad locomotive emissions are calculated with fuel use data, track miles and emission factors. A detailed account of the non-road mobile sources can be found in Appendix A of the August 22, 2014, submittal.

11 For consistency with the NEI, South Carolina included emissions data aircraft (where they are reported to occur at the locations of the airports where they are generated) with the point source data in the base year inventory. See Appendix A and Appendix A of the State's SIP revision for a detailed discussion of the methodology used to calculate aircraft and locomotive emissions. No rail yards are located in York County, South Carolina.

12 This guidance includes: Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (July 1991).

SC DEHC included 2011 actual emissions from event sources in its emissions inventory. Events sources in 2011 included wildfires and prescribed fires. Wildfires are unplanned, unwanted wild land fires including unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped prescribed fire projects, or other inadvertent fire situations where the objective is to put the fire out. Prescribed fires are any fires ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives related to the reduction of the biomass potentially available for wildfires. South Carolina calculated actual event source emissions using the 2011 NEI version 1 dataset developed by EPA. A detailed account of the event sources can be found in Appendix A of the August 22, 2014 submittal.

For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that South Carolina's emissions inventory meets the requirements under CAA section 182(a)(1) and the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

b. Emissions Statements

Pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B), states with ozone nonattainment areas must require annual emissions statements from NOX and VOC stationary sources within those nonattainment areas. This requirement applies to all ozone nonattainment areas regardless of classification (e.g., Marginal, Moderate).

On August 8, 2014, South Carolina submitted a SIP revision to amend portions of Regulation No. 61-62.1, Definitions and General Requirements, as currently incorporated into the SIP, to reflect recent changes to the rule.13 The changes to Regulation No. 61-62.1 that address emission statement requirements are the revision to the Section III title,14 the addition of a second paragraph to Section III.A.,15 and the addition of Section III.C.16 EPA has determined that these three specific changes to Section III of Regulation No. 61-62.1, identified in the August 8, 2014 SIP submission, meet the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and is approving those changes into the SIP.

13 EPA initially approved this state regulation into South Carolina's SIP in 2006. See 71 FR 70880 (December 7, 2006).

14 The revised title of Section III is “Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statements.”

15 Paragraph two reads: “An emissions statement is a less detailed statement which focuses on emissions estimates for pollutants associated with a nonattainment designation.”

16 Section III.C. of the revised regulation states: “1. Sources in areas designated nonattainment for an ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) must submit to the Department by March 31 for the previous calendar year an emissions statement which includes emissions estimates for both VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOX) beginning with the effective date of this regulation. 2. The statement must contain a certification that the information contained in the statement is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual certifying the statement. 3. All applicable information must be recorded in the current format for reporting emissions data provided by the Department. 4. Copies of all records and reports relating to emissions statements as required in this section must be retained by the owner or operator at the source for a minimum of five (5) years.” On May 18, 2015, South Carolina submitted an email to EPA clarifying that the State used the term “estimate” in Section III.C.1 to “make a distinction between a more detailed emissions inventory, which is also required, and the more general emission statement document” and clarifying that the emission statement is a “certified document submitted to the State, by the owner or operator of each stationary source in a nonattainment area, that reports actual prior year VOC and NOX emissions from the respective nonattainment area stationary sources.” This email is available in the docket for today's action. SC DHEC's Web site contains additional information regarding the State's emissions statements requirements. See http://www.scdhec.gov/Environment/AirQuality/ComplianceandReporting/EmissionsInventory/OzoneNonattainmentAreaReportingRequirements/.

III. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is incorporating the following changes to Regulation No. 61-62.1, titled “Definitions and General Requirements”: modification of the title of Section III, addition of a second paragraph to Section III.A defining an “emissions statement,” and addition of Section III.C titled “Emissions Statement Requirements” which were state effective on June 27, 2014. EPA has made, and will continue to make, 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. Final Action

EPA is approving the portions of the SIP revisions submitted by South Carolina on August 22, 2014 and August 8, 2014, that relate to the base year emissions inventory and emissions statement requirements,17 respectively, for the State's portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. EPA has concluded that the portions of the State's submissions that EPA is approving meet the relevant requirements of sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 11, 2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by July 13, 2015.

17 EPA is only incorporating the changes to Regulation No. 61-62.1 identified in sections II.b and III, above, into the SIP.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on August 11, 2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. 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, the Agency may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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, this direct final rule for the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte area does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes that today's action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

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 11, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: May 28, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart PP—South Carolina 2. In § 52.2120: a. Paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for “Section III” under “Regulation No. 62.1”; and b. Paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry for “2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area” at the end of the table.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

Air Pollution Control Regulations for South Carolina State citation Title/Subject State effective date EPA Approval date Federal Register notice *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section III Emission Inventory and Emissions Statement 6/27/2014 6/12/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *

(e) * * *

EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions Provision State effective date EPA Approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 8/22/2014 6/12/2015
  • , [Insert Federal Register citation]
  • [FR Doc. 2015-14338 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0192; FRL-9929-11-Region 2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision to the New York State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State Implementation Plan revision (SIP) submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This revision consists of a change to New York's November 15, 1992 Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration that would remove a reference to a limited off-street parking program as it relates to the New York County portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Carbon Monoxide attainment area. The EPA is approving this SIP revision because it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the affected area or with any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is consistent with EPA rules and guidance.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0192. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is 212-637-4249.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions concerning this final action, please contact Henry Feingersh, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, telephone number (212) 637-3382, fax number (212) 637-3901, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. What action is the EPA taking?

    The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request to remove a reference from the carbon monoxide (CO) SIP to a limited off-street parking program that only applied in the Manhattan Central Business District of New York City (CBD). The program limits the number of parking spaces permitted in newly constructed buildings. The EPA is approving New York's request to remove a reference to this limited off-street parking program in New York County because this SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The EPA has reviewed all the public comments and agrees with the State and City of New York that there is no evidence that removal from the SIP will interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in the area or with any other CAA applicable requirement. In addition, New York, in its SIP modeling to support the previously EPA-approved demonstrations of attainment of the various NAAQS, did not take credit for any emission reductions that may be attributed to the limited off-street parking program measures. After removal from the federal SIP, the limited off-street parking program, which is implemented by the New York City Department of City Planning and subject to New York City administrative procedures will no longer be federally enforceable. Removal of the limited off-street parking program from the SIP will not change the program's status under local law.

    II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposal and what are the EPA's responses?

    Our April 12, 2013 proposed approval of the SIP provided for a public comment period that ran from April 12 through May 13, 2013. We received comments from the City of New York Law Department and from Mr. Daniel Gutman, some of which were timely. The City of New York Law Department submitted a letter dated May 13, 2013. Mr. Gutman provided several comments to the EPA: A May 13, 2013 letter, a June 7, 2013 electronic mail message, a June 11, 2013 electronic mail message and a July 26, 2013 letter. All comments, even those from Mr. Gutman that were received after the close of the public comment period, are included in the docket for this action. Although we are not required to respond to Mr. Gutman's late-submitted comments, we are electing to do so in this final action.

    In general, the City of New York supports the EPA's proposed rule to approve New York's SIP request to remove a reference to a limited off-street parking program as it relates to the New York County portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CO attainment area. Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA should deny New York State's request to revise the SIP and not approve removal of the limited off-street parking program reference in the SIP.

    A summary of the comments and the EPA's responses are provided below. Comments from the City of New York Law Department are referred to as “the City of New York” and comments from Mr. Daniel Gutman are referred to as “Mr. Gutman.”

    Comment: Mr. Gutman stated that the limited off-street parking program, with a decline of 20,000 public parking spaces, has been effective in reducing automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and improving auto and truck vehicle speeds in the Manhattan CBD, contributing to the ability of New York to meet ozone and fine particle (PM2.5) NAAQS.

    Response: The EPA disagrees that Mr. Gutman has presented a clear relationship between the limited off-street parking restrictions and the ability of New York City to meet the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. While Mr. Gutman cited documents asserting the limited off-street parking has been reduced, and vehicle speeds have improved, he has not cited evidence that either, or both, of those events correlate with the downward trend of CO concentrations. Mr. Gutman has not provided any information that quantifies the emission reductions he asserts have been produced or the emission increases that he asserts would be produced by removal of the program, or that indicates that the removal of the program will interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. The EPA's overall conclusion, as explained by Figures 1-3 and the narrative addressing emission factors, average speeds and VMT, is that motor vehicle emissions are going down; any increase in VMT is outweighed by the decrease in motor vehicle emission rates.

    Based on the EPA's review of the “1981 Parking Study,” submitted by Mr. Gutman along with his comments, the Study found that the number of parking spaces was not a limiting factor for drivers deciding to drive into the CBD. The 1981 Parking Study found “[p]olicies based on changing auto trip cost and travel time may be ineffective in reducing auto trips since most of the variations in trip decisions are due to factors other than trip time and cost.” (1981 Parking Study p. i). It also found that “the air quality impact of economically based parking management strategies is minimal.” (1981 Parking Study p. i). Furthermore, “during the peak commuter entry hours there is no area of the CBD where lack of available off-street parking serves to limit auto entries.” (1981 Parking Study p. ii). EPA is aware of another study 1 which concludes that Boston's cap on off-street parking has contributed to the excess VMT from people “cruising” for on-street parking spaces. Therefore, the amount of VMT generated due to travel into cities is a complex function of many variables that includes the relationship between off-street and on-street parking. In this situation, the impact of removing the reference to the limited off-street parking program on the precursors to ozone and PM2.5 resulting from motor vehicles is so small as to not be meaningful and, most important, New York in its SIP modeling to support the previously EPA-approved demonstrations of attainment of the various NAAQS, did not take credit for any emission reductions that may be attributed to the limited off-street parking program measures.

    1 “Cruising for parking,” Donald C. Shoup, (Transport Policy 13 (2006), pages 479-486).

    No evidence was provided that a growth in the number of parking spaces in the CBD of New York City will lead to renewed growth of traffic, lower traffic speeds and/or higher emissions than assumed in New York's ozone and PM2.5 attainment demonstrations. The EPA therefore disagrees that it should be assumed there is a direct correlation between growth in the number of parking spaces in the City of New York and its impact on any baseline assumptions associated with New York's attainment demonstrations to date.

    In evaluating removal of the reference to the parking restrictions, the EPA considered New York's SIP revision request to address all criteria air pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. Regarding the air quality aspects of motor vehicle emissions and parking restrictions, increased emissions, if any, from additional motor vehicles in an area would be primarily CO compared to other criteria pollutants in the Manhattan CBD. Therefore, of all the criteria pollutants, CO concentrations would be the pollutant most sensitive to factors associated with the impact from changes to the existing limited off-street parking program that limits the number of parking spaces in permitted new construction.

    As presented in our April 12, 2013 proposed rule, CO concentrations in the New York Metropolitan Area have not violated the NAAQS or come close to exceeding the NAAQS since 1992 and have trended downward since that year. Currently, measured CO concentrations show values of approximately 20 percent of the NAAQS. Also, as stated in the April 12, 2013, proposed rule, “This dramatic improvement can be attributed to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program along with advanced anti-pollution controls on motor vehicles.” 78 FR 21867, 21869.

    A comparison of vehicle emission factors between 1990 and 2014 calculated using EPA's mobile source model, MOVES, shows how the rate of mobile emissions have been reduced. In addition, it also shows how the other pollutants of interest, including ozone and PM2.5, referenced by Mr. Gutman are emitted at levels significantly lower than CO (See Figure 1). The emission factors for 1990 and 2014 were calculated using default values for New York County (including default VMT). These are annual factors combining all vehicle types and road types.

    ER12JN15.102

    Reviewing the data submitted as part of the CO maintenance plan for the New York Metropolitan Area 2 figure 2, below, shows the average daily speeds used in modeling. Vehicle speeds have decreased slightly on highways and increased slightly or remained constant, from 1990 to the present, on local, major collector, minor arterial and principle arterial roadways while monitored CO values have decreased significantly to the levels observed in 2013. The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CO attainment area, which includes the Manhattan CBD, is meeting the NAAQS.

    2 New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan For 2012-2022, dated December 2012, Appendix C, Attachment 4 Speed Tables.

    ER12JN15.103

    Based on traffic data from the New York State Department of Transportation, VMT increased from 1985 to 2006 and declined slightly from 2006 to 2011 (see Figure 3), but this has not affected average vehicle speeds in Manhattan or monitored CO concentrations which have decreased over the current period.

    ER12JN15.104

    When the EPA proposed to approve New York's 2nd CO maintenance plan on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16265), the EPA only received comments supporting the proposal. A final rulemaking approving the CO maintenance plan was published on May 30, 2014 (79 FR 31045). Based on the CO maintenance plan, vehicle speeds and VMT in the Manhattan CBD have not shown much change, while vehicle emissions have decreased dramatically.

    Therefore, no emission reductions were attributed to this program in the SIP. The reader is reminded that the limited off-street parking program is a limited program implemented by New York City Department of City Planning that applies only in the CBD of Manhattan and applies to new building construction. While this program applies to a portion of only one county, the PM2.5 and ozone SIPs cover multiple counties.

    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA approved the 1979 SIP, which included a “permanent project” of regulating and restricting parking in the CBD of Manhattan. Mr. Gutman further commented that, as a permanent project, continuation of the CBD limited off-street parking program is a key assumption underlying projected traffic estimates incorporated into subsequent ozone and particulate matter SIP revisions. Mr. Gutman stated the EPA should deny New York State's request to revise the SIP and not approve removal of the limited off-street parking program reference in the SIP.

    Response: Mr. Gutman maintains that the limited off-street parking program appears to be discussed as a permanent measure in the SIP. While a number of SIP actions 3 have discussed limited off-street parking programs, the EPA disagrees with Mr. Gutman's interpretation regarding the permanency of such measures.

    3 See, e.g., 44 FR 70754 (Dec. 10, 1979); 45 FR 33981 (May 21, 1980); 45 FR 56369 (Aug. 25, 1980); 46 FR 8477 (Jan. 27, 1981); 67 FR 19337 (April 19, 2002).

    Mr. Gutman's comments place emphasis on the “permanency” of measures in the SIP, suggesting that once a measure is approved into the SIP, it perpetually remains in the SIP. However, this is not the case. Section 110 of the CAA generally and section 110(l) specifically allow for the State to revise its SIP over time to add or remove control measures, subject to the condition that doing so does not result in interference with attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other CAA applicable requirement.4 In this action, the EPA is approving New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a limited off-street parking program which the State has not relied on for any associated emissions reductions in any EPA-approved SIP.

    4 In addition, section 193 restricts modification of SIP requirements that were in effect before November 15, 1990, by prohibiting such modification in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reduction of such air pollutant.

    New York indicated that it has not relied on any emission reductions that may be attributed to the limited off-street parking program measures in any SIP actions.5 As discussed in the EPA's April 12, 2013 proposal to approve New York's removal of a reference in the SIP to a limited off-street parking program, CAA section 110(l) states: “The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 [171]), or any other applicable requirement of this Chapter.” Section 110(l) allows New York to request that any measure be removed from the SIP as long as the state can demonstrate that removal of the measure complies with this restriction. In fact, section 110(l) would allow a State to remove a program that it clearly identified as a “permanent” control measure, even if the program included associated emission reductions that were credited to the SIP, so long as the State can demonstrate continued attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS and so long as the measure is not required by other provisions of the CAA. For example, New York's portable fuel container program is a SIP-approved, enforceable control measure program with associated emission reductions relied on in the SIP. As important as this program is for New York's continued attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, New York has the ability to request removal of this program if New York can demonstrate such removal would not interfere under section 110(l). In this example, New York would need to replace the emission reductions associated with the portable fuel container program with other control measures since New York relied on the resulting emission reductions. In contrast, New York cannot replace emission reductions associated with the limited off-street parking program with another control measure, because there is no information demonstrating that the measures ever achieved a reduction in emissions or that the removal of the restrictions would lead to an increase in emissions, and no emission reductions from the limited off-street parking program were ever credited towards attainment of the CO standards. There is no quantifiable emission increase as a result of removing the limited off-street parking program.

    5 Letter dated Oct. 5, 2012 from J. Martens, DEC, to J. Enck, EPA Region 2, including attachment dated August 2012 “Assessment of Public Comments on the Proposed Amendment to the New York State Implementation Plan: Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration: New York Metropolitan Area, August 2012.” See, e.g., Response to Comment 2, 5 and 28.

    Further, the limited off-street parking program's goal was to reduce vehicle entries to the CBD and thereby improve vehicle speeds and lower VMT with the idea that this would ultimately reduce CO emissions from automobiles on the road in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Over the years, VMT has increased and vehicle speeds have been little changed and emission control technology on vehicles has been greatly improved and CO concentrations have decreased dramatically to approximately 20 percent of the NAAQS. This suggests that VMT and vehicle speeds have a negligible effect in the Manhattan CBD but emission control efficiency has a large impact on CO emissions in Manhattan. The other pollutants emitted from automobiles, both in 1990 and 2014, are emitted at rates significantly less than CO and, since vehicle speeds and VMT in the Manhattan CBD have a negligible effect, it is expected that there would be no impact on the other automotive related pollutants. The limited off-street parking program was never included in any other NAAQS SIP. In this action the EPA is approving New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a limited off-street parking program that the State has not relied on for any associated emissions reductions.

    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the New York City Planning Commission has proposed new rules that have a target to increase the number of parking spaces in the City of New York, which he asserts violates the SIP and he asserts, will lead to renewed growth of traffic, lower traffic speeds and higher emissions than assumed in New York's ozone and PM2.5 attainment demonstrations.

    Response: The issue of whether New York City or New York State is proposing regulations or statutes that may violate the SIP is separate from the EPA's April 12, 2013, proposal to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State to remove references to the limited off-street parking program in the SIP that apply solely to the Manhattan CBD. If the City of New York or State adopts regulations or statutes that are different than or conflict with requirements currently included in the SIP, the EPA will address those differences when such new rules are submitted by New York State for EPA review and approval into the SIP. In addition, should such rules not be submitted as a SIP revision to the EPA for consideration but get promulgated in conflict with the applicable SIP, the EPA also has the authority to issue a finding of failure to implement the SIP, which would require submittal of a SIP revision.

    Mr. Gutman claims that the City of New York's proposed changes to the parking restrictions will violate the SIP because the changes are different than the parking restrictions currently contained in the SIP. However, Mr. Gutman failed to provide any specific references to the traffic levels or emission levels assumed in New York's SIPs. The state can always revise its SIP, consistent with the requirements of the CAA. When submitted as a SIP revision, EPA would be under an obligation to review the SIP revision on its merits and assess how it would affect the applicable SIP and attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that since the EPA promulgated a new, more stringent annual NAAQS for PM2.5 that also requires that additional monitors be located near roadways, vehicle emissions are likely to be more important in order for areas to meet the new PM2.5 annual standard.

    Response: EPA agrees that emissions from vehicle-related activities could be important considerations as states develop plans for meeting and maintaining the new PM2.5 annual standard. EPA has established procedures, separate from this SIP revision action, which will address attainment of the new PM2.5 annual standard and the establishment of near roadway monitors. On December 17, 2014 (80 FR 2206), EPA designated areas of the country as meeting or not meeting the new PM2.5 annual standard, with moderate area attainment plans for any nonattainment areas to be submitted by the states to EPA no later than October 15, 2016. New York City was designated attainment/unclassifiable since air quality data from the existing ambient air monitoring network shows the New York Metropolitan Area is currently below the new PM2.5 annual standard. As for the new near roadway monitors, states are required to phase-in these monitoring sites beginning in 2015. NYSDEC submitted its 2014 annual network plan, which provides for near roadway PM2.5 monitors, and EPA approved the plan in a letter dated November 3, 2014. See Table 1 for the 3-Year design values.

    Table 1—Annual Design Value Concentrations for the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area (µg/m 3) [The 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 12.0 µg/m 3] County AQS Monitor ID 3-Year design values 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013 NEW YORK: Bronx 36-005-0080/0110/0133 13.9 12.5 11.9 9.8 9.6 Kings 36-047-0122 12.2 10.8 10.3 9.9 9.7 Nassau 36-059-0008 10.3 9.5 8.9 INC INC New York 36-061-0128/0134 12.1 12.1 11.7 11.8 11.7 Orange 36-071-0002 9.3 8.5 8.2 8.1 7.8 Queens 36-081-0124 10.6 10.0 9.4 9.1 8.7 Richmond 36-085-0055 11.6 10.5 9.8 9.7 9.0 Rockland NM NM NM NM NM NM Suffolk 36-103-0002 9.7 8.9 8.4 8.4 8.1 Westchester 36-119-1002 10.6 9.6 9.1 INC INC NEW JERSEY: Bergen 34-003-0003 11.3 9.8 9.2 9.2 9.1 Essex 34-0013-003 INC INC INC 9.5 9.4 Hudson 34-017-2002 13.1 11.6 11.1 11.1 11.1 Mercer 34-021-0008 10.8 10.0 9.7 9.5 9.4 Middlesex 34-023-0006 10.4 8.8 7.9 8.0 8.2 Monmouth NM NM NM NM NM NM Morris 34-027-0004 9.6 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.4 Passaic 34-031-0005 11.3 9.8 9.3 9.3 9.3 Somerset NM NM NM NM NM NM Union 34-039-0006/2003 11.6 10.3 9.6 9.7 9.7 CONNECTICUT: Fairfield 09-001-0010 11.3 10.0 9.4 9.4 9.3 New Haven 09-009-1123 11.4 10.3 9.6 9.4 9.3 INC—Counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period. NM—No monitor located in county.

    If new monitoring data demonstrates exceedances of the NAAQS, EPA would work with the State to bring any exceeding areas back into attainment.

    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the limited off-street parking program is a useful reasonably available control measure or RACM and was so designated in the 1979 [proposed] SIP.

    Response: The EPA agrees that the limited off-street parking program may be a RACM to make progress towards attainment of the NAAQS for a specific pollutant(s) depending on location specific factors that can change with time. The State, however, has the flexibility to decide which measures to include in RACM as a requirement of the SIP based on the ability of the measure to improve air quality in the given area and advance the attainment date. The EPA's April 12, 2013, proposed action explained in detail the connection between the limited off-street parking program and RACM. (See 78 FR 21869). As discussed in the EPA's April 12, 2013, proposal, New York could have included the restrictions as a RACM in the subsequent CO SIP actions, but did not (1992, 2002). New York also never included the restrictions as part of any other NAAQS attainment demonstrations. These restrictions were not included because they were not needed to demonstrate RFP or to meet the attainment date. New York's SIP does not rely on any emission reductions associated with the parking restrictions, and all credited emissions reductions are attributed to other control measures in the SIP. New York is thus able to and has demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS without relying on the limited off-street parking program. Therefore the limited off-street parking program is not necessary to meet or accelerate attainment by the attainment date.

    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the New York City Department of City Planning “has been seeking to jettison” rules, which they had supported in 1982, by proposing in 2004, to rewrite the restrictions for a large development area within the CBD that they called the Hudson Yards.

    Response: This comment is not relevant to this SIP action. The EPA is approving New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a limited off-street parking program which the State has not relied on for any associated emissions reductions.

    Comment: Mr. Gutman's comments state that the parking program was part of the SIP and reference a May 5, 2009, Court Order, which was submitted along with his comments to support his position.

    Response: EPA agrees that the limited off-street parking program is referenced in the SIP, but also acknowledges that there was some confusion concerning its scope. New York State decided to address the issue by formally proposing revisions to the SIP, holding public hearings and requesting public comments. This action is the result of the State formally submitting a SIP revision.

    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that while the CBD parking regulations may need to be updated and modernized, there is no reason to gut their essence in the process, or to remove the program from the SIP, and the EPA should not allow it.

    Response: As stated previously, the subject of the EPA's April 12, 2013, proposal is to act on a SIP revision submitted by the State to remove references to the limited off-street parking program in the SIP, based on the EPA's determination that such removal will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of all NAAQS. Once the limited off-street parking program is removed from the SIP, it will no longer be federally enforceable. Removal of the limited off-street parking program from the SIP will not change the program's status under local law. Any future changes to the program would be subject to local administrative procedures and public involvement.

    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA should clarify whether or not removing the limited off-street parking program from the 1992 CO SIP leaves the program in place as part of the SIP for other pollutants.

    Response: The EPA is removing the reference to the limited off-street parking program from the SIP. The EPA's April 12, 2013, proposal focused on CO because when compared to other pollutants emitted from motor vehicles, CO emissions far exceed the others (see figure 1). However, as discussed in previous responses to comments and in the EPA's April 12, 2013 proposal, the EPA considered and evaluated New York's SIP revision request to address all criteria air pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. Regarding the relationship between motor vehicle emissions, pollutant concentrations and activities that would theoretically increase motor vehicle activity, on a grams per mile basis, the mass of increased emissions from additional motor vehicles in an area would be dominated by CO. Therefore, of all the criteria pollutants, CO would be the pollutant most affected by hypothetical activity that results in overall emissions increases and, as discussed in previous responses to comments, the impact on the area's CO concentrations would be insignificant. Concentrations of all the other criteria pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter, would be affected much less than CO concentrations. By removing the limited off-street parking program references from the CO SIP, the EPA is removing the reference from all of the SIP, and instead relying on New York's more recent SIP revision approvals relating to emission inventories, RACM, attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans for all pollutants.

    Comment: The City of New York commented that the EPA's proposed rule will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in the City of New York.

    Response: The EPA agrees. As stated in previous responses, the EPA considered and evaluated New York's SIP revision request to address all criteria air pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. While CO concentrations are the pollutant of most concern in this action, as stated in the April 12, 2013 proposed rule, the EPA considered the impacts of all the criteria pollutants.

    Comment: New York City commented that the EPA's proposed rule allows the City of New York to be responsible for its own limited off-street parking program and that it believes that it is free to amend the parking regulations under the current SIP.

    Response: The EPA agrees that the finalization of this rule will allow the City of New York to be responsible for the limited off-street parking restriction program in appropriate cases. However, until the references to the limited off-street parking program are removed from the SIP, the City of New York should continue to coordinate with the State to determine whether any such amendments are consistent with the SIP.

    Comment: The City of New York supports the removal of the “outdated” parking controls in the SIP and to remove any confusion or misunderstanding regarding the City of New York's ability to regulate off-street parking.

    Response: The EPA agrees with the suggestion that the parking controls discussed in the SIP in the early 1980s could be considered “outdated” in lay terms given the subsequent and more recent SIP revisions submitted by New York and approved by the EPA over the last three decades and the substantial progress which has been achieved in reducing air pollutants. New York has revised various emission inventories, RACMs, attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans at various times since the earlier references to the limited off-street parking program. The New York SIP has not and continues to not rely on the limited off-street parking program as a control measure. However, the rule is not actually “outdated” in a legal sense unless removed from the SIP, as is being done by this action.

    III. What is the EPA's final action?

    The EPA is approving New York's request to remove a reference to a limited off-street parking program in New York County from the SIP because this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS and will not interfere with any other CAA applicable requirements. In addition, New York did not rely on any emission reductions from this program in its SIP modeling to support the demonstration of attainment of the various NAAQS.

    The EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New York has revised its SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40 CFR part 51 and all of the EPA's technical requirements for a SIP revision. Therefore, the EPA is approving the removal of a reference to a limited off-street parking program in New York County from the SIP.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds.

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

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

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart HH—New York 2. In § 52.1670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “Limited off-street parking program” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1670 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved New York Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Action/SIP element Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • New York
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Limited off-street parking program New York County—Central Business District 10/05/12 6/12/15 [insert Federal Register citation] Removing reference to program from SIP
    [FR Doc. 2015-14439 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 98 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 96 to 99, revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 764, in § 98.153, at the end of paragraph (d) introductory text, the parameter ED of Equation O-5 is revised and reinstated to read as follows:

    § 98.153 Calculating GHG emissions.

    (d) * * *

    ED = Mass of HFC-23 emitted annually from destruction device (metric tons), calculated using Equation O-8 of this section.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14399 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15 and 68 [ET Docket No. 13-44; FCC 14-208] Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document updates the Federal Communications Commission's (the Commission) radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program. The rules adopted by the Commission build on the success realized by our use of Commission-recognized Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs) and will facilitate the continued rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the market while ensuring that these products do not cause harmful interference to each other or to other communication devices and services.

    DATES:

    Effective July 13, 2015. The incorporation by reference listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Butler, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-2702, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, ET Docket No. 13-44, FCC 14-208, adopted December 17, 2014, and released December 30, 2014. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    Summary of the Report and Order

    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM) in this proceeding, the Commission proposed certain changes to ensure that its part 2 equipment authorization processes continue to operate efficiently and effectively, See Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission's Rules regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment and Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment by Telecommunications Certification Bodies, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 13-44, 28 FCC Rcd 1606 (2013) (NPRM); 78 FR 25916, May 3, 2013.

    2. Specifically, the Commission proposed to clarify the obligations of TCBs and to strengthen the Commission's oversight of the TCBs. The Commission also proposed to require accreditation for all laboratories performing equipment authorization compliance tests. The Commission also proposed adopting updates to the measurement procedures used to determine RF equipment compliance.

    3. In this Report and Order, the Commission updated its radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program. Specifically, it:

    • Discontinued FCC acceptance of applications for equipment Certification of RF equipment and instead permitted TCBs to process and grant all applications for Certification;

    • Codified a pre-grant approval procedure that TCBs must follow when certifying equipment based on new technology that requires consultation with the FCC;

    • Clarified a TCB's responsibilities in performing post-market surveillance of products it has approved;

    • Specified steps for addressing instances of deficient TCB performance, including appropriate sanctions for deficiencies that do not warrant rescinding a TCB's authority to issue a grant of Certification;

    • Modified the rules to reference new standards used to accredit TCBs that approve RF equipment under part 2 of the Commission's rules and terminal equipment under part 68 of the Commission's rules;

    • Required accreditation of all laboratories that test equipment subject to any of the certification procedures under part 2 of the Commission's rules and codify a procedure through which the Commission currently recognizes new laboratory accreditation bodies;

    • Updated references to industry measurement procedures in the Commission's rules; and

    • Provided greater flexibility under the Office of Engineering and Technology's (OET) existing delegated authority to enable it to address minor technical issues that may be raised when updating to the latest versions of industry standards that are referenced in parts 2, 5, 15, and 18 of the Commission's rules.

    TCB Program

    4. TCBs currently approve more than 98 percent of the RF equipment subject to the Certification process but are not permitted to certify equipment for which Commission rules or requirements do not exist or for which the application of the rules or requirements are unclear. Currently, OET publishes an “exclusion list” of the types of equipment that a TCB is not allowed to certify on the Commission's Knowledge DataBase (KDB) system. To enable TCBs to certify more types of devices, OET has established a “permit-but-ask” procedure that allows a TCB to review applications for Certification of equipment that would otherwise be excluded from TCB approval, provided that OET guidance on the specific test methods and technical requirements is sought prior to filing the application for Certification. Once a TCB has completed a review of equipment covered by the permit-but-ask procedure, it confirms with OET that appropriate measures have been taken prior to issuing a grant of Certification.

    5. The Commission maintains a publicly-available database of all RF equipment certified by the Commission and TCBs (the Equipment Authorization System or “EAS”) that contains copies of applications for and grants of Certification. This database also contains information on all entities recognized by the Commission in the equipment authorization process, thus allowing the Commission to monitor the activities of TCBs and the equipment authorization program in general.

    1. Certification of RF Equipment a. Application Processing Procedures

    6. The Commission adopted the NPRM proposal to allow TCBs to issue all grants of equipment Certification, and to discontinue OET's acceptance and granting of applications for equipment Certification. Furthermore, the Commission eliminated the exclusion list and replaced it with pre-approval guidance procedures as proposed in the NPRM and supported by most of the commenters who addressed this issue. All items that were on the exclusion list or considered under the “permit-but-ask” procedure will now be considered under the pre-approval guidance procedures. Further, future changes to the devices and procedures included on the list will be made in a similar manner as the “permit-but-ask” list has been maintained, that is, via Commission/OET decision documents and OET Laboratory KDB guidance. Finally, the Commission adopted its proposal to allow TCBs to dismiss Certification applications consistent with the Commission's current dismissal authority, as also supported by several parties. The Commission also amended its rules to uniformly employ the phrase “set aside” to reference a TCB's decision to take back the grant of a Certification. In response to a question raised by Bay Area Compliance Laboratories Corp. (BACL), the Commission noted that TCBs will have authority to dismiss only those applications that have been submitted to them, and not those submitted to other TCBs. Similarly, TCBs will have authority to set aside only those grants of Certification that they have issued within the prior 30 days, and not those granted by other TCBs.

    7. As it adopted the proposals to fully shift application processing to TCBs, the Commission noted its experience that TCBs have generally done an excellent job of reviewing and granting applications and following OET staff guidance on technical matters. The Commission noted that the various actions taken in the order would improve its oversight of the TCBs and ensure that products subject to Certification will comply with FCC rules. The Commission concluded that the adopted measures would continue the successful migration of additional responsibilities to TCBs while maintaining our control over the critical elements of the process, thus addressing National Association of Broadcasters' (NAB) underlying concern that devices with a greater potential for causing harmful interference are properly evaluated before being approved. The Commission also noted that, while ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio (ARRL) claims that the current TCB approval process has resulted in numerous incorrect grants of Certification, the group mentioned only one particular instance where an incorrect grant was alleged. The Commission did not find ARRLs arguments against the TCB processing proposals persuasive because ARRL had not provided any specific information to support this claim.

    b. Application Filing Procedures

    8. The Commission adopted the proposals made in the NPRM to codify existing application filing practice into its rules by modifying § 2.911 to specify how applicants will file with TCBs and modifying § 2.962 to specify that TCBs will file certification application information with the Commission electronically through the Commission's EAS. The Commission adopted its proposal to require TCBs to document via the EAS all information relevant to the processing of an application for certification, including pre-approval guidance inquiries and the dismissal of any applications. The Commission amended various sections of part 2 to reflect the TCB role in the Certification process.

    9. The Commission decided to stop accepting applications for it to issue the grant of Certification as of the effective date of the Report and Order. The Commission modified § 1.1103 of the rules to remove the equipment authorization services sections related to Certification, and stated that no fee will be charged by the Commission when a TCB issues a grant of Certification. The Commission determined that it would review any applications that it received prior to the effective date under current procedures.

    10. The Commission stated that Grants of certification are legal documents created by the TCB under the authority of the Commission when submitted to EAS, and must not be modified (by, for example, adding a letterhead or additional information) in any way.

    11. The Commission agreed with the Hewlett Packard Company (HP) that a TCB may combine the different statements required of applicants—such as the verification of truthfulness and compliance with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988—into a single document with a single signature set, so long as the applicant makes all necessary certifications. The Commission declined HP's request to require TCB's to accept materials submitted by an applicant in electronic form rather than paper. While the Commission acknowledged that it expected that TCBs would accommodate electronic submissions to promote efficiency and reduce costs, it decided not to not mandate such a requirement because the existence of numerous TCB choices will give applicants the option to select a TCB on a variety of factors, including the convenience or efficiency of their provision of service.

    12. The Commission did not adopt Bay Area Compliance Laboratories, Corp.'s (BACL) suggestion that it mandate the use of secure electronic signatures or require a time and date stamp on all documents submitted with the filing. The Commission was not convinced that the use of such requirements would fully resolve the issues of document authenticity, and stated that it expected TCBs to establish appropriate procedures to determine the veracity of documents.

    13. The Commission determined, in response to comments of Northwest EMC, Inc., that a TCB confirmation of the authenticity of the test reports that submitted with an application for certification and is necessary. The Commission cited the existing TCB requirement to review submitted tests in a manner that allows it to be “confident that the product meets the relevant requirements before it certifies the product.” and noted that its adoption of an accreditation requirement for all compliance testing laboratories would ensure that the data reviewed by TCBs was based on testing that was performed by a competent organization.

    14. The Commission found that Cisco and HP had not provided evidence to support their concern that TCBs could potentially establish higher fees to expedite the processing of applications. The Commission found it was not necessary to codify TCB fee requirements, noting the 36 TCBs recognized by the Commission to provide equipment authorization services and observing that clients can choose their TCB based upon factors most relevant to them, including cost.

    2. Post-Market Surveillance

    15. TCBs are required to be accredited, and accreditation is conditioned on their performance of post-market surveillance on products that it has certified. Section 2.962(g) of the Commission's rules provides general guidance regarding the scope of such post-market surveillance and the actions the TCB shall take in the event of a compliance problem. OET has developed specific procedures, detailed in KDB Publication 610077, that TCBs can use for performing post-market surveillance. The current guidance specifies a sample rate of at least 5 percent.

    16. The Commission adopted its proposals to codify the guidelines currently appearing in the KDB for conducting post-market surveillance by placing them into § 2.962 of the Commission's rules as mandatory requirements. The new § 2.962 will address the amount of surveillance required, the responsibilities related to testing, the timing and content of periodic reports required to be submitted to the Commission, and other pertinent requirements.

    17. The Commission consolidated all part 2 rules referring to the post-market sampling process into § 2.945, which codifies the current procedure whereby TCBs may request samples of equipment that they have certified directly from the grantee of Certification. Further, the Commission adopted the proposed procedure that permits OET to request the grantee of Certification to submit a sample directly to the TCB that issued the grant of Certification, and stated that failure to comply with a TCB request could lead to Commission enforcement action. The Commission required the TCB to immediately notify the grantee and the Commission if it determines that a device fails to comply with the Commission's rules, established that the grantee will be required to take corrective actions, and required the TCB to submit a follow-up report on these actions to the Commission within 30 days. The Commission also required TCBs to submit periodic reports of their post-market surveillance activities and findings to OET.

    18. The Commission also addressed specific process-related issues raised on the record. The Commission found little benefit in allowing a TCB to perform post-market surveillance on a device that it did not certify and identified potential complications, such as anti-competitive behavior where one TCB could raise doubt about the performance of another. Thus, the Commission adopted the requirement that TCBs shall perform post-market surveillance only on devices for which they issued the grant of Certification. The Commission affirmed that when a grantee challenges a TCB's finding that a device does not comply with the FCC rules, the grantee will be provided with appropriate information about test results and methodologies and the Commission will be the final arbiter in cases where a TCB and grantee are not able to resolve disagreements about compliance.

    19. The Commission found that no commenter that filed in support of modifying the 5 percent sample size requirement provided sufficient evidence to justify either increasing or decreasing this number, and that in its monitoring of the market surveillance performed by TCBs, the Commission has found the vast majority of devices to be compliant. Most OET investigations have found that devices become non-compliant for reasons such as changes to the manufacturing process, and OET has been able to work with the grantee to resolve the matter and ensure compliance with our rules. When it has discovered manufacturers that are willfully non-compliant with our equipment authorization procedures, the Commission has not hesitated to take enforcement action.

    20. The Commission rejected the TCB Council's suggestion that permissive changes and changes in FCC IDs not be included in the sampling process on the basis that the request did not include any actual filing totals that would quantify how the proposed change would affect the post-market surveillance burden of a given TCB; because it is not apparent that excluding a wide segment of applications would further improve the compliance process, since many products are updated via permissive changes; and because the inappropriate use of a permissive change or an FCC ID change presents the opportunity for the introduction of non-compliant equipment that needs to be monitored by inclusion in the sampling activity.

    21. The Commission noted that, while the TCBs will continue to directly request samples from grantees, it intended to add a process to the EAS that allows TCBs to initiate a sample request from the Commission's EAS. This will allow the FCC to oversee the process, follow up directly with non-responsive grantees and improve the responsiveness of grantees.

    22. The Commission observed that the requirements placed upon both the TCBs and the grantees should be sufficient to ensure that equipment samples are submitted and processed in a manner that ensures valid post-market surveillance, and that samples provided for testing will be appropriately representative of the marketed device. Thus, the Commission did not adopt suggestions in the record to implement additional compliance measures such as criminal sanctions or consumer refunds.

    23. The Commission adopted the requirement that grantees, upon request, must provide a voucher to the Commission or the TCB authorizing the TCB to obtain a sample of the product from the marketplace at no cost to the Commission or TCB. As an alternative to providing a voucher, the grantee can allow the Commission or TCB to select a product randomly from the manufacturing or warehousing location. Furthermore, if special software or specialized mechanisms, methods, or modifications are required to test such unmodified production devices, the manufacturer must make these available (at no cost) along with any necessary instructions to the Commission or TCB upon request. In the case of expensive devices manufactured in limited numbers, the responsible party can negotiate with the TCB or the Commission for alternative means of providing a sample or providing a testing opportunity. The Commission agreed with commenters that such steps would help ensure that devices being post-market tested are representative of the devices being marketed.

    3. Assessing TCB Performance a. Designating Authority

    24. An entity seeking recognition from the Commission as a TCB entitled by the FCC to issue grants of Certification must first be accredited by a Commission-recognized accreditation body as meeting applicable international standards and any additional Commission requirements. Subsequent to accreditation, the TCB would then apply to a recognized Designating Authority in its country that would designate it to the Commission for recognition. The Designating Authority evaluates the qualifications of prospective TCBs to ensure that they comply with all of the Commission's TCB requirements, and then designates them to the Commission via the EAS. TCBs outside the United States must be accredited and designated by an authority recognized by the Commission under the terms of a Mutual Recognition Agreement. For both foreign and domestic TCBs, once the Commission receives the Designating Authority's designation, the Commission performs a review of the TCB's qualifications and recognizes those that it determines meet the requirements. A recognized TCB will then be included on the Commission's publicly- available recognized TCB list. The NPRM included several proposals to clarify and codify this process.

    25. All comments made in this regard supported the Commission's proposals, and the Commission revised §§ 2.960(b) and 68.160(b) of the rules to state with clarity that NIST is the recognized Designating Authority for TCBs within the United States (consistent with existing practice). NIST will continue to have authority to recognize other organizations to accredit TCBs. The Commission adopted the proposals codifying the requirement that an organization designated by NIST as a TCB would have to be recognized by the Commission before it could function as a TCB, and that the Commission could withdraw its recognition of a TCB designated by NIST that does not operate in accordance with the rules. The Commission made the designation and recognition requirements for domestic and foreign TCBs more consistent by modifying § 2.962 to clearly specify the recognition requirements for both foreign and domestic TCBs and address disputes over the recognition of foreign TCBs.

    b. TCB Performance

    26. Currently, the rules state that the Commission will withdraw recognition of a domestic TCB if the TCB's accreditation or designation is withdrawn, if the Commission determines there is just cause for withdrawing the recognition, or if the TCB no longer wants the recognition. The rules do not specify any action less severe than the withdrawal of the designation or recognition of a TCB if the Commission has concerns about the performance of a TCB. In the NPRM, the Commission acknowledged that there can be performance issues which need correcting but do not warrant complete withdrawal of a TCB's recognition and it proposed measures that the Commission could take to address TCB performance issues.

    27. The Commission adopted the proposed procedures for addressing TCB performance issues: Initially, OET would send the TCB a notification to correct any apparent deficiencies. While it awaits response, OET may choose to monitor all grants, setting aside any that were granted in error within the 30-day period provided for in the rules. If the TCB does not adequately address all identified deficiencies, OET will have the option of requiring that all Certification applications filed with that TCB would be processed using the pre-approval guidance procedure for a period of at least 30 days. Once a TCB demonstrates that it is again processing Certification applications in accordance with the rules, it would be permitted to resume normal processing.

    28. For a TCB that continues to exhibit performance deficiencies after a Commission request for corrective action, the Commission could refer the case to the Designating Authority and accreditation body for investigation and identification of any necessary corrective actions. For such instances, the Commission will act based on the Designating Authority's and/or the accrediting body's response by, for example, limiting the scope of equipment that a TCB could approve or withdrawing its recognition of the TCB. For a foreign TCB recognized pursuant to the terms of a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA), the Commission will take similar actions, under the terms of the pertinent MRA. Any equipment Certifications previously approved by the TCB would remain valid unless specifically set aside or revoked by the Commission.

    29. In adopting new procedures to address TCB performance issues, the Commission did not adopt American Association for Laboratory Accreditation's (A2LA) suggestion that the 60-day notice given to a TCB by the Commission when it intends to withdraw recognition be reduced routinely to 30 days, but the Commission did adopt the proposal permitting the reduction of the notice period if circumstances so warrant. The Commission identified other sanctions, including requiring the TCB to follow the pre-approval guidance procedure for all applications for certification before they can be granted, as well as an immediate suspension of recognition, if necessary. The Commission concluded that the procedures set forth are a clear indication of the Commission's willingness to address TCB performance issues, and address AFTRCC's concerns in this regard. The Commission noted that any finding that a TCB is non-compliant will be displayed on the Commission's Web site. Additionally, OET participates in workshops where TCBs are also required to attend in which OET presents changes and updates in the Commission rules; equipment authorization process and procedures; and updates to technical interpretations or guidance issued by the staff. Because these presentations are publicly available at the Commission's Web site, they include Commission guidance related to new or clarified TCB processes and procedures, and much of this guidance is the result of observations that OET derives from TCB audits and other information, the Commission concluded such processes are sufficient to address comments NAB raised regarding the overall transparency of the TCB process.

    4. TCB Accreditation

    30. The rules currently require that TCBs that approve either RF equipment under part 2 or terminal equipment under part 68 of the Commission's rules meet the accreditation standards in specific ISO/IEC standards. Subsequent to the adoption of the rules specifying these requirements, several ISO/IEC guides were updated. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to modify the rules in parts 2 and 68 to reflect these updates. Specifically, the Commission proposed replacing references to Guide 58 and Guide 61 with references to ISO/IEC 17011, and to replace references to Guide 65 with references to ISO/IEC 17065. The Commission also proposed to change the term “sub-contractors” to “external resources” in the part 2 and 68 rules for consistency with the revised ISO/IEC 17065. The Commission also proposed to update § 68.162 to correct outdated references to ISO/IEC Guide 25, which is now designated ISO/IEC 17025. In the Order, the Commission adopted these proposals and will require that the standards be met by September 15, 2015—A date suggested by A2LA that conforms to the compliance date for ISO/IEC 17065 that was adopted in an International Accreditation Forum decision.

    Test Laboratories 5. Accreditation of Test Laboratories

    31. The Certification and DoC processes specify the type of testing facility in which a product shall be tested for compliance with the Commission's technical standards. Devices authorized under the DoC process must be tested at a testing laboratory that OET recognizes as “accredited.” Devices authorized under the Certification process for operation under that operates under part 15 or 18 of the Commission's rules must be tested in a facility that is either accredited or has been recognized by OET as having met the requirements of § 2.948 of the Commission's rules (“Section 2.948-listed”).

    32. Laboratory accreditation is a rigorous process involving an extensive review of documentation and onsite visits by representative(s) of the accrediting body, a process repeated at intervals not to exceed two years. A testing laboratory may be recognized by the OET as accredited if it is assessed to the ISO/IEC 17025 standard in accordance with the requirements in § 2.948 of the Commission's rules. The accreditation of a foreign-based testing laboratory is considered acceptable under only one of the following conditions: (1) It is based on the terms of an applicable government-to-government MRA with the United States; or (2) the laboratory is accredited by an organization that has entered into an arrangement between accrediting organizations that is recognized by the Commission. On the other hand, a testing laboratory may be recognized as 2.948-listed of our rules based upon OET review of the information specified by § 2.948(b).

    33. The Commission adopted the NPRM proposal to require that all laboratories that test equipment subject to Certification or to DoC under any rule part be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, thus ending the “2.948-listing” program for unaccredited labs to test equipment to be certified under parts 15 and 18 of the rules. The Commission retained the requirement that accredited testing laboratories must be reassessed at least every two years to ensure continued compliance with the accreditation requirements to provide confidence that equipment testing done in support of Certification applications is conducted in accordance with the applicable standard and to maintain the reliability of and confidence in our certification program in the face of increasingly complex technology and devices. The Commission found little evidence in the record that the accreditation requirement represents a significant impact on small test laboratories and such concerns are greatly outweighed by the costs that can result when equipment causes harmful interference to other radio services or must be pulled from the market due to non-compliance that is the result of improper testing.

    34. The Commission further proposed to include laboratories located outside of the United States on the accredited testing laboratory list only if it recognized the laboratories' accreditation under the terms of a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) or other agreement. Because some testing laboratories are located in countries that do not have an MRA with the United States, the Commission proposed to continue to require in § 2.948 of the rules that such a laboratory must be accredited by an organization recognized by the Commission for performing accreditations in the country where the laboratory is located. The Commission sought comment on the appropriate process for recognizing the accreditation of testing laboratories in countries that do not have an MRA with the United States, such as by recognizing accreditations made by accreditation bodies that have been peer reviewed through the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) or other organizations. Comments related to the appropriate process for recognizing the accreditation of test laboratories in countries that do not have an MRA with the United States were almost evenly split, with a slight majority indicating that we should not recognize foreign laboratories unless there is an MRA in place. The comments that supported the recognition of accredited testing laboratories located in non-MRA countries provided limited recommendations on procedures that would ensure that such testing laboratories have the appropriate capabilities and reliability and that all products approved are compliant with our rules. In this regard, the Commission decided that requests for recognition of testing laboratories in countries that do not have an MRA with the United States and which were accredited by accreditation bodies recognized by the Commission will be handled under our current procedures in § 2.948.

    35. The Commission also adopted the requirement that testing laboratories may only sub-contract/outsource testing to laboratories that have been recognized by the Commission as accredited to the appropriate international standard. The Commission rejected comments asking it to adopt a more permissive rule that would also allow an accredited testing laboratory to sub-contract/outsource testing to a competent unaccredited entity. The Commission found it to be inconsistent to disallow submission of test results from an unaccredited submitting laboratory but allow submission of test results from an unaccredited sub-contracting laboratory. The Commission also noted that it had not been provided with any information indicating that sub-contracting with laboratories that are recognized by the Commission as accredited is more burdensome to applicants for certification than using a sub-contracting process that meets the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025, or that such burdens (if any) would be substantial enough to outweigh the benefits associated with ensuring that all work is performed by accredited laboratories. The Commission also found no reason to exempt bench testing from the accreditation requirement, citing the importance of ensuring that such tests are performed properly and observing that because equipment subject to certification is rarely subject only to bench tests, there would be little benefit in providing an exception for labs that perform only such testing.

    36. While the “2.948 listing” process was ended, the Commission decided that it would still maintain a list of accredited testing laboratories that are acceptable to the Commission for testing equipment subject to the Certification and DoC procedures, as well as the types of equipment that each laboratory is accredited to test. Additionally, the Commission decided to retain the requirement in § 2.948 that test laboratories compile a description of their measurement facilities and require that they supply this information to a laboratory accreditation body for review as part of its documentation for accreditation or to the Commission upon request.

    37. The Commission will cease recognizing new unaccredited 2.948-listed laboratories as of the effective date of the rules adopted in the Report and Order. Laboratories recognized under the 2.948 criteria as of the effective date of this Report and Order will continue to appear on the OET published list for such laboratories and be recognized until their expiration date of recognition or for one year from the effective date, whichever is sooner, to allow them time to become accredited. 2.948-listed laboratories whose recognition expires prior to one year from the effective date of the rules may request that the Commission extend their recognition date until one year from the effective date of the rules set forth in the Report and Order. Any testing that is completed by unaccredited recognized 2.948-listed laboratories during the one-year period beginning on the effective date of the rules adopted in the Report and Order will be accepted only in support of a Certification application submitted within 15 months of the aforementioned effective date.

    6. Selection of New Laboratory Accreditation Bodies

    38. Under § 2.948(d) of the rules, any entity seeking recognition from the Commission as an accreditation body for test laboratories must obtain the approval of OET. The Commission proposed, in the NPRM, to codify the type of information that an applicant that desires to be recognized as a laboratory accreditation body should provide in support of its application. Specifically, it proposed to codify the following criteria for OET to use when determining the acceptability of new laboratory accreditation bodies:

    1. Successful completion of a ISO/IEC 17011 peer review, such as being a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement or other equivalent laboratory accreditation agreement;

    2. Experience with the accreditation of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), radio and telecom testing laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025. This can be demonstrated by having OET staff participate in a witness audit of the accreditation body performing an assessment of an EMC/Radio/Telecom testing laboratory; or by having OET staff review the report generated by the NIST laboratory accreditation evaluation program conducted to support the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Conformity tries that do not have an MRA with the United States were almost evenly split, with an Assessment of Telecommunications Equipment. An applicant that offers other evidence has the burden of demonstrating that the information would enable OET to evaluate its experience with the accreditation of EMC, radio and telecom testing laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025.

    3. Accreditation personnel/assessors with specific technical experience in the Commission equipment authorization rules and requirements; and

    4. Procedures and policies developed by [the testing firm accreditation bodies] for the accreditation of testing laboratories for FCC equipment authorization programs.

    39. The Commission adopted the proposal to codify the above criteria for OET's determination of the acceptability of new laboratory accreditation bodies. Under these rules, the applicant will submit information addressing each of the four elements to OET for evaluation. Applicants will be able to choose how they show that they meet each of the elements, and OET was directed to use its existing resources—including the KDB and public notice process—to provide additional guidance, clarification, and updates, as needed.

    40. In a slight change from the proposal, the adopted rule will not list specific organizations that operate recognition programs under ISO/IEC 17011 and instead includes a general statement that recognition will be based on a peer review pursuant to an agreement found to be acceptable to the Commission. The Commission ultimately decided that the inclusion of specific organizations in the rules could inadvertently limit the flexibility of entities seeking recognition as an accreditation body or give the specific organization(s) a perceived advantage. Similarly, in response to NIST's suggestion that it clarify that its program only applies to domestic accrediting bodies, the Commission decided to remove the rule reference to the NIST program. The Commission will maintain a list of recognized accreditation bodies on its Web page to facilitate the prompt notice of new recognitions.

    41. As to NIST's suggestion that the rule include further specific elaboration on other supporting evidence, the Commission noted that the rule specifies only the key elements that OET will use in evaluating the competence of an accreditation body and it gave OET the flexibility to accept other supporting evidence on a case-by-case basis in order to accommodate evolving industry practices.

    7. Test Site Validation

    42. Under the current rules, a measurement facility that is used for measuring radiated emissions from equipment subject to parts 15 and 18 must meet the site validation requirements in ANSI C63.4-2001. While radiated emission measurements at frequencies above 1 GHz are required for many devices subject to parts 15 and 18 of the rules, ANSI C63.4-2001 does not have specific site validation criteria for test facilities used for making radiated emissions in this frequency range. Rather, it only states that facilities determined to be suitable for performing measurements in the frequency range 30 MHz to 1 GHz are considered suitable for performing measurements in the frequency range 1 GHz to 40 GHz, without specific site validation criteria for the higher frequencies. Subsequent versions of the emission measurement standard, ANSI C63.4-2009 and ANSI C63.4-2014, both provide two options for test site validation for facilities used to make radiated emission measurements above 1 GHz, both of which include additional requirements. To be suitable for measurements in the frequency range 1 GHz to 40 GHz the facility must utilize RF absorbing material covers the ground plane in such a manner that either of the following conditions are met: (1) The site validation criteria specified in the CISPR 16-1-4 (CISPR 16) standard is met; or (2) a minimum area of the ground plane is covered using RF absorbing material.

    43. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to require that test facilities used to make radiated emission measurements on equipment authorized under any rule part meet the site validation requirements in ANSI C63.4-2009. Additionally, if the measurement site will be used for measuring radiated emissions in the range of 1 GHz to 40 GHz, it must meet the site validation criterion specified in ANSI C63.4 that references CISPR 16. The Commission indicated that the additional requirements were intended to provide better accuracy and repeatability of measurements than simply covering a minimum area of its ground plane. The Commission further proposed that a laboratory must confirm compliance with the site validation criterion no less than once every three years.

    44. In the Order, the Commission required that test facilities that conduct radiated emission measurements above 1 GHz must meet the site validation requirements in ANSI C63.4-2014. The Commission found ANSI C63.4-2014 to be essentially the same as the 2009 version discussed in the NPRM (a specific set of validation criteria for test facilities that was missing in the 2001 version), and, noting that no parties had opposed ANSI C63's recommendation to we use the 2014 standard, determined that use of the 2014 version would avoid any confusion associated with using a version of the standard that is not the most current.

    45. On its face, the adoption of the revised ANSI C63.4 standard necessitates compliance with the CISPR 16 standard. The Commission acknowledged the costs of the upgrades to test facilities that would be necessary to meet the site validation requirements in CISPR 16, and decided to allow either alternative for site validation in ANSI C63.4-2014 to be used to determine the suitability of a test facility to be used to make radiated emissions measurements above 1 GHz during a three-year transition period. After this time, test facilities used to make radiated emissions will be required to demonstrate compliance with the site validation criteria specified in CISPR 16. Because not all radiated emission measurement methods for licensed devices require the use of a test facility that meets the site validation requirements in ANSI C63.4-2014, the Commission revised to § 2.948(d) to specify that the site validation requirements only apply for radiated emissions test methods that require the use of a validated test site.

    Measurement Procedures 8. Part 15 Devices

    46. The Commission requires that most devices subject to part 15 technical requirements be tested to demonstrate compliance with the measurement procedures in ANSI C63.4 before they can be imported into or marketed within the United States. Specifically, § 15.31(a) of the rules states that the Commission will measure emissions from most intentional and unintentional radiators using the standard published by the American National Standard Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63®—Electromagnetic Compatibility (ANSI-ASC C63), titled ANSI C63.4-2003, American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9 KHz to 40 GHz (ANSI C63.4 standard) to determine compliance with the Part 15 technical requirements.

    47. The Commission has issued a number of public notices, interpretations and advisories on measurement standards to supplement the test procedures given in the ANSI C63.4 standard listed in the rules (i.e. ANSI C63.4-2003) to account for the growing number of intentional radiators and the resulting numbers of questions from test laboratories. Subsequently, ANSI-ASC C63 developed a new standard, ANSI C63.10-2009, for use in the measurement of intentional radiators in a wide range of frequency bands. This standard is essentially combines existing measurement procedures and associated Commission guidance for intentional radiators and does not add any new requirements for compliance testing. ANSI-ASC C63 also released a revised version of the ANSI C63.4 standard, ANSI C63.4-2014, to address unintentional radiators. Thus, ANSI C63.10 now contains the measurement procedures for intentional radiators, and ANSI C63.4 now contains the measurement procedures for unintentional radiators.

    48. Upon publication of the 2009 standards by ANSI-ASC C63, OET issued a Public Notice announcing that, until it could initiate a rulemaking proceeding to incorporate the new standards into the rules, compliance measurements may be made under either the then-new 2009 standards or the 2003 standard currently in the rules. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to update its rules to incorporate the latest standards—at that time, ANSI C63.10-2009 for intentional radiators and ANSI C63.4-2009 for unintentional radiators—into the rules. In keeping with its previous policy with respect to ANSI C63.4, the Commission proposed to exclude the use of the sections in ANSI C63.4-2009 that allow the use of rod antennas for electric field measurements below 30 MHz; an artificial hand for holding handheld devices; an absorbing clamp for radio noise power measurements; and relaxed limits for transient emissions. Subsequent to the release of the NPRM ANSI-ASC C63 published updated versions of both standards, ANSI C63.4-2014 and ANSI C63.10-2013.

    49. In the NPRM the Commission asked several questions related to the use of the updated ANSI C63.4 standard. Specifically, it questioned whether the benefits of adopting the increased burdens associated with the new standard outweighed the associated costs. It also asked whether certain technical changes in the 2009 revision (e.g., a restriction on the use of hybrid antennas or the 2 dB rule) cause problems for manufacturers and/or test laboratories. Further, the Commission asked if the references to undated standards that are incorporated in the 2009 revision could result in a mandate of compliance with subsequently-modified standards without the opportunity for comment or transition period. The Commission also asked whether the interpretations of C63.4-2009 and C63.10-2009 on ANSI's Web site be accepted by the Commission as valid means for compliance. Finally, the Commission asked whether it could address the above concerns by not incorporating certain sections of the 2009 versions of the standards into the rules, and, if so, which particular sections should not be incorporated.

    50. Finally, in the NPRM, the Commission recognized that work was underway to provide further updates to the standards, and sought comment on whether there were any significant differences between the 2009 versions of the standards and the latest drafts, and whether any of the changes in these drafts would address our concerns. After release of the NPRM and completion of the pleading cycle, ANSI-ASC C63 completed the process of adopting newer versions of both standards, and released ANSI C63.4-2014 and ANSI C63.10-2013.

    51. ANSI-ASC C63 initially provided comments supporting the adoption of ANSI C63.4-2009 and ANSI C63.10-2009, along with suggestions that address concerns raised by other commenters. In its subsequent ex parte filings, ANSI C63.4 requested that the Commission update the rules to cross-reference ANSI C63.10-2013 and ANSI C63.4-2014.

    52. ANSI-ASC C63 claimed that ANSI C63.4-2014 improved on various aspects of the C63.4-2009 standard. Specifically, the newest version of the standard addresses: Hybrid antenna qualification procedure; removal of testing procedures for transmitters as they are now covered by ANSI C63.10-2013; application of standard in the United States and Canada; improvements to “2 dB rule”; test setup details for tablet computers; test site validation interval guideline for radiated emissions above 1 GHz; use of RF absorber for radiated emissions above 1 GHz; visual display procedures based on size of screen; and further clarification on radiated emissions above 1 GHz.

    53. ANSI-ASC C63 further stated that the ANSI C63.10-2013 standard further improved on various aspects of the C63.10-2009, and it noted changes relating to: Clarifications of instrumentation factors such as detector and antenna requirements; the use of spectrum analyzers; out-of-band emission (OOBE) and band edge requirements; millimeter wave procedures, measurements below 30 MHz and above 1 GHz; new procedures for wireless devices using new technology (e.g., Digital Transmission Systems (DTS); Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices; FM transmitters in vehicles; and Inductive Loop devices.

    54. The Commission found that the improvements made in ANSI C63.4-2014 and ANSI C63.10-2013 represented the best measurement procedures, and it therefore decided to incorporate references to ANSI C63.4-2014 and ANSI C63.10-2013 into the rules as the measurement procedures for determining the compliance of unintentional and intentional radiators, respectively. The Commission concluded that the newest editions of the standards were adopted with the input of manufacturers, trade groups, and other academic bodies, and reflects the current state-of-the-art design and manufacturing processes. The new standards also provide a meaningful distinction between intentional and unintentional radiators, which will to ensure that noncompliant devices do not enter the marketplace where they may be difficult to eliminate. While the Commission acknowledged that compliance costs are a normal and expected part of a standards-driven regime where the standards are periodically updated, it noted that by implementing the 2013 and 2014 editions it can mitigate any costs that would have been associated with meeting the 2009 editions as an interim step, and recognized that there would be costs associated with not acting to implement the latest standards.

    55. The Commission asserted its continued belief that there is insufficient evidence that rod antennas, artificial hands or absorber clamps produce accurate, repeatable measurements, and that short-duration emissions can produce as much nuisance to radio communications as continuous emissions, and decided to exclude ANSI C63.4-2014 sections that allow for these methods. The Commission also provided a transition period for ANSI C63.4 that will end one year from the effective date of the rules. During this time which parties may continue to comply with either ANSI C63.4-2003, ANSI C63.4-2009 (consistent with current practice) or with the new ANSI C63.4-2014. After the transition period date only compliance with ANSI C63.4-2014 will be accepted. The Commission also decided to apply a one-year transition period for use of the new edition of ANSI C63.10-2013.

    56. The Commission also addressed numerous comments that addressed engineering and administrative issues implicated by the adoption of the new standards. Several commenters requested that the Commission not rule out future consideration of the use of CISPR 22 standard for measuring equipment subject to Part 15, as an alternative to ANSI C63.4-2009. In addition, HP proposed referencing CISPR 32 for test methods up to 6 GHz.

    57. In the NPRM the Commission noted some differences between CISPR 22 requirements and those in ANSI C63.4-2009 and concluded that the ANSI standard was more appropriate for its purposes. Based on the record, the Commission to remains unconvinced that the measurement procedures in CISPR 22 for unintentional radiators would be an appropriate alternative to the ANSI-ASC standards. The Commission further noted that, CISPR 22 had been superseded by CISPR 32 and, in any event neither standard addresses all types of unintentional radiators covered in part 15.

    58. Several commenters addressed the so-called “2 dB rule,” a method used to limit the amount of testing needed by determining the worst-case configuration. In this regard, ANSI-ASC C63 stated it had made additional improvements to the “2 dB rule” in ANSI C63.4-2014. The Commission found that the ANSI C63.4-2014 changes improved on ANSI C63.4-2009 and should address the record comments. Nevertheless, to reduce potential burdens on equipment manufactures and as proposed by HP, the Commission decided to continue accepting the use of the “2 dB” method in ANSI C63.4-2003 for demonstrating compliance with the requirement in § 15.31(i) until it adopts further revisions to the standard.

    59. ACIL and dB Technology discussed the proper arrangement of the measurement antenna relative to the equipment under test (EUT) when performing radiated emissions testing above 1 GHz. The Commission offered guidance for such testing: Measurement procedures for radiated emissions measurements above 1 GHz have required that the measurement antenna be pointed at the source of the radiated emission from the EUT in a manner that ensures that the measurement is maximized. This can be achieved using different methods.

    60. The Commission received several comments complaining that ANSI C63.4-2009 excludes hybrid antennas for making radiated emissions measurements. ANSI-ASC C63 stated that ANSI C63.4-2014 has addressed concerns with the use of hybrid antennas, and it recommended that the Commission allow the use of hybrid antennas for testing of products pursuant to the new procedures in ANSI C63.4-2014 that detail how they are to be used. The Commission agreed and found that the ANSI C63.4-2014 standard is an improvement over the 2009 standard in that it provides a means for the use of hybrid antennas that is appropriate and reliable for providing accurate measurements.

    61. The Commission recognized that standards development organizations often provide informative explanations and interpretations of the standards that they develop, offering helpful insight to the rationale behind the development of a standard. While it will continue to consider them in response to requests for guidance or clarification, the Commission clarified that it will not incorporate the interpretations of standards organizations automatically into its rules, as some commenters had assumed. The Commission asserted its discretion to use its own judgment in interpreting standards, even as it is informed by the interpretation(s) of the standards organization. In addition, the Commission would not adopt the interpretation of a standards organization in a case in which doing so would effectively change the Commission's rules without the opportunity for comment. Moreover, the Commission pointed out that ANSI-ASC C63 comments indicated that it does not require parties to follow such explanations and interpretations to be considered “compliant” with a standard, until such time that they are included in the normative part of the standard via full approval process by the ANSI-ASC C63 committee. The Commission also disagreed with commenters who asserted that it should not adopt the new ANSI standards because they cross-references to other undated standards. These commenters were concerned that this practice could inadvertently result in new compliance requirements by introducing revised editions without the opportunity for comment or defined transition periods. The Commission recognized that the use of undated references could be unclear to users—particularly when there are several versions of the referenced standard. However, the Commission believed that requiring that only dated standards be cross-referenced would not always result in certainty regarding compliance requirements. ANSI-ASC C63 explained that it decided to use undated references to other ANSI-ASC C63 standards since it carefully reviews the effect of any revisions as part of the standards development process. The Commission accepted this convention, acknowledging that, under this approach, there could be a revision to a standard cross-referenced referenced in ANSI C63.4 or ANSI C63.10. When this occurs, OET will provide guidance via the KDB on the use of updated references in ANSI C63.4 and ANSI C63.10. If the change that would result in a substantive change in requirements, the revised cross-referenced standard would not take effect until the Commission or OET on delegated authority completes a rulemaking adopting that change.

    62. Finally, the Commission addressed a specific and narrow concern raised by Inovonics which stated that, while its products meet the frequency hopping requirements for unlicensed devices in § 15.247(a)(1)(i) using the bandwidth measurement procedure in ANSI C63.4-2003, it would be unable to meet the frequency hopping requirement using the proposed bandwidth measurement procedure in ANSI C63.10-2009 due to difference in resolution bandwidth setting techniques when measuring occupied bandwidth. Inovonics asserted that redesigning future products to meet the frequency hopping requirement would impose burdens on consumers of large-scale unlicensed systems who would no longer be able to modify their existing systems without substantially replacing all of their equipment. It suggested that, if the Commission adopts a revised standard, it include an extensive grandfathering period for testing equipment under the existing standard.

    63. The Commission agreed with Inovonics argument that application of the 2009 standard would result in Inovonics' existing consumers having to choose whether to replace entire systems or forego the benefits of updating equipment or expanding their existing installations, and that application of the standard would be so unduly burdensome as to run counter to the public interest. In the evaluation of devices from Inovonics that are designed to be compatible with Inovonics equipment that has already been authorized, the Commission will to continue to accept the bandwidth measurement procedure in ANSI C63.4-2003 for purposes of demonstrating that products meet the frequency hopping requirements for its unlicensed devices in § 15.247(a)(1)(i). Inovonics must phase out its use of the 2003 standard after December 31, 2020—the date it suggests in its comments—or when the Commission adopts further revisions to the standard, whichever occurs first. The Commission found that this transition would allow Inovonics sufficient time to prepare its customers for replacing their systems as it plans equipment designs that can be tested to comply with the updated standard. Because it will still be subject to the objective measurement procedure embodied in the 2003 standard, the Commission affirmed its confidence that Inovonics' equipment will comport with the appropriate part 15 technical requirements and not create a risk of interference.

    9. Updating Measurement Procedures

    64. Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's rules incorporate various industry measurement standards that have been developed by different industry groups, subject to periodic revision. The Commission has delegated authority to the Chief of OET to make editorial non-substantive changes to the rules pertaining to parts 2, 5, 15, and 18 of the rules, including references to updated standards that do not involve substantive changes. Non-editorial revisions to the rules require action by the full Commission and all rule changes to reference updated standards have been effected by Commission action. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to explicitly allow OET to update references to industry standards that are already in the rules in parts 2, 5, 15 and 18 of the rules, provided that the changes do not raise major compliance issues.

    65. The Commission adopted its NPRM proposal to give the Chief of OET delegated authority to engage in limited rulemaking action in order to modify parts 2, 5, 15, and 18 of rules to reference updated versions of standards that are already referenced in the rules. When it updates these references, in order to effectuate any degree of change to the substantive obligations of any party subject to FCC regulation, OET must follow Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements by publishing a notice in the Federal Register, providing sufficient opportunity for public comment, and considering the record compiled in the proceeding prior to adopting any substantive update to the standards. OET will determine whether there is a need for a transition period, and the appropriate length of any such transition, based on the comments filed in response to each public notice. In cases where parties provide convincing evidence that the proposed use of an updated standard would, in fact, raise major compliance issues, the Commission directed OET to refer the matter for review and decision by the Commission.

    10. Other Issues

    66. The Commission amended § 2.1033 of the rules to require that applications for Certification include photographs or diagrams of the test set-up for each of the required types of tests applicable to the device for which Certification is requested. The photographs or diagrams must show enough detail to confirm other information contained in the test report, and any photographs must clearly show the test configuration used. The Commission stated that the changes will make the Certification procedure consistent with the verification and DoC procedures, which require photographs or diagrams, and will allow it to determine whether a test laboratory or TCB tested equipment in accordance with the applicable measurement procedures. The Commission determined that the cost of this requirement would negligible because it requires a test laboratory or TCB to take a minimal number of additional photographs during testing or provide some relatively simple diagrams and include those with the test report submitted with the application for Certification. Additionally, the Commission found no need to specify in § 2.1033 that photographs or diagrams may be in electronic format since it accepts only electronic filings from TCBs and because codifying such aspects of the filing procedure could limit OET's flexibility in modifying them later. Additionally, the Commission decided to not adopt Bay Area Compliance's suggestion regarding a time/date stamp requirement since such data could be easily altered in conjunction with a fraudulent filing.

    67. Obsolete rules. The Commission removed § 15.109(g)(4) because it references a rule provision that was deleted in 2002. The Commission also deleted the note in § 15.31(a)(3) as unnecessary.

    Transition Period

    68. To allow time for currently operating laboratories to become fully accredited and comply with the new ANSI C63.4 site validation criteria above 1 GHz, the Commission proposed adopted the transition periods set forth in the NPRM and applied them to the versions of the standards it adopted. Testing laboratories currently listed by the Commission under the § 2.948 process will remain recognized for the sooner of one year from the effective date of the rules adopted herein or until the date that their listing expires. As of the effective date of the rules, new laboratories must be accredited in order to be added to the Commission's list of recognized testing laboratories and the Commission will not recognize new 2.948-listed laboratories. Testing laboratories whose 2.948-listings expire within one year of the effective date of the rules may renew their listing but the renewal will be valid only until one year after the effective date of the rules. Applicants for grants of Certification using recognized 2.948-listed testing laboratories that test devices up until one year after the effective date of the rules must submit those test reports for grants of Certification within 90 days of the end of the one-year transition period (i.e., within approximately 15 months of the effective date of the rules). The transition to the new site validation criteria will require testing laboratories to demonstrate compliance with the site validation criteria in ANSI C63.4-2014 clause 5.5.1 a) (CISPR 16-1-4), no later than three years after the effective date of the rules.

    Other Matters

    69. The docket included a Petition for Rulemaking filed by James E. Whedbee that proposed a new rule stating that a Commission license holder may use devices authorized for use under our part 15 rules and that such devices would not require a separate equipment authorization. Since the Commission currently does not place any restrictions on the use of part 15 devices by a holder of any other Commission license holder as long as the device is used within its authorized parameters, the Commission denied the petition as moot. To the extent that the petitioner intended to propose other alterations to our practice or procedures, the Commission found that the petition did not state what the proposed changes would do or why they are needed, and therefore failed to provide sufficient reason to justify the institution of a rulemaking proceeding.

    Incorporation by Reference

    70. The OFR recently revised the regulations to require that agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). In accordance with OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes ANSI, CISPR and ISO/IEC standards. Copies of the standards are also available for purchase from the standards development organizations: The IEEE standards may be purchased from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), 3916 Ranchero Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, 1-800-699-9277, http://www.techstreet.com/ieee; and the ANSI, ISO and IEC standards are available for purchase from American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/IEEE.

    (1) ANSI C63.4-2014: “American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz,” ANSI approved June 13, 2014:

    • Except sections 4.5.3, 4.6, 6.2.13, 8.2.2, 9, and 13, IBR approved for §§ 2.950(h), 15.31(a)(4), and 15.38(b)(1).

    • Sections 5.4.4 through 5.5 IBR approved for §§ 2.910(c)(1), 2.948(d), and 2.950(f).

    This standard, ANSI C63.4-2014, contains methods, instrumentation, and facilities for measurement of radio-frequency (RF) signals and noise emitted from electrical and electronic devices in the frequency range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz, as usable, for example, for compliance testing to U.S. (47 CFR part 15) and Industry Canada (ICES-003) regulatory requirements.

    (2) ANSI C63.10-2013, “American National Standard of Procedures for Compliance Testing of Unlicensed Wireless Devices,” ANSI approved June 27, 2013, IBR approved for §§ 2.910(c)(3), 2.950(g), 15.31(a)(3), and 15.38(b)(4).

    This standard, ANSI C63.10-2013, contains standard methods and instrumentation and test facilities requirements for measurement of radio frequency (RF) signals and noise emitted from unlicensed wireless devices (also called unlicensed transmitters, intentional radiators, and license-exempt transmitters) operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 231 GHz.

    IEC

    (1) CISPR 16-1-4:2010-04: “Specification for radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus and methods—Part 1-4: Radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus—Antennas and test sites for radiated disturbance measurements” Edition 3.0, 2010-04, IBR approved for §§ 2.910(b)(1), 2.948(d), and 2.950(f).

    This standard, CISPR 16-1-4:2010-04, specifies the characteristics and performance of equipment for the measurement of radiated disturbances in the frequency range 9 kHz to 18 GHz. Specifications for antennas and test sites are included. The requirements of this publication apply at all frequencies and for all levels of radiated disturbances within the CISPR indicating range of the measuring equipment.

    ISO

    (1) ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), “Conformity assessment—General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies,” First Edition, 2004-09-01, IBR approved for §§ 2.910(d)(1), 2.948(e), 2.949(b)(1), 2.950(c) and (d), 2.960(b), and (c)(1), and 68.160(c)(1).

    This standard, ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), specifies general requirements for accreditation bodies assessing and accrediting conformity assessment bodies (CABs). It is also appropriate as a requirements document for the peer evaluation process for mutual recognition arrangements between accreditation bodies.

    (2) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories,” Second Edition, 2005-05-15 IBR approved for §§ 2.910(d)(2), 2.948(e), 2.949(b)(2), 2.962(c)(3), (c)(4), and (d)(1), and 68.162(c)(3), (c)(4), and (d)(1).

    This standard, ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), specifies the general requirements for the competence to carry out tests and/or calibrations, including sampling. It covers testing and calibration performed using standard methods, non-standard methods, and laboratory-developed methods.

    (3) ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), “Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services,” First Edition, 2012-09-15, IBR approved for §§ 2.910(d)(3), 2.950(b), 2.960(b), 2.962(b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d)(1), (d)(3), (f)(2), and (g)(1), 68.160 (b) and 68.162(b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d)(1), (d)(2), (f)(2), and (g)(2).

    This standard, ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), specifies requirements, the observance of which is intended to ensure that certification bodies operate certification schemes in a competent, consistent and impartial manner, thereby facilitating the recognition of such bodies and the acceptance of certified products, processes and services on a national and international basis and so furthering international trade. This International Standard can be used as a criteria document for accreditation or peer assessment or designation by governmental authorities, scheme owners and others.

    (4) ISO/IEC Guide 58:1993 “Calibration and testing laboratory accreditation systems—General requirements for operation and recognition”, First Edition 1993 IBR approved for §§ 2.910(d)(4), and 2.950(d).

    This document, ISO/IEC Guide 58:1993, sets out the general requirements for the operation of a system for accreditation of calibration and/or testing laboratories so that the accreditations granted and the services covered by the accreditations may be recognized at a national or international level as competent and reliable.

    (5) ISO/IEC Guide 61:1996 “General requirements for assessment and accreditation of certification/registration bodies”, First Edition 1996, IBR approved for §§ 2.910(d)(5), and 2.950(c).

    This document, ISO/IEC Guide 61:1996, specifies general requirements for a body to follow if it is to be recognized at a national or international level as competent and reliable in assessing and subsequently accrediting certification bodies or registration bodies. Conformity to the requirements of this Guide will promote equivalence of national systems and facilitate agreements on mutual recognition of accreditations between such bodies.

    (6) ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996, “General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems,” First Edition 1996, IBR approved for §§ 2.910(d)(6), and 2.950(b).

    This document, ISO/IEC Guide 65: 1996, specifies requirements, the observance of which is intended to ensure that certification bodies operate third-party certification systems in a consistent and reliable manner, thereby facilitating their acceptance on a national and international basis and so furthering international trade.

    Procedural Matters Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    71. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking (Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment NPRM) in ET Docket No. 13-44.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. Those comments are discussed in the following text. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3

    1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996), and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public Law 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504 (2010).

    2See Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission's Rules to regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment and Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment by Telecommunications Certification Bodies, NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 13-44, RM-11673, 28 FCC Rcd 1606 (2013) (NPRM).

    3See 5 U.S.C. 604.

    A. Need for, and Objective of, the Report and Order

    72. In the Report and Order, the Commission took actions to update its radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program to build on the success realized by our use of Commission-recognized Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs). The adopted rules will facilitate the continued rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the market while maintaining our ability to ensure that these products do not cause harmful interference with each other or with other communications devices and services.

    Specifically, in this Report and Order the Commission:

    • Discontinued FCC processing of any applications for equipment Certification of RF equipment;

    • Permitted TCBs to process and grant all applications for Certification;

    • Codified a pre-grant approval procedure that TCBs must currently follow when certifying equipment based on new technology that requires consultation with the FCC;

    • Clarified a TCB's responsibilities in performing post-market surveillance of products it has approved;

    • Specified steps for addressing instances of deficient TCB performance, including appropriate sanctions for deficiencies that do not warrant rescinding a TCB's authority to issue a grant of Certification;

    • Modified the rules to reference current standards used to accredit TCBs that approve RF equipment under part 2 of the Commission's rules and terminal equipment under part 68 of the Commission's rules;

    • Required accreditation of all laboratories that test equipment subject to any of the certification procedures under part 2 of the Commission's rules and codified a procedure through which the Commission currently recognizes new laboratory accreditation bodies;

    • Updated references to industry measurement procedures in the Commission's rules; and provided greater flexibility under the Office of Engineering and Technology's (OET) existing delegated authority to enable it to address minor technical issues that may be raised when updating to the latest versions of industry standards that are referenced in parts 2, 5, 15, and 18 of the Commission's rules.

    B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

    73. One commenter addressed the conclusions that were reached in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) regarding the economic impact that the proposed rules would have on small entities. That commenter, dB Technology, asserted that the IRFA failed to account for the negative effects of adopting the proposal to require that all laboratories that perform certification testing be accredited.4 Specifically, dB Technology stated that the “. . . cost overhead associated with `accreditation' which has a much more significant impact on smaller test labs . . . may result in some small test labs no longer being able to offer services to local small entities.” As a result, dB Technology concluded that there could be a “. . . reduction in the number of competing test labs and increased costs for manufacturers.” 5

    4See dB Technology “small business impact” comments filed March 22, 2013. dB Technology refers to itself as “an independent EMC/Radio Test Site located in the United Kingdom,” whose test facilities are “ `listed' with the FCC but not `accredited.' ”

    5 dB Technology also suggested that the IRFA should have considered the “positive impact” of relaxing other Commission equipment authorization procedures. However, the procedures it mentioned were not the direct subjects of this proceeding and these comments will not be discussed further.

    74. In the Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission adopted the requirement that all laboratories that perform Certification testing be accredited. It did so on the basis that requiring testing laboratory accreditation is an important adjunct to our decision to allow TCBs to certify all RF equipment, and because the requirement will provide a higher degree of confidence that equipment testing done in support of Certification applications is conducted in accordance with the applicable standards. To the extent that dB technologies is suggesting that the Commission take an alternate approach, such as continuing to allow for unaccredited laboratories, it was considered but rejected on the basis that it would not accomplish the objectives of the proceeding. It is extremely important that equipment be properly evaluated prior to being released into the marketplace (where it may be difficult or impossible to retrieve). Not requiring accreditation, or only applying such a requirement to certain types of laboratories, would present unacceptable risks to the integrity and success of our equipment authorization program. It would also increase the potential for the imposition of extraordinary costs (both costs associated with the identification and recall of noncompliant products by manufacturers, and costs associated with interference by noncompliant devices that could affect a larger group of users). For these reasons, the Commission adopted the accreditation rule based on the proposals in the NPRM and its accompanying IRFA.

    C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration

    75. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission was required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

    D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply

    76. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.6 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.7 A small business concern is one which: 1) is independently owned and operated; 2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.8

    6Id. at 603(b)(3).

    7 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.” 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

    8 Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).

    77. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” 9 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 912 had less than 500 employees and 17 had more than 1000 employees.10 Thus, under that size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

    9 The NAICS Code for this service 334220. See 13 CFR 121/201. See also http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&-ds_name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en.

    10See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=4500&-ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en.

    E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    78. The Commission's rules require that equipment be authorized in accordance with one of three procedures specified in Subpart J of part 2 of the rules described below (with certain limited exceptions).11 These requirements not only minimize the potential for harmful interference, but also ensure that the equipment complies with our rules that address other policy objectives—such as RF human exposure limits and hearing aid compatibility (HAC) with wireless handsets. The specific provisions of the three procedures apply to various types of devices based on their relative likelihood of harmful interference and the significance of the effects of such interference from the particular device at issue.

    11See 47 CFR part 2, subpart J, 2.901, et seq. Some devices are exempt from the equipment authorization requirements, such as unlicensed digital devices used exclusively in transportation vehicles, utility or industrial plants, test equipment, appliances and medical devices. See 47 CFR 15.103. In addition, most radio receivers that tune only outside the frequency range of 30-960 MHz are exempt from equipment authorization requirements. See 47 CFR 15.101(b). Operation of these exempt digital devices and radio receivers is subject to the condition that the devices may not cause harmful interference to authorized services. See 47 CFR 15.5(b). Additionally, some devices are exempt from equipment authorization requirements by statute, such as equipment intended solely for export or marketed exclusively for use by the Federal Government. See 47 U.S.C. 302a(c) and 47 CFR 2.807.

    Certification, the most rigorous process for devices with the greatest potential to cause harmful interference, is an equipment authorization issued by the Commission or grant of Certification by a recognized TCB based on an application and test data submitted by the responsible party (e.g., the manufacturer or importer).12 The testing is done by a testing laboratory listed by the Commission as approved for such work and the Commission or a TCB examines the test procedures and data to determine whether the testing followed appropriate protocols and the data demonstrates technical and operational compliance with all pertinent rules. Technical parameters and other descriptive information for all certified equipment submitted in an application for Certification are published in a Commission-maintained public database, regardless of whether it is approved by the Commission or a TCB.13

    12See 47 CFR 2.907.

    13See http://www.fcc.gov/eas/.

    Declaration of Conformity (DoC) is a procedure that requires the party responsible for compliance to use an accredited testing laboratory that follows established measurement protocols to ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards.14 The responsible party is not required to file an equipment authorization application with the Commission or a TCB, and equipment authorized under the DoC procedure is not listed in any Commission database. However, the responsible party must provide a test report and other information demonstrating compliance with the rules upon request by the Commission.

    14See 47 CFR 2.906. The party responsible for compliance is defined in 47 CFR 2.909.

    Verification is a procedure that requires the party responsible for compliance to rely on measurements that it or another party makes on its behalf to ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards.15 The responsible party is not required to use an accredited testing laboratory. It is not required to file an application with the Commission or a TCB, and equipment authorized under the verification procedure is not listed in any Commission database. However, the responsible party must provide a test report and other information demonstrating compliance with the rules upon request by the Commission.

    15See 47 CFR 2.909(b) and 2.953.

    79. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in this proceeding, the Commission proposed certain changes to ensure its part 2 equipment authorization processes continue to operate efficiently and effectively.16 Specifically, the Commission proposed to clarify the obligations of TCBs and to strengthen the Commission's oversight of the TCB's. The Commission also proposed to require accreditation for all labs performing equipment authorization compliance tests. The Commission also proposed adopting updates to the measurement procedures used to determine RF equipment compliance.

    16See Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, and 15 of the Commission's Rules regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment and Amendment of Part 68 regarding Approval of Terminal Equipment by Telecommunications Certification Bodies, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 13-44, 28 FCC Rcd 1606 (2013).

    80. The Commission adopted its proposals specifying how applicants will file with TCBs and how TCBs will file with the Commission, and will required that the information provided to the Commission shall be submitted electronically through the Commission's EAS.

    81. The Commission will stop accepting applications for grant of Certification as of the effective date of the Report and Order and will modify § 1.1103 of the rules to remove the equipment authorization services sections related to Certification as all of the processes under the Certification section will no longer be handled by the Commission, and no fee will be charged by the Commission when a TCB issues a grant of Certification. Applications received prior to the effective date will be reviewed following the current review procedures and approved if compliant with all requirements. Finally, the Commission also adopted the proposed TCB process changes and amended the various sections of part 2 that required updating to reflect the TCB role in the Certification process, as modified herein.

    F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    82. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.17

    17 5 U.S.C. 603(c).

    83. The Commission adopted the proposed modifications to the administrative requirements for test laboratories and TCBs on the belief that the changes will make the equipment authorization program more efficient and effective, thus benefiting small entities. Specifically, TCBs will approve all equipment, including equipment that TCBs may not currently approve because it incorporates new technology or requires measurements for which the procedures are not yet clearly defined. To more efficiently implement this change, the Commission will also integrate a new procedure into our equipment authorization system that will enable TCBs to obtain guidance from the Commission on testing or other certification issues. It is expected that these changes will reduce the time required for manufacturers to obtain equipment approval.

    84. The Commission also adopted its proposals to require accreditation of test laboratories that perform certification testing and establish additional measures to address TCB performance in order to ensure the continuing quality of the TCB program. This will benefit equipment manufacturers by ensuring that all TCBs operate in accordance with the Commission's rules, thus providing a clear path to market and a level playing field for all manufacturers, both large and small.

    Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.18 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

    18See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    85. This Report and Order contains no new information collection requirements, only non-substantive modifications.

    Congressional Review Act

    86. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.19

    19 See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    Ordering Clauses

    87. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 301, 302, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157(a), 301, 302a, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e), and 332, this Report and Order is adopted.

    88. The rules and requirements adopted in this Report and Order will be effective July 13, 2015.

    89. Pursuant to the authority of Section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 155(c), the Commission delegate authority to the Office of Engineering and Technology as set forth herein.

    90. The Petition for Rulemaking filed by James E. Whedbee is denied.

    91. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    92. Pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j) and 303, that should no petitions for reconsideration or applications for review be timely filed, this proceeding is terminated and ET Docket No. 13-44 is closed.

    List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 0

    Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    47 CFR Part 2

    Communications equipment, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment, Incorporation by reference, Radio, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    47 CFR Part 68

    Communications equipment, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 1, 2, 15 and 68 as follows:

    PART 0—COMMISSION ORGANIZATION 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 0.241 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (f) to read as follows:
    § 0.241 Authority delegated.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Notice of proposed rulemaking and of inquiry and final orders in rulemaking proceedings, inquiry proceedings and non-editorial orders making changes, except that:

    (i) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated authority, together with the Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to adopt certain technical standards applicable to hearing aid compatibility under § 20.19 of this chapter, as specified in § 20.19(k).

    (ii) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated authority, by notice-and-comment rulemaking if required by statute or otherwise in the public interest, to issue an order amending rules in parts 2, 5, 15, or 18 of this chapter that reference industry standards to specify revised versions of the standards. This delegation is limited to modifying rules to reference revisions to standards that are already in the rules and not to incorporate a new standard into the rules, and is limited to the approval of changes to the technical standards that do not raise major compliance issues.

    (f) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is authorized to enter into agreements with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other accreditation bodies to perform accreditation of test laboratories pursuant to § 2.948(e) of this chapter. In addition, the Chief is authorized to make determinations regarding the continued acceptability of individual accrediting organizations and accredited laboratories.

    3. Section 0.408 is amended by revising the entry for “3060-0636” in paragraph (b) to read as follows.
    § 0.408 OMB control numbers and expiration dates assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    (b) Display.

    OMB Control No. FCC Form number or 47 CFR section or part, docket number or title identifying the collection OMB Expiration date *         *         *         *         *         *         * 3060-0636 Secs. 2.906, 2.909, 2.1071, 2.1075, 2.1077, and 15.37 05/31/15 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 4. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452 and 1455.

    5. Section 1.1103 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1103 Schedule of charges for equipment approval, experimental radio services (or service).

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, OET Services, P.O. Box 979095, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service Equipment approval service(s) FCC form No. Fee
  • amount
  • Payment type
  • code
  • 1. Advance Approval of Subscription TV Systems Corres & 159 $4,180.00 EIS a. Request for Confidentiality For Advance Approval of Subscription TV Systems Corres & 159 195.00 EBS 2. Assignment of Grantee Code: a. For all Application Types, except Subscription TV (Electronic Filing Only—Optional Electronic Payment) Electronic Assignment & Form 159 or Optional Electronic Payment 65.00 EAG 3. Experimental Radio Service(s): a. New Station Authorization 442 & 159 65.00 EAE b. Modification of Authorization 442 & 159 65.00 EAE c. Renewal of Station Authorization 405 & 159 65.00 EAE d. Assignment of License or Transfer of Control 702 & 159 or 65.00 EAE 703 & 159 65.00 EAE e. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 65.00 EAE f. Additional fee required for any of the above applications that request withholding from public inspection Corres & 159 65.00 EAE
    PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 6. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

    7. Section 2.901 is revised to read as follows:
    § 2.901 Basis and purpose.

    (a) In order to carry out its responsibilities under the Communications Act and the various treaties and international regulations, and in order to promote efficient use of the radio spectrum, the Commission has developed technical standards for radio frequency equipment and parts or components thereof. The technical standards applicable to individual types of equipment are found in that part of the rules governing the service wherein the equipment is to be operated. In addition to the technical standards provided, the rules governing the service may require that such equipment be verified by the manufacturer or importer, be authorized under a Declaration of Conformity, or receive a grant of Certification from a Telecommunication Certification Body.

    (b) Sections 2.902 through 2.1077 describe the verification procedure, the procedure for a Declaration of Conformity, and the procedures to be followed in obtaining certification and the conditions attendant to such a grant.

    8. Section 2.906 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 2.906 Declaration of Conformity.

    (a) A Declaration of Conformity is a procedure where the responsible party, as defined in § 2.909, makes measurements or takes other necessary steps to ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards. Submittal of a sample unit or representative data to the Commission demonstrating compliance is not required unless specifically requested pursuant to § 2.945.

    9. Section 2.907 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 2.907 Certification.

    (a) Certification is an equipment authorization approved by the Commission or issued by a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) and authorized under the authority of the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant.

    10. Section 2.909 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 2.909 Responsible party.

    (a) In the case of equipment which requires the issuance of a grant of certification, the party to whom that grant of certification is issued (the grantee). If the radio frequency equipment is modified by any party other than the grantee and that party is not working under the authorization of the grantee pursuant to § 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter.

    11. Section 2.910 is added before the undesignated center heading “Application Procedures for Equipment Authorizations” to read as follows:
    § 2.910 Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference in this part. These incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in these materials will be published in the Federal Register. All approved material is available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270 and is available from the sources below. It is also 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.

    (b) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Central Office, 3, rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Email: [email protected], www.iec.ch.

    (1) CISPR 16-1-4:2010-04: “Specification for radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus and methods—Part 1-4: Radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus—Antennas and test sites for radiated disturbance measurements”, Edition 3.0, 2010-04, IBR approved for §§ 2.948(d) and 2.950(f).

    (2) [Reserved]

    (c) Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), 3916 Ranchero Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, 1-800-699-9277, http://www.techstreet.com/ieee; (ISO publications can also be purchased from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through its NSSN operation (www.nssn.org), at Customer Service, American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, telephone (212) 642-4900.)

    (1) ANSI C63.4-2014: “American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz,” ANSI approved June 13, 2014, IBR approved for § 2.950(h) and:

    (i) Sections 5.4.4 through 5.5, IBR approved for §§ 2.948(d) and 2.950(f); and

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (2) ANSI C63.10-2013, “American National Standard of Procedures for Compliance Testing of Unlicensed Wireless Devices,” ANSI approved June 27, 2013, IBR approved for § 2.950(g).

    (d) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. De la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland; www.iso.org ; Tel.: +41 22 749 01 11; Fax: +41 22 733 34 30; email: [email protected]. (ISO publications can also be purchased from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through its NSSN operation (www.nssn.org), at Customer Service, American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, telephone (212) 642-4900.)

    (1) ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), “Conformity assessment—General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies,” First Edition, 2004-09-01, IBR approved for §§ 2.948(e), 2.949(b), 2.950(c) and (d), and 2.960(c).

    (2) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories,” Section Edition, 2005-05-15, IBR approved for §§ 2.948(e), 2.949(b), 2.962(c) and (d).

    (3) ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), “Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services,” First Edition, 2012-09-15, IBR approved for §§ 2.950(b), 2.960(b), 2.962(b), (c), (d), (f), and (g).

    (4) ISO/IEC Guide 58:1993(E), “Calibration and testing laboratory accreditation systems—General requirements for operation and recognition”, First Edition 1993, IBR approved for § 2.950(d).

    (5) ISO/IEC Guide 61:1996(E), “General requirements for assessment and accreditation of certification/registration bodies”, First Edition 1996, IBR approved for § 2.950(c).

    (6) ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996(E), “General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems,” First Edition 1996, IBR approved for § 2.950(b).

    12. Section 2.911 is revised to read as follows:
    § 2.911 Application requirements.

    (a) All requests for equipment authorization shall be submitted in writing to a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) in a manner prescribed by the TCB.

    (b) A TCB shall submit an electronic copy of each equipment authorization application to the Commission pursuant to § 2.962(f)(6) on a form prescribed by the Commission at https://www.fcc.gov/eas.

    (c) Each application that a TCB submits to the Commission shall be accompanied by all information required by this subpart and by those parts of the rules governing operation of the equipment, the applicant's certifications required by paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, and by requisite test data, diagrams, photographs, etc., as specified in this subpart and in those sections of rules under which the equipment is to be operated.

    (d) The applicant shall provide to the TCB all information that the TCB requests to process the equipment authorization request and to submit the application form prescribed by the Commission and all exhibits required with this form.

    (1) The applicant shall provide a written and signed certification to the TCB that all statements it makes in its request for equipment authorization are true and correct to the best of its knowledge and belief.

    (2) The applicant shall provide a written and signed certification to the TCB that the applicant complies with the requirements in § 1.2002 of this chapter concerning the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.

    (3) Each request for equipment authorization submitted to a TCB, including amendments thereto, and related statements of fact and authorizations required by the Commission, shall be signed by the applicant if the applicant is an individual; by one of the partners if the applicant is a partnership; by an officer, if the applicant is a corporation; or by a member who is an officer, if the applicant is an unincorporated association: Provided, however, that the application may be signed by the applicant's authorized representative who shall indicate his title, such as plant manager, project engineer, etc.

    (4) Information on the Commission's equipment authorization requirements can be obtained from the Internet at https://www.fcc.gov/eas.

    (e) Technical test data submitted to the TCB and to the Commission shall be signed by the person who performed or supervised the tests. The person signing the test data shall attest to the accuracy of such data. The Commission or TCB may require the person signing the test data to submit a statement showing that they are qualified to make or supervise the required measurements.

    (f) Signed, as used in this section, means an original handwritten signature; however, the Office of Engineering and Technology may allow signature by any symbol executed or adopted by the applicant or TCB with the intent that such symbol be a signature, including symbols formed by computer-generated electronic impulses.

    § 2.913 [Removed]
    13. Section 2.913 is removed.
    14. Section 2.915 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to read as follows:
    § 2.915 Grant of application.

    (a) A Commission recognized TCB will grant an application for certification if it finds from an examination of the application and supporting data, or other matter which it may officially notice, that:

    (d) Grants will be effective from the date of publication on the Commission Web site and shall show any special condition(s) attaching to the grant. The official copy of the grant shall be maintained on the Commission Web site.

    (e) The grant shall identify the approving TCB and the Commission as the issuing authority.

    (f) In cases of a dispute the Commission will be the final arbiter.

    15. Section 2.917 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 2.917 Dismissal of application.

    (c) If an applicant is requested to file additional documents or information and fails to submit the requested material within the specified time period, the application may be dismissed.

    16. Section 2.924 is revised to read as follows:
    § 2.924 Marketing of electrically identical equipment having multiple trade names and models or type numbers under the same FCC Identifier.

    The grantee of an equipment authorization may market devices having different model/type numbers or trade names without additional authorization, provided that such devices are electrically identical and the equipment bears an FCC Identifier validated by a grant of certification. A device will be considered to be electrically identical if no changes are made to the authorized device, or if the changes made to the device would be treated as class I permissive changes within the scope of § 2.1043(b)(1). Changes to the model number or trade name by anyone other than the grantee, or under the authorization of the grantee, shall be performed following the procedures in § 2.933.

    § 2.925 [Amended]
    17. Section 2.925 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(3) and redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(3). 18. Section 2.926 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1), and (e) to read as follows:
    § 2.926 FCC identifier.

    (a) A grant of certification will list the validated FCC Identifier consisting of the grantee code assigned by the FCC pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, and the equipment product code assigned by the grantee pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. See § 2.925.

    (c) * * *

    (1) After assignment of a grantee code each grantee will continue to use the same grantee code for subsequent equipment authorization applications. In the event the grantee name is changed or ownership is transferred, the circumstances shall be reported to the Commission so that a new grantee code can be assigned, if appropriate. See § 2.929(c) and (d) for additional information.

    (e) No FCC Identifier may be used on equipment to be marketed unless that specific identifier has been validated by a grant of equipment certification. This shall not prohibit placement of an FCC identifier on a transceiver which includes a verified receiver subject to § 15.101 of this chapter, provided that the transmitter portion of such transceiver is covered by a valid grant of type acceptance or certification. The FCC Identifier is uniquely assigned to the grantee and may not be placed on the equipment without authorization by the grantee. See § 2.803 for conditions applicable to the display at trade shows of equipment which has not been granted equipment authorization where such grant is required prior to marketing. Labelling of such equipment may include model or type numbers, but shall not include a purported FCC Identifier.

    19. Section 2.927 is revised to read as follows:
    § 2.927 Limitations on grants.

    (a) A grant of certification is valid only when the FCC Identifier is permanently affixed on the device and remains effective until set aside, revoked, withdrawn, surrendered, or terminated.

    (b) A grant of certification recognizes the determination that the equipment has been shown to be capable of compliance with the applicable technical standards if no unauthorized change is made in the equipment and if the equipment is properly maintained and operated. The issuance of a grant of equipment certification shall not be construed as a finding with respect to matters not encompassed by the Commission's rules, especially with respect to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 2512.

    (c) No person shall, in any advertising matter, brochure, etc., use or make reference to an equipment authorization in a deceptive or misleading manner or convey the impression that such certification reflects more than a Commission-authorized determination that the device or product has been shown to be capable of compliance with the applicable technical standards of the Commission's rules.

    20. Section 2.929 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) to read as follows:
    § 2.929 Changes in name, address, ownership or control of grantee.

    (a) An equipment authorization may not be assigned, exchanged or in any other way transferred to a second party, except as provided in this section.

    (c) Whenever there is a change in the name and/or address of the grantee of certification, notice of such change(s) shall be submitted to the Commission via the Internet at https://apps.fcc.gov/eas within 30 days after the grantee starts using the new name and/or address.

    (d) In the case of transactions affecting the grantee, such as a transfer of control or sale to another company, mergers, or transfer of manufacturing rights, notice must be given to the Commission via the Internet at https://apps.fcc.gov/eas within 60 days after the consummation of the transaction. Depending on the circumstances in each case, the Commission may require new applications for certification. In reaching a decision the Commission will consider whether the acquiring party can adequately ensure and accept responsibility for continued compliance with the regulations. In general, new applications for each device will not be required. A single application for certification may be filed covering all the affected equipment.

    21. Section 2.932 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 2.932 Modification of equipment.

    (d) All requests for permissive changes must be accompanied by the anti-drug abuse certification required under § 1.2002 of this chapter.

    22. Section 2.933 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (b)(5) to read as follows:
    § 2.933 Change in identification of equipment.

    (a) A new application for certification shall be filed whenever there is a change in the FCC Identifier for the equipment with or without a change in design, circuitry or construction. However, a change in the model/type number or trade name performed in accordance with the provisions in § 2.924 of this chapter is not considered to be a change in identification and does not require additional authorization.

    (b) An application filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section where no change in design, circuitry or construction is involved, need not be accompanied by a resubmission of equipment or measurement or test data customarily required with a new application, unless specifically requested. In lieu thereof, the applicant shall attach a statement setting out:

    (5) The photographs required by § 2.1033(b)(7) or (c)(12) showing the exterior appearance of the equipment, including the operating controls available to the user and the identification label. Photographs of the construction, the component placement on the chassis, and the chassis assembly are not required to be submitted unless specifically requested.

    § 2.936 [Removed]
    23. Section 2.936 is removed.
    § 2.943 [Removed]
    24. Section 2.943 is removed. 25. Section 2.945 is revised to read as follows:
    § 2.945 Submission of equipment for testing and equipment records.

    (a) Prior to certification. (1) The Commission or a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) may require an applicant for certification to submit one or more sample units for measurement at the Commission's laboratory or the TCB.

    (2) If the applicant fails to provide a sample of the equipment, the TCB may dismiss the application without prejudice.

    (3) In the event the applicant believes that shipment of the sample to the Commission's laboratory or the TCB is impractical because of the size or weight of the equipment, or the power requirement, or for any other reason, the applicant may submit a written explanation why such shipment is impractical and should not be required.

    (4) The Commission may take administrative sanctions against a grantee of certification that fails to respond within 21 days to a Commission or TCB request for an equipment sample, such as suspending action on applications for equipment authorization submitted by that party while the matter is being resolved. The Commission may consider extensions of time upon submission of a showing of good cause.

    (b) Subsequent to equipment authorization. (1) The Commission may request that the responsible party or any other party marketing equipment subject to this chapter submit a sample of the equipment, or provide a voucher for the equipment to be obtained from the marketplace, to determine the extent to which production of such equipment continues to comply with the data filed by the applicant or on file with the responsible party for equipment subject to verification or Declaration of Conformity. The Commission may request that a sample or voucher to obtain a product from the marketplace be submitted to the Commission, or in the case of equipment subject to certification, to the TCB that certified the equipment.

    (2) A TCB may request samples of equipment that it has certified from the grantee of certification, or request a voucher to obtain a product from the marketplace, for the purpose of performing post-market surveillance as described in § 2.962. TCBs must document their sample requests to show the date they were sent and provide this documentation to the Commission upon request.

    (3) The cost of shipping the equipment to the Commission's laboratory and back to the party submitting the equipment shall be borne by the party from which the Commission requested the equipment.

    (4) In the event a party believes that shipment of the sample to the Commission's laboratory or the TCB is impractical because of the size or weight of the equipment, or the power requirement, or for any other reason, that party may submit a written explanation why such shipment is impractical and should not be required.

    (5) Failure of a responsible party or other party marketing equipment subject to this chapter to comply with a request from the Commission or TCB for equipment samples or vouchers within 21 days may be cause for actions such as such as suspending action on applications for certification submitted by a grantee or forfeitures pursuant to § 1.80 of this chapter. The Commission or TCB requesting the sample may consider extensions of time upon submission of a showing of good cause.

    (c) Submission of records. Upon request by the Commission, each responsible party shall submit copies of the records required by §§ 2.938, 2.955, and 2.1075 to the Commission. Failure of a responsible party or other party marketing equipment subject to this chapter to comply with a request from the Commission for records within 21 days may be cause for forfeiture, pursuant to § 1.80 of this chapter. The Commission may consider extensions of time upon submission of a showing of good cause.

    (d) Inspection by the Commission. Upon request by the Commission, each responsible party shall make its manufacturing plant and facilities available for inspection.

    § 2.946 [Removed]
    26. Section 2.946 is removed. 27. Section 2.947 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (e) to read as follows:
    § 2.947 Measurement procedure.

    (a) Test data must be measured in accordance with the following standards or measurement procedures:

    (e) If deemed necessary, additional information may be required concerning the measurement procedures employed in obtaining the data submitted for equipment authorization purposes.

    28. Section 2.948 is revised to read as follows:
    § 2.948 Measurement facilities.

    (a) Equipment authorized under the certification or Declaration of Conformity (DoC) procedure shall be tested at a laboratory that is accredited in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.

    (b) A laboratory that makes measurements of equipment subject to an equipment authorization under the certification, DoC or verification procedure shall compile a description of the measurement facilities employed.

    (1) The description of the measurement facilities shall contain the following information:

    (i) Location of the test site.

    (ii) Physical description of the test site accompanied by photographs that clearly show the details of the test site.

    (iii) A drawing showing the dimensions of the site, physical layout of all supporting structures, and all structures within 5 times the distance between the measuring antenna and the device being measured.

    (iv) Description of structures used to support the device being measured and the test instrumentation.

    (v) List of measuring equipment used.

    (vi) Information concerning the calibration of the measuring equipment, i.e., the date the equipment was last calibrated and how often the equipment is calibrated.

    (vii) For a measurement facility that will be used for testing radiated emissions, a plot of site attenuation data taken pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.

    (2) The description of the measurement facilities shall be provided to a laboratory accreditation body upon request.

    (3) The description of the measurement facilities shall be retained by the party responsible for verification of equipment and provided to the Commission upon request.

    (i) The party responsible for verification of equipment may rely upon the description of the measurement facilities retained by an independent laboratory that performed the tests. In this situation, the party responsible for verification of the equipment is not required to retain a duplicate copy of the description of the measurement facilities.

    (ii) No specific site calibration data is required for equipment that is verified for compliance based on measurements performed at the installation site of the equipment. The description of the measurement facilities may be retained at the site at which the measurements were performed.

    (c) The Commission will maintain a list of accredited laboratories that it has recognized. The Commission will make publicly available a list of those laboratories that have indicated a willingness to perform testing for the general public. Inclusion of a facility on the Commission's list does not constitute Commission endorsement of that facility. In order to be included on this list, the accrediting organization (or Designating Authority in the case of foreign laboratories) must submit the information listed below to the Commission's laboratory:

    (1) Laboratory name, location of test site(s), mailing address and contact information;

    (2) Name of accrediting organization;

    (3) Scope of laboratory accreditation;

    (4) Date of expiration of accreditation;

    (5) Designation number;

    (6) FCC Registration Number (FRN);

    (7) A statement as to whether or not the laboratory performs testing on a contract basis;

    (8) For laboratories outside the United States, the name of the mutual recognition agreement or arrangement under which the accreditation of the laboratory is recognized;

    (9) Other information as requested by the Commission.

    (d) When the measurement method used requires the testing of radiated emissions on a validated test site, the site attenuation must comply with the requirements of Sections 5.4.4 through 5.5 of the following procedure: ANSI C63.4-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910). Measurement facilities used to make radiated emission measurements from 30 MHz to 1 GHz shall comply with the site validation requirements in ANSI C63.4-2014 (clause 5.4.4) and for radiated emission measurements from 1 GHz to 40 GHz shall comply with the site validation requirement of ANSI C63.4-2014 (clause 5.5.1 a) 1)), such that the site validation criteria called out in CISPR 16-1-4:2010-04 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910) is met. Test site revalidation shall occur on an interval not to exceed three years.

    (e) A laboratory that has been accredited with a scope covering the measurements required for the types of equipment that it will test shall be deemed competent to test and submit test data for equipment subject to verification, Declaration of Conformity, and certification. Such a laboratory shall be accredited by a Commission recognized accreditation organization based on the International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission International Standard ISO/IEC 17025, (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910). The organization accrediting the laboratory must be recognized by the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology, as indicated in § 0.241 of this chapter, to perform such accreditation based on International Standard ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910). The frequency for reassessment of the test facility and the information that is required to be filed or retained by the testing party shall comply with the requirements established by the accrediting organization, but shall occur on an interval not to exceed two years.

    (f) The accreditation of a laboratory located outside of the United States, or its possessions, will be acceptable only under one of the following conditions:

    (1) If the accredited laboratory has been designated by a foreign Designating Authority and recognized by the Commission under the terms of a government-to-government Mutual Recognition Agreement/Arrangement (MRA); or

    (2) If the laboratory is located in a country that does not have an MRA with the United States, then it must be accredited by an organization recognized by the Commission under the provisions of § 2.949 for performing accreditations in the country where the laboratory is located.

    29. Section 2.949 is added before the undesignated center heading “Verification” to read as follows:
    § 2.949 Recognition of laboratory accreditation bodies.

    (a) A party wishing to become a laboratory accreditation body recognized by OET must submit a written request to the Chief of OET requesting such recognition. OET will make a determination based on the information provided in support of the request for recognition.

    (b) Applicants shall provide the following information as evidence of their credentials and qualifications to perform accreditation of laboratories that test equipment to Commission requirements, consistent with the requirements of § 2.948(e). OET may request additional information, or showings, as needed, to determine the applicant's credentials and qualifications.

    (1) Successful completion of an ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910) peer review, such as being a signatory to an accreditation agreement that is acceptable to the Commission.

    (2) Experience with the accreditation of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), radio and telecommunications testing laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910).

    (3) Accreditation personnel/assessors with specific technical experience on the Commission equipment authorization rules and requirements.

    (4) Procedures and policies developed for the accreditation of testing laboratories for FCC equipment authorization programs.

    30. Section 2.950 is added before the undesignated center heading “Verification” to read as follows:
    § 2.950 Transition periods.

    (a) As of July 13, 2015 the Commission will no longer accept applications for Commission issued grants of equipment certification.

    (b) Prior to September 15, 2015 a TCB shall be accredited to either ISO/IEC Guide 65 or ISO/IEC 17065 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910). On or after September 15, 2015 a TCB shall be accredited to ISO/IEC 17065.

    (c) Prior to September 15, 2015 an organization accrediting the prospective telecommunication certification body shall be capable of meeting the requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC Guide 61 or ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910). On or after September 15, 2015 an organization accrediting the prospective telecommunication certification body shall be capable of meeting the requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC 17011.

    (d) Prior to September 15, 2015 an organization accrediting the prospective accredited testing laboratory shall be capable of meeting the requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC Guide 58 or ISO/IEC 17011. On or after September 15, 2015 an organization accrediting the prospective accredited testing laboratory shall be capable of meeting the requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC 17011.

    (e) The Commission will no longer accept applications for § 2.948 test site listing as of July 13, 2015. Laboratories that are listed by the Commission under the § 2.948 process will remain listed until the sooner of their expiration date or July 13, 2016 and may continue to submit test data in support of certification applications for October 13, 2016. Laboratories with an expiration date before July 13, 2016 may request the Commission to extend their expiration date to July 13, 2016.

    (f) Measurement facilities used to make radiated emission measurements from 1 GHz to 40 GHz shall comply with the site validation option of ANSI C63.4-2014, (clause 5.5.1a)1)) which references CISPR 16-1-4:2010-04 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910) by July 13, 2018.

    (g) Measurements for intentional radiators subject to part 15 of this chapter are to be made using the procedures in ANSI C63.10-2013 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910) by July 13, 2016.

    (h) Measurements for unintentional radiators are to be made using the procedures in ANSI C63.4, except clauses 4.5.3, 4.6, 6.2.13, 8.2.2, 9, and 13 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910), by July 13, 2016.

    31. Section 2.953 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows.
    § 2.953 Responsibility for compliance.

    (b) The importer of equipment subject to verification may, upon receiving a written statement from the manufacturer that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards, rely on the manufacturer or independent testing agency to verify compliance. The test records required by § 2.955 however should be in the English language and made available to the Commission upon a reasonable request, in accordance with § 2.945.

    § 2.956 [Removed]
    32. Section 2.956 is removed. 33. Section 2.960 is by amending by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 2.960 Recognition of Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs).

    (a) The Commission may recognize Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs) which have been designated according to requirements of paragraph (b) or (c) of this section to issue grants of certification as required under this part. Certification of equipment by a TCB shall be based on an application with all the information specified in this part. The TCB shall review the application to determine compliance with the Commission's requirements and shall issue a grant of equipment certification in accordance with § 2.911.

    (b) In the United States, TCBs shall be accredited and designated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under its National Voluntary Conformity Assessment Evaluation (NVCASE) program, or other recognized programs based on ISO/IEC 17065 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910) to comply with the Commission's qualification criteria for TCBs. NIST may, in accordance with its procedures, allow other appropriately qualified accrediting bodies to accredit TCBs. TCBs shall comply with the requirements in § 2.962 of this part.

    (c) * * *

    (1) The organization accrediting the prospective telecommunication certification body shall be capable of meeting the requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910).

    34. Section 2.962 is revised to read as follows:
    § 2.962 Requirements for Telecommunication Certification Bodies.

    (a) Telecommunication certification bodies (TCBs) designated by NIST, or designated by another authority pursuant to an effective bilateral or multilateral mutual recognition agreement or arrangement to which the United States is a party, shall comply with the requirements of this section.

    (b) Certification methodology. (1) The certification system shall be based on type testing as identified in ISO/IEC 17065 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910).

    (2) Certification shall normally be based on testing no more than one unmodified representative sample of each product type for which certification is sought. Additional samples may be requested if clearly warranted, such as when certain tests are likely to render a sample inoperative.

    (c) Criteria for designation. (1) To be designated as a TCB under this section, an entity shall, by means of accreditation, meet all the appropriate specifications in ISO/IEC 17065 for the scope of equipment it will certify. The accreditation shall specify the group of equipment to be certified and the applicable regulations for product evaluation.

    (2) The TCB shall demonstrate expert knowledge of the regulations for each product with respect to which the body seeks designation. Such expertise shall include familiarity with all applicable technical regulations, administrative provisions or requirements, as well as the policies and procedures used in the application thereof.

    (3) The TCB shall have the technical expertise and capability to test the equipment it will certify and shall also be accredited in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910) to demonstrate it is competent to perform such tests.

    (4) The TCB shall demonstrate an ability to recognize situations where interpretations of the regulations or test procedures may be necessary. The appropriate key certification and laboratory personnel shall demonstrate knowledge of how to obtain current and correct technical regulation interpretations. The competence of the TCB shall be demonstrated by assessment. The general competence, efficiency, experience, familiarity with technical regulations and products covered by those technical regulations, as well as compliance with applicable parts of ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/IEC 17065 shall be taken into consideration during assessment.

    (5) A TCB shall participate in any consultative activities, identified by the Commission or NIST, to facilitate a common understanding and interpretation of applicable regulations.

    (6) The Commission will provide public notice of the specific methods that will be used to accredit TCBs, consistent with these qualification criteria.

    (7) A TCB shall be reassessed for continued accreditation on intervals not exceeding two years.

    (d) External resources. (1) In accordance with the provisions of ISO/IEC 17065 the evaluation of a product, or a portion thereof, may be performed by bodies that meet the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 in accordance with the applicable provisions of ISO/IEC 17065 for external resources (outsourcing) and other relevant standards. Evaluation is the selection of applicable requirements and the determination that those requirements are met. Evaluation may be performed using internal TCB resources or external (outsourced) resources.

    (2) A TCB shall not outsource review and certification decision activities.

    (3) When external resources are used to provide the evaluation function, including the testing of equipment subject to certification, the TCB shall be responsible for the evaluation and shall maintain appropriate oversight of the external resources used to ensure reliability of the evaluation. Such oversight shall include periodic audits of products that have been tested and other activities as required in ISO/IEC 17065 when a certification body uses external resources for evaluation.

    (e) Recognition of a TCB. (1)(i) The Commission will recognize as a TCB any organization in the United States that meets the qualification criteria and is accredited and designated by NIST or NIST's recognized accreditor as provided in § 2.960(b).

    (ii) The Commission will recognize as a TCB any organization outside the United States that meets the qualification criteria and is designated pursuant to an effective bilateral or multilateral MRA as provided in § 2.960(c).

    (2) The Commission will withdraw its recognition of a TCB if the TCB's designation or accreditation is withdrawn, if the Commission determines there is just cause for withdrawing the recognition, or if the TCB requests that it no longer hold its designation or recognition. The Commission will limit the scope of equipment that can be certified by a TCB if its accreditor limits the scope of its accreditation or if the Commission determines there is good cause to do so. The Commission will notify a TCB in writing of its intention to withdraw or limit the scope of the TCB's recognition and provide at least 60 days for the TCB to respond. In the case of a TCB designated and recognized pursuant to an effective bilateral or multilateral mutual recognition agreement or arrangement (MRA), the Commission shall consult with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), as necessary, concerning any disputes arising under an MRA for compliance with the Telecommunications Trade Act of 1988 (Section 1371-1382 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988).

    (3) The Commission will notify a TCB in writing when it has concerns or evidence that the TCB is not certifying equipment in accordance with the Commission's rules and policies and request that it explain and correct any apparent deficiencies. The Commission may require that all applications for the TCB be processed under the pre-approval guidance procedure in § 2.964 for at least 30 days, and will provide a TCB with 30 days' notice of its intent to do so unless good cause exists for providing shorter notice. The Commission may request that a TCB's Designating Authority or accreditation body investigate and take appropriate corrective actions as required, and the Commission may initiate action to limit or withdraw the recognition of the TCB as described in § 2.962(e)(2).

    (4) If the Commission withdraws its recognition of a TCB, all certifications issued by that TCB will remain valid unless specifically set aside or revoked by the Commission under paragraph (f)(5) of this section.

    (5) A list of recognized TCBs will be published by the Commission.

    (f) Scope of responsibility. (1) A TCB shall certify equipment in accordance with the Commission's rules and policies.

    (2) A TCB shall accept test data from any Commission-recognized accredited test laboratory, subject to the requirements in ISO/IEC 17065 and shall not unnecessarily repeat tests.

    (3) A TCB may establish and assess fees for processing certification applications and other Commission-required tasks.

    (4) A TCB may only act on applications that it has received or which it has issued a grant of certification.

    (5) A TCB shall dismiss an application which is not in accordance with the provisions of this subpart or when the applicant requests dismissal, and may dismiss an application if the applicant does not submit additional information or test samples requested by the TCB.

    (6) Within 30 days of the date of grant of certification the Commission or TCB issuing the grant may set aside a grant of certification that does not comply with the requirements or upon the request of the applicant. A TCB shall notify the applicant and the Commission when a grant is set aside. After 30 days, the Commission may revoke a grant of certification through the procedures in § 2.939.

    (7) A TCB shall follow the procedures in § 2.964 of this part for equipment on the pre-approval guidance list.

    (8) A TCB shall supply an electronic copy of each certification application and all necessary exhibits to the Commission prior to grant or dismissal of the application. Where appropriate, the application must be accompanied by a request for confidentiality of any material that may qualify for confidential treatment under the Commission's rules.

    (9) A TCB shall grant or dismiss each certification application through the Commission's electronic filing system.

    (10) A TCB may not:

    (i) Grant a waiver of the rules;

    (ii) Take enforcement actions; or

    (iii) Authorize a transfer of control of a grantee.

    (11) All TCB actions are subject to Commission review.

    (g) Post-market surveillance requirements. (1) In accordance with ISO/IEC 17065 a TCB shall perform appropriate post-market surveillance activities. These activities shall be based on type testing a certain number of samples of the total number of product types which the certification body has certified.

    (2) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) has delegated authority under § 0.241(g) of this chapter to develop procedures that TCBs will use for performing post-market surveillance. OET will publish a document on TCB post-market surveillance requirements, and this document will provide specific information such as the number and types of samples that a TCB must test.

    (3) OET may request that a grantee of equipment certification submit a sample directly to the TCB that performed the original certification for evaluation. Any equipment samples requested by the Commission and tested by a TCB will be counted toward the minimum number of samples that the TCB must test.

    (4) TCBs may request samples of equipment that they have certified directly from the grantee of certification in accordance with § 2.945.

    (5) If during post market surveillance of a certified product, a TCB determines that a product fails to comply with the technical regulations for that product, the TCB shall immediately notify the grantee and the Commission in writing of its findings. The grantee shall provide a report to the TCB describing the actions taken to correct the situation, and the TCB shall provide a report of these actions to the Commission within 30 days.

    (6) TCBs shall submit periodic reports to OET of their post-market surveillance activities and findings in the format and by the date specified by OET.

    35. Section 2.964 is added to read as follows:
    § 2.964 Pre-approval guidance procedure for Telecommunication Certification Bodies.

    (a) The Commission will publish a “Pre-approval Guidance List” identifying the categories of equipment or types of testing for which Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs) must request guidance from the Commission before approving equipment on the list.

    (b) TCBs shall use the following procedure for approving equipment on the Commission's pre-approval guidance list.

    (1) A TCB shall perform an initial review of the application and determine the issues that require guidance from the Commission. The TCB shall electronically submit the relevant exhibits to the Commission along with a specific description of the pertinent issues.

    (2) The TCB shall complete the review of the application in accordance with the Commission's guidance.

    (3) The Commission may request and test a sample of the equipment before the application can be granted.

    (4) The TCB shall electronically submit the application and all exhibits to the Commission along with a request to grant the application.

    (5) The Commission will give its concurrence for the TCB to grant the application if it determines that the equipment complies with the rules. The Commission will advise the TCB if additional information or equipment testing is required, or if the equipment cannot be certified because it does not comply with the Commission's rules.

    36. Section 2.1033 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(14), revising paragraph (c) introductory text and adding paragraph (c)(21) to read as follows:
    § 2.1033 Application for certification.

    (b) * * *

    (14) Contain at least one drawing or photograph showing the test set-up for each of the required types of tests applicable to the device for which certification is requested. These drawings or photographs must show enough detail to confirm other information contained in the test report. Any photographs used must be focused originals without glare or dark spots and must clearly show the test configuration used.

    (c) Applications for equipment other than that operating under parts 15, 11 and 18 of this chapter shall be accompanied by a technical report containing the following information:

    (21) Contain at least one drawing or photograph showing the test set-up for each of the required types of tests applicable to the device for which certification is requested. These drawings or photographs must show enough detail to confirm other information contained in the test report. Any photographs used must be focused originals without glare or dark spots and must clearly show the test configuration used.

    37. Section 2.1043 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (f) to read as follows:
    § 2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, changes to the basic frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including clock or data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator circuit or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not be performed without application for and authorization of a new grant of certification. Variations in electrical or mechanical construction, other than these indicated items, are permitted provided the variations either do not affect the characteristics required to be reported to the Commission or the variations are made in compliance with the other provisions of this section. Changes to the software installed in a transmitter that do not affect the radio frequency emissions do not require any additional filings and may be made by parties other than the holder of the grant of certification.

    (b) Three classes of permissive changes may be made in certificated equipment without requiring a new application for and grant of certification. None of the classes of changes shall result in a change in identification.

    (1) A Class I permissive change includes those modifications in the equipment which do not degrade the characteristics reported by the manufacturer and accepted by the Commission when certification is granted. No filing is required for a Class I permissive change.

    (2) A Class II permissive change includes those modifications which degrade the performance characteristics as reported to the Commission at the time of the initial certification. Such degraded performance must still meet the minimum requirements of the applicable rules. When a Class II permissive change is made by the grantee, the grantee shall provide complete information and the results of tests of the characteristics affected by such change. The modified equipment shall not be marketed under the existing grant of certification prior to acknowledgement that the change is acceptable.

    (3) A Class III permissive change includes modifications to the software of a software defined radio transmitter that change the frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted) outside the parameters previously approved, or that change the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules. When a Class III permissive change is made, the grantee shall provide a description of the changes and test results showing that the equipment complies with the applicable rules with the new software loaded, including compliance with the applicable RF exposure requirements. The modified software shall not be loaded into the equipment, and the equipment shall not be marketed with the modified software under the existing grant of certification, prior to acknowledgement that the change is acceptable. Class III changes are permitted only for equipment in which no Class II changes have been made from the originally approved device.

    Note to paragraph (b)(3):

    Any software change that degrades spurious and out-of-band emissions previously reported at the time of initial certification would be considered a change in frequency or modulation and would require a Class III permissive change or new equipment authorization application.

    (4) Class I and Class II permissive changes may only be made by the holder of the grant of certification, except as specified.

    (c) A grantee desiring to make a change other than a permissive change shall file a new application for certification accompanied by the required information as specified in this part and shall not market the modified device until the grant of certification has been issued. The grantee shall attach a description of the change(s) to be made and a statement indicating whether the change(s) will be made in all units (including previous production) or will be made only in those units produced after the change is authorized.

    (f) For equipment other than that operating under parts 15 or 18 of this chapter, when a Class II permissive change is made by other than the grantee of certification, the information and data specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be supplied by the person making the change. The modified equipment shall not be operated under an authorization prior to acknowledgement that the change is acceptable.

    38. Section 2.1073 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 2.1073 Responsibilities.

    (b) The responsible party, if different from the manufacturer, may upon receiving a written statement from the manufacturer that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards, relies on the manufacturer or independent testing agency to determine compliance. However, the test records required by § 2.1075 shall be in the English language and shall be made available to the Commission upon a reasonable request in accordance with the provisions of § 2.945.

    39. Section 2.1075 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 2.1075 Retention of records.

    (c) The records listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be retained for two years after the manufacture or assembly, as appropriate, of said equipment has been permanently discontinued, or until the conclusion of an investigation or a proceeding if the responsible party is officially notified that an investigation or any other administrative proceeding involving the equipment has been instituted. Requests for the records described in this section and for sample units also are covered under the provisions of § 2.945.

    § 2.1076 [Removed]
    40. Section 2.1076 is removed. PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES 41. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.

    42. Section 15.31 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3), removing the Note to paragraph (a)(3), and adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
    § 15.31 Measurement standards.

    (a) * * *

    (3) Other intentional radiators are to be measured for compliance using the following procedure: ANSI C63.10-2013 (incorporated by reference, see § 15.38).

    (4) Unintentional radiators are to be measured for compliance using the following procedure excluding clauses 4.5.3, 4.6, 6.2.13, 8.2.2, 9, and 13: ANSI C63.4-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 15.38).

    43. Section 15.38 is amended by revising paragraph (b), by redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g), and by adding new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 15.38 Incorporation by reference.

    (b) The following documents are available from the following address: American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or at http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/default.asp;

    (1) ANSI C63.17-2013: “American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of the Electromagnetic and Operational Compatibility of Unlicensed Personal Communications Services (UPCS) Devices,” approved August 12, 2013, IBR approved for § 15.31.

    (2) Third Edition of the International Special Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR), Pub. 22, Information Technology Equipment-Radio Disturbance Characteristics-Limits and Methods of Measurement,” 1997, IBR approved for § 15.09.

    (f) Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), 3916 Ranchero Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, 1-800-699-9277, http://www.techstreet.com/ieee.

    (1) ANSI C63.4-2014: “American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Radio-Noise Emissions from Low-Voltage Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the Range of 9 kHz to 40 GHz,” ANSI approved June 13, 2014, IBR approved for § 15.31(a)(4), except clauses 4.5.3, 4.6, 6.2.13, 8.2.2, 9, and 13.

    (2) ANSI C63.10-2013, “American National Standard of Procedures for Compliance Testing of Unlicensed Wireless Devices,”ANSI approved June 27, 2013, IBR approved for § 15.31(a)(3).

    § 15.109 [Amended]
    44. Section 15.109 is amended by removing paragraph (g)(4). PART 68—CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE TELEPHONE NETWORK 45. The authority citation for part 68 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 4, 5, 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 1082; (47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 303).

    46. Section 68.160 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 68.160 Designation of Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs).

    (a) The Commission may recognize designated Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs) which have been designated according to the requirements of paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section to certify equipment as required under this part. Certification of equipment by a TCB shall be based on an application with all the information specified in this part. The TCB shall process the application to determine compliance with the Commission's requirements and shall issue a written grant of equipment authorization. The grant shall identify the approving TCB and the Commission as the issuing authority.

    (b) In the United States, TCBs shall be accredited and designated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under its National Voluntary Conformity Assessment Evaluation (NVCASE) program, or other recognized programs based on ISO/IEC 17065:2012, to comply with the Commission's qualification criteria for TCBs. NIST may, in accordance with its procedures, allow other appropriately qualified accrediting bodies to accredit TCBs. TCBs shall comply with the requirements in § 68.162 of this part.

    (c) * * *

    (1) The organization accrediting the prospective telecommunication certification body shall be capable of meeting the requirements and conditions of ISO/IEC 17011:2004.

    (d) Incorporation by reference. (1) The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference in this part. These incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in these materials will be published in the Federal Register. All approved material is available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270 and is available from the sources below. It is also 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.

    (2) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Central Office, 3, rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Email: [email protected],www.iec.ch or International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. De la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland; www.iso.org; Tel.: +41 22 749 01 11; Fax: +41 22 733 34 30; email: [email protected] . (ISO publications can also be purchased from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through its NSSN operation (www.nssn.org), at Customer Service, American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, telephone (212) 642-4900.)

    (i) ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), “Conformity assessment—General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies,” First Edition, 2004-09-01, IBR approved for § 68.160(c).

    (ii) ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), “Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services,” First Edition, 2012-09-15.

    47. Section 68.162 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e), (f)(2), (g)(2) through (g)(4), and (h) and by adding paragraphs (g)(5), (g)(6) and (i) to read as follows:
    § 68.162 Requirements for Telecommunication Certification Bodies.

    (a) Telecommunication certification bodies (TCBs) designated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), or designated by another authority pursuant to an effective bilateral or multilateral mutual recognition agreement or arrangement to which the United States is a party, shall comply with the following requirements.

    (b) Certification methodology. (1) The certification system shall be based on type testing as identified in ISO/IEC 17065.

    (c) Criteria for designation. (1) To be designated as a TCB under this section, an entity shall, by means of accreditation, meet all the appropriate specifications in ISO/IEC 17065 for the scope of equipment it will certify. The accreditation shall specify the group of equipment to be certified and the applicable regulations for product evaluation.

    (3) The TCB shall have the technical expertise and capability to test the equipment it will certify and shall also be accredited in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 to demonstrate it is competent to perform such tests.

    (4) The TCB shall demonstrate an ability to recognize situations where interpretations of the regulations or test procedures may be necessary. The appropriate key certification and laboratory personnel shall demonstrate knowledge of how to obtain current and correct technical regulation interpretations. The competence of the telecommunication certification body shall be demonstrated by assessment. The general competence, efficiency, experience, familiarity with technical regulations and products included in those technical regulations, as well as compliance with applicable parts of the ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/IEC 17065 shall be taken into consideration.

    (d) External resources. (1) In accordance with the provisions of ISO/IEC 1706 the evaluation of a product, or a portion thereof, may be performed by bodies that meet the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC 1702 and ISO/IEC 17065, in accordance with the applicable provisions of ISO/IEC 17065, for external resources (outsourcing) and other relevant standards. Evaluation is the selection of applicable requirements and the determination that those requirements are met. Evaluation may be performed by using internal TCB resources or external (outsourced) resources.

    (2) A recognized TCB shall not outsource review and certification decision activities.

    (3) When external resources are used to provide the evaluation function, including the testing of equipment subject to certification, the TCB shall be responsible for the evaluation and shall maintain appropriate oversight of the external resources used to ensure reliability of the evaluation. Such oversight shall include periodic audits of products that have been tested and other activities as required in ISO/IEC 17065 when a certification body uses external resources for evaluation.

    (e) Recognition of TCBs. (1)(i) The Commission will recognize as a TCB any organization that meets the qualification criteria and is accredited and designated by NIST or its recognized accreditor as provided in § 68.160(b).

    (ii) The Commission will recognize as a TCB any organization outside the United States that meets the qualification criteria and is designated pursuant to an effective bilateral or multilateral Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) as provided in § 68.160(c).

    (2) The Commission will withdraw the recognition of a TCB if the TCB's accreditation or designation by NIST or its recognized accreditor is withdrawn, if the Commission determines there is just cause for withdrawing the recognition, or if the TCB requests that it no longer hold the recognition. The Commission will limit the scope of equipment that can be certified by a TCB if its accreditor limits the scope of its accreditation or if the Commission determines there is good cause to do so. The Commission will notify a TCB in writing of its intention to withdraw or limit the scope of the TCB's recognition and provide a TCB with at least 60 day notice of its intention to withdraw the recognition and provide the TCB with an opportunity to respond. In the case of a TCB designated and recognized pursuant to an effective bilateral or multilateral MRA, the Commission shall consult with the Office of United States Trade Representative (USTR), as necessary, concerning any disputes arising under an MRA for compliance with the Telecommunications Trade Act of 1988 (Section 1371-1382 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988).

    (3) The Commission may request that a TCB's Designating Authority or accreditation body investigate and take appropriate corrective actions as required, when it has concerns or evidence that the TCB is not certifying equipment in accordance with Commission rules or ACTA requirements, and the Commission may initiate action to limit or withdraw the recognition of the TCB.

    (4) If the Commission withdraws the recognition of a TCB, all certifications issued by that TCB will remain valid unless specifically revoked by the Commission.

    (5) A list of recognized TCBs will be published by the Commission.

    (f) * * *

    (2) A TCB shall accept test data from any source, subject to the requirements in ISO/IEC 17065 and shall not unnecessarily repeat tests.

    (g) * * *

    (2) In accordance with ISO/IEC 17065 a TCB is required to conduct appropriate surveillance activities. These activities shall be based on type testing a few samples of the total number of product types which the certification body has certified. Other types of surveillance activities of a product that has been certified are permitted provided they are no more onerous than testing type. The Commission may at any time request a list of products certified by the certification body and may request and receive copies of product evaluation reports. The Commission may also request that a TCB perform post-market surveillance, under Commission guidelines, of a specific product it has certified.

    (3) The Commission may request that a grantee of equipment certification submit a sample directly to the TCB that performed the original certification for evaluation. Any equipment samples requested by the Commission and tested by a TCB will be counted toward the minimum number of samples that the TCB must test.

    (4) A TCBs may request samples of equipment that they have certified directly from the grantee of certification.

    (5) If during, post-market surveillance of a certified product, a certification body determines that a product fails to comply with the applicable technical regulations, the certification body shall immediately notify the grantee and the Commission. The TCB shall provide a follow-up report to the Commission within 30 days of reporting the non-compliance by the grantee to describe the resolution or plan to resolve the situation.

    (6) Where concerns arise, the TCB shall provide a copy of the application file to the Commission within 30 calendar days of a request for the file made by the Commission to the TCB and the manufacturer. Where appropriate, the file should be accompanied by a request for confidentiality for any material that may qualify for confidential treatment under the Commission's rules. If the application file is not provided within 30 calendar days, a statement shall be provided to the Commission as to why it cannot be provided.

    (h) In the case of a dispute with respect to designation or recognition of a TCB and the testing or certification of products by a TCB, the Commission will be the final arbiter. Manufacturers and recognized TCBs will be afforded at least 60 days to comment before a decision is reached. In the case of a TCB designated or recognized, or a product certified pursuant to an effective bilateral or multilateral mutual recognition agreement or arrangement (MRA) to which the United States is a party, the Commission may limit or withdraw its recognition of a TCB designated by an MRA party and revoke the Certification of products using testing or certification provided by such a TCB. The Commission shall consult with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), as necessary, concerning any disputes arising under an MRA for compliance with under the Telecommunications Trade Act of 1988.

    (i) Incorporation by reference: The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference in this part. These incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in these materials will be published in the Federal Register. All approved material is available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270 and is available from the sources below. It is also 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.

    (1) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC Central Office, 3, rue de Varembe,CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, Email: [email protected],www.iec.ch or International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. De la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland; www.iso.org; Tel.: +41 22 749 01 11; Fax: +41 22 733 34 30; email: [email protected] . (ISO publications can also be purchased from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through its NSSN operation (www.nssn.org), at Customer Service, American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, telephone (212) 642-4900.)

    (i) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories,” Second Edition, 2005-05-15.

    (ii) ISO/IEC 17065:2012(E), “Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services,” First Edition, 2012-09-15.

    (2) [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2015-14072 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 113 Friday, June 12, 2015 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 37 [Docket Nos. PRM-37-1; NRC-2014-0172; NRC-2015-0094] Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Materials AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for rulemaking; consideration in the rulemaking process.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will consider in the rulemaking process three issues raised in a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM-37-1, submitted by Anthony Pietrangelo, on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI or the petitioner). The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to clarify and expand current exemptions for when the physical protection measures for category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material do not apply to a licensee.

    DATES:

    The docket for the petition, PRM-37-1, is closed on June 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Further NRC action on the issues raised by this petition can be found on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2015-0094, which is the identification for the potential future rulemaking.

    Please refer to the petition Docket ID NRC-2014-0172 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this petition. You can obtain publicly-available documents related to this petition by using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to: http://www.regulations.gov and search for the petition Docket ID NRC-2014-0172. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cardelia Maupin, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-2312; email: [email protected]; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. The Petition

    The NRC received and docketed a petition for rulemaking (ADAMS Accession No. ML14199A570) dated June 12, 2014, filed by Anthony R. Pietrangelo on behalf of the NEI. On October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64149) the NRC published a notice of docketing and request for comment on the petition. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend part 37 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material,” to clarify and expand current exemptions in 10 CFR 37.11 for when the physical protection measures for category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material do not apply to a licensee. The petitioner states that both licensees and the NRC have encountered significant problems with 10 CFR 37.11 that can only practically be remedied with a rulemaking. Specifically, the petitioner requests that the exemptions in 10 CFR 37.11(b) and (c) be revised and that a new 10 CFR 37.11(d) be added. The petitioner states that the exemption in 10 CFR 37.11(b) needs to be revised to remove undue regulatory burden on licensees with established physical security programs required by 10 CFR part 73, “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.” The petitioner states the exemption should provide for a more direct recognition of the extent to which facilities with robust 10 CFR part 73 security programs already meet the objectives set forth in 10 CFR part 37 and inherently protect category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material. The petitioner states that the exemption in 10 CFR 37.11(c) needs to be revised to improve its clarity, provide greater regulatory certainty, and ensure licensees implement 10 CFR part 37 consistent with the NRC's intent as expressed in regulatory guidance. Lastly, the petitioner states that a new exemption is needed to address the technical issues identified in Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM) EGM-14-001, “Interim Guidance for Dispositioning 10 CFR part 37 Inspection Findings with Respect to Large Components and Robust Structures at Facilities Licensed Under 10 CFR parts 50 and 52,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14056A151) for large components and material stored in robust structures.

    II. Public Comments on the Petition

    The NRC solicited public comment through the notice of docketing and request for comment. The comment period closed on January 12, 2015. The NRC received seven comment letters. All seven letters were from members or representatives of the nuclear industry. The public comments supported NEI's request for rulemaking and urged the NRC to promptly initiate rulemaking to implement the changes proposed in the petition.

    In addition to supporting the statements in NEI's PRM, some of the commenters also raised additional points in support of the petition. One commenter provided examples of some of the differences between 10 CFR part 37 and 10 CFR part 73 that the commenter did not believe resulted in an increased level of protection for category 1 or category 2 quantities of radioactive materials at power reactors, but must be addressed by licensees under 10 CFR part 37. Two commenters requested that the suggested change for large components and material stored in robust structures be expanded to include waste materials. One of the commenters suggested the inclusion of a dose rate criterion in the exemption.

    The NRC considered the public comments in its analysis of the petition.

    III. NRC Analysis

    This section presents the three issues raised by the petitioner followed by the NRC's analysis of the issues.

    Issue 1: Revise the Exemption in 10 CFR 37.11(b)

    The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 37.11(b) be amended to allow for byproduct material kept within any area for which 10 CFR part 73 requires access control to be exempted from 10 CFR part 37 requirements regardless of whether the byproduct material “activities” are specifically “included in” a 10 CFR part 73 security plan. The petitioner states that the exemption should recognize the extent to which the physical protection requirements in 10 CFR part 73 meet or exceed the requirements of 10 CFR part 37, so there is no need for any additional security measures or documentation in the 10 CFR part 73 security plan. The petitioner asserts that 10 CFR part 37 currently imposes undue burden on licensees that should be alleviated through a rulemaking.

    NRC Response to Issue 1: The NRC will consider Issue 1 in the rulemaking process. The NRC agrees that the language in 10 CFR 37.11(b) and the accompanying guidance in NUREG-2155, “Implementation Guidance for 10 CFR part 37 Physical Protection of Category I and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A061), could be clarified as to what is being exempted and what action, if any, a licensee with a 10 CFR part 73 security plan needs to take to use the exemption. The exact wording of a revision to paragraph (b), if any, and the associated implications for the guidance document (NUREG-2155), would be determined during the rulemaking process.

    Issue 2: Revise the Exemption in 10 CFR 37.11(c)

    The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 37.11(c) be modified to remove any ambiguity as to what type of wastes the exemption applies. The petitioner states that the language is difficult to understand and has prompted numerous inquiries and many discussions among NRC and the nuclear industry. The petitioner notes that the NRC's guidance document, NUREG-2155, does clarify the ambiguity; however, the petitioner states that the NRC should provide licensees and the public with greater regulatory certainty by clarifying the provision in the regulations.

    NRC Response to Issue 2: The NRC will consider Issue 2 in the rulemaking process. The petitioner raises regulatory stability and predictability concerns with respect to the language of the exemption provision. The NRC notes that the guidance in NUREG-2155 does clarify the intent of the exemption provision; however, the NRC agrees that the regulatory language should be clear.

    Issue 3: Add an Exemption To Address Large Components and Storage in Robust Structures

    The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 37.11 be revised to include a new paragraph (d) that would address large components and storage of radioactive material in robust structures. The petitioner states that the exemption in 10 CFR 37.11(c) only addresses waste material, and therefore, large components and non-waste material stored in robust structures that present a similar or lower risk for theft or diversion are not exempt from the 10 CFR part 37 requirements. The petitioner notes that as part of the 10 CFR part 37 implementation process, the NRC recognized this material as low risk and issued EGM-14-001 to address large components and storage of material in robust structures. The petitioner states that a rulemaking to codify the EGM's rationale would recognize the practicalities militating against theft or diversion and would avoid the long-term use of enforcement discretion and case-by-case exemption in this area. The petitioner also states that definitions for “large component” and “robust structure” should be added to the regulations.

    NRC Response to Issue 3: The NRC will consider Issue 3 in the rulemaking process. The NRC has issued enforcement guidance (EGM-14-001) to address large components and storage of radioactive material in robust structures. The EGM states that it will remain effective until the underlying technical issue is dispositioned through rulemaking or other regulatory action.

    IV. Determination of Petition

    The NRC has reviewed the petition and related public comments. Based on its review, the NRC will consider the three issues raised in the petition in the rulemaking process. The docket for the petition, PRM-37-1, is closed.

    Further NRC action on the issues raised in PRM-37-1 can be monitored on the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by searching on Docket ID NRC-2015-0094, which is the Docket ID for the potential future rulemaking. In addition, the Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe to alerts: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2015-0094); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly). The NRC also tracks all PRMs and rulemaking actions on its Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/petitions-by-year.html and on the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day June, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Michael R. Johnson, Acting Executive Director for Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14422 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-149518-03] RIN 1545-BM34 Partnership Transactions Involving Equity Interests of a Partner AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, the IRS and the Treasury Department are issuing temporary regulations that prevent a corporate partner from using a partnership to avoid corporate level gain required to be recognized. These regulations affect partnerships and their partners. The text of the temporary regulations in this issue of the Federal Register also serves as the text of these proposed regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-149518-03), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-149518-03), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-149518-03).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Kevin I. Babitz, (202) 317-6852; concerning submission of comments or to request a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo Taylor at (202) 317-6901.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions

    Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to section 337(d). The temporary regulations set forth rules for applying section 337(d) to partnerships and S corporations. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations.

    Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. These proposed regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities. Further, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these proposed regulations would primarily affect sophisticated ownership structures with interlocking ownership of corporations, partnerships and corporate stock. Additionally, these proposed regulations contain a number of de minimis provisions that render the regulations inapplicable to most small businesses. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing

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

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these regulations are Joseph R. Worst and Kevin I. Babitz, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

    Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (PS-91-90; REG-208989-90) that was published in the Federal Register on December 15, 1992 (57 FR 59324), is withdrawn.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendment to the Regulations

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

    PART I—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Section 1.337(d)-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 337(d). * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.337(d)-3 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.337(d)-3 Gain recognition upon certain partnership transactions involving a partner's stock.

    [The text of proposed § 1.337(d)-3 is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-3T(a) through (i) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    Par. 3. Section 1.732-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(5)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 1.732-1 Basis of distributed property other than money.

    (c)(1) [The text of proposed § 1.732-1(c)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.732-1T(c)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    (5) * * *

    (ii) [The text of proposed § 1.732-1(c)(5)(ii) is the same as the text of § 1.732-1T(c)(5)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14403 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-138759-14] RIN 1545-BM48 Aggregation of Basis for Partnership Distributions Involving Equity Interests of a Partner AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations that would allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for the purpose of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition. The proposed regulations would also require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain. The proposed regulations affect partnerships and their partners.

    DATES:

    Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-138759-14), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-138759-14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-138759-14).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Kevin I. Babitz, (202) 317-6852; concerning submission of comments or to request a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo Taylor at (202) 317-6901.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background 1. Section 337(d) and the Repeal of the General Utilities Doctrine

    In General Utilities & Operating Co. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 200 (1935), the Supreme Court held that corporations generally could distribute appreciated property to their shareholders without the recognition of any corporate level gain (the General Utilities doctrine). Beginning in 1969 and ending with the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, (the Act), Congress enacted a series of statutory changes that limited and ultimately repealed the General Utilities doctrine. Under current law, sections 311(b) and 336(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) require a corporation that distributes appreciated property to its shareholders to recognize gain determined as if the property were sold to the shareholders for its fair market value. Additionally, section 631 of the Act added section 337(d) to the Code to permit the Secretary to prescribe regulations that are necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the General Utilities repeal, “including regulations to ensure that [the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine] may not be circumvented through the use of any provision of law or regulations.”

    2. Section 732(f)

    Section 538 of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, Public Law 106-170, 113 Stat. 1860, (the Ticket to Work Act), enacted section 732(f) on December 17, 1999. Section 732(f) provides that if: (1) A corporate partner receives a distribution from a partnership of stock in another corporation (distributed corporation), (2) the corporate partner has control of the distributed corporation (ownership of stock meeting the requirements of section 1504(a)(2)) immediately after the distribution or at any time thereafter (the “control requirement”), and (3) the partnership's basis in the stock immediately before the distribution exceeded the corporate partner's basis in the stock immediately after the distribution, then the basis of the distributed corporation's property must be reduced by this excess. The amount of this reduction is limited to the amount by which the sum of the aggregate adjusted basis of property and the amount of money of the distributed corporation exceeds the corporate partner's adjusted basis in the stock of the distributed corporation. The corporate partner must recognize gain to the extent that the basis of the distributed corporation's property cannot be reduced.

    Congress enacted section 732(f) due to concerns that a corporate partner could otherwise negate the effects of a basis step-down to distributed property required under section 732(b) by applying the step-down against the basis of distributed stock of a corporation (distributed corporation). The Senate Finance Committee stated that:

    The Committee is concerned that the downward adjustment to the basis of property distributed by a partnership may be nullified if the distributed property is corporate stock. The distributed corporation can be liquidated by the corporate partner, so that the stock basis adjustment has no effect. Similarly, if the corporations file a consolidated return, their taxable income may be computed without reference to the downward adjustment to the basis of the stock. These results can occur either if the partnership has contributed property to the distributed corporation, or if the property was held by the corporation before the distribution. Therefore, the provision requires a basis reduction to the property of the distributed corporation.

    S. Rep. No. 106-201, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. 50 (1999).

    For example, assume a corporate partner has a partnership interest with zero basis and receives a partnership distribution of high-basis stock in a corporation. The corporate partner's basis in the distributed corporation's stock is reduced to zero under section 732(a) or section 732(b). If the partnership has elected under section 754, then the basis of other partnership property is increased by an equal amount under section 734(b). The effects of the section 732 basis decrease and the section 734(b) basis increase generally offset each other. However, if the corporate partner owned stock in the distributed corporation that satisfied the control requirement, the corporate partner could liquidate the distributed corporation under section 332, and section 334(b) would generally provide for a carryover basis in the distributed corporation's property received by the corporate partner in the liquidation. Taken together, these rules could permit the partnership to increase the basis of its retained property without an equivalent basis reduction following the liquidation of the distributed corporation. Section 732(f) generally precludes this result by requiring that either the distributed corporation must reduce the basis of its property or the corporate partner must recognize gain (to the extent the distributed corporation is unable to reduce the basis of its property). Thus, section 732(f) generally ensures that any basis increase under section 734(b) is ultimately offset.

    Section 732(f) applies if the corporate partner either has control of the distributed corporation following the distribution or if the corporate partner subsequently acquires control of the distributed corporation at any time thereafter. Section 732(f) does not apply if the corporate partner does not have control of the distributed corporation immediately following the distribution and the corporate partner establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the distribution was not part of a plan or arrangement to acquire control of the distributed corporation.

    In its discussion of the control requirement of section 732(f)(1)(B), the Conference Report to the Ticket to Work Act explains that “[t]his provision also calls for regulations, including regulations to avoid double counting and to prevent the abuse of the purposes of this provision.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-478, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. 174 (1999). This grant of regulatory authority is codified at section 732(f)(8), which provides that “[t]he Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including regulations to avoid double counting and to prevent the abuse of such purposes.”

    Simultaneous with this notice of proposed rulemaking, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing final and temporary regulations under section 337(d) (§ 1.337(d)-3T) that prevent a corporate partner from using a partnership to avoid corporate-level gain required to be recognized under section 311(b) or section 336(a) following the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine. Those final and temporary regulations address partnership acquisitions, ownership, and distributions of stock and other equity interests in a corporate partner. Sections 732(f) and 337(d) share a common purpose of preserving corporate-level gains. Given this shared purpose, these proposed regulations are issued under the combined authority of sections 337(d) and 732(f).

    Explanation of Provisions

    As described in this preamble, Congress provided the Treasury Department and the IRS with a broad grant of statutory authority to carry out the purposes of sections 337(d) and 732(f). The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that as currently applied, section 732(f) may be too broad in some circumstances and too narrow in others. Specifically, section 732(f) may require basis reduction or gain recognition even though that basis reduction or gain recognition does not further the purposes of section 732(f). In other circumstances, corporate partners may inappropriately avoid the purposes of section 732(f) by engaging in transactions that allow corporate partners to receive property held by a distributed corporation without reducing the basis of that property to account for basis reductions under section 732(b) made when the partnership distributed stock of the distributed corporation to the corporate partner. These proposed regulations add rules to conform the application of section 732(f) with Congress's identified purposes for enacting sections 337(d) and 732(f) in these situations.

    1. Aggregation of Section 732(b) Basis Adjustments

    Section 732(f) generally applies on a partner-by-partner basis. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that in certain circumstances, it is appropriate to aggregate the bases of consolidated group members in a partnership for purposes of applying section 732(f). For example, basis aggregation may be appropriate when two or more corporate partners in the same consolidated group (member-partners) receive a deemed distribution of stock in a distributed corporation either because (a) the partnership elects to be treated as an association taxable as a corporation under § 301.7701-3 or (b) one corporate partner acquires all of the interests in the partnership causing the partnership to liquidate. In these instances, section 732(b) may cause one member-partner to increase the basis of distributed stock while another member-partner reduces the basis of distributed stock by an equivalent amount. Under current law, section 732(f) may require the member-partner whose basis is reduced to recognize gain or to reduce the basis of the distributed corporation's property, with no offsetting loss or increase to the basis of the distributed corporation's property with respect to the member-partner whose basis is increased. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not believe that prohibiting member-partners from consolidating their bases in a partnership for purposes of applying section 732(f) in these situations furthers Congress's intent to sustain the effect of the basis reduction to distributed property.

    These proposed regulations provide for the aggregation of basis within the same consolidated group (as defined in § 1.1502-1(h)), for purposes of section 732(f), when two conditions are met. First, two or more of the corporate partners receive a distribution of stock in a distributed corporation. Second, the distributed corporation is or becomes a member of the distributee partners' consolidated group following the distribution.

    Under this rule, section 732(f) only applies to the extent that the partnership's adjusted basis in the distributed stock immediately before the distribution exceeds the aggregate basis of the distributed stock in the hands of all members of the distributee corporate partner's consolidated group immediately after the distribution. The requirement that the distributed corporation be a member of the consolidated group is intended to avoid unintended consequences that could result if that corporation was a controlled foreign corporation. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on whether this proposed rule should apply more broadly.

    2. Gain Elimination Transactions

    As described in the Background section of this Preamble, Congress enacted section 732(f) to address concerns that a corporate partner could otherwise negate the effects of a basis step-down to distributed property required under section 732(b) by applying the step-down against stock of a distributed corporation. Congress indicated that it intended for the control requirement to apply expansively by requiring corporate partners to apply section 732(f) whenever the corporate partner acquires control (as defined in section 732(f)(5)) of the distributed corporation as part of a plan or arrangement. The formalistic definition of control, however, fails to anticipate other scenarios in which a corporate partner's acquisition of the property of a distributed corporation has the same effect. To address these scenarios, Congress granted the Secretary authority to promulgate regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of section 732(f).

    The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that some corporate partners might eliminate gain in the stock of a distributed corporation while avoiding the effects of a basis step-down in transactions in which the corporate partner's ownership of the distributed corporation does not satisfy the control requirement. For example, a distributed corporation not controlled by a corporate partner might subsequently merge into the corporate partner in a reorganization under section 368(a) in which gain is not recognized as part of a plan or arrangement. In this situation, the gain inherent in the stock of the distributed corporation is eliminated, but the basis of the distributed corporation's property is not reduced. If section 732(f) does not apply to this transaction, then the basis step-down is negated, contravening the purposes of section 732(f) and General Utilities repeal.

    Accordingly, these proposed regulations provide that, in the event of a gain elimination transaction, section 732(f) shall apply as though the corporate partner acquired control (as defined in section 732(f)(5)) of the distributed corporation immediately before the gain elimination transaction.

    The proposed regulations define several terms for purposes of applying this rule. The term “Corporate Partner” means a person that is classified as a corporation for federal income tax purposes and that holds or acquires an interest in a partnership. The term “Stock” includes other equity interests, including options, warrants and similar interests. The term “Distributed Stock” means Stock distributed by a partnership to a Corporate Partner, or Stock the basis of which is determined by reference to the basis of such Stock. Distributed Stock also includes Stock owned directly or indirectly by a Distributed Corporation if the basis of such Stock has been reduced pursuant to section 732(f)(7). The term “Distributed Corporation” means the issuer of Distributed Stock (or, in the case of an option, the issuer of the Stock into which the option is exercisable). The term “Gain Elimination Transaction” means a transaction in which Distributed Stock is disposed of and less than all of the gain is recognized, unless (1) the transferor of the Distributed Stock receives in exchange Stock or a partnership interest that is exchanged basis property (as defined in section 7701(a)(44)) with respect to the Distributed Stock, or (2) a transferee corporation holds the Distributed Stock as transferred basis property (as defined in section 7701(a)(43)) with respect to a transferor corporation's gain. Examples of Gain Elimination Transactions include (without limitation) a reorganization under section 368(a) in which the Corporate Partner and the Distributed Corporation combine, and a distribution of the Distributed Stock by the Corporate Partner to which section 355(c)(1) or 361(c)(1) applies.

    3. Tiered Partnerships

    The IRS and the Treasury Department are concerned that taxpayers could use tiered partnerships to circumvent these regulations and section 732(f) generally. Congress specified in the Conference Report to the Ticket to Work Act that taxpayers should not be permitted to avoid the purposes of section 732(f) through the use of tiered partnerships. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-478, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. 174 (1999). Therefore, these regulations require taxpayers to apply these regulations to tiered partnerships in a manner consistent with the purpose of section 732(f).

    Effective/Applicability Date

    The rules governing aggregation of basis apply to distributions occurring on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. The rules governing gain elimination transactions apply to transactions occurring on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. The rules governing tiered partnerships apply to distributions and transactions occurring on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. No inference is expressed or implied with respect to distributions or transactions occurring before the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. These proposed regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities. Further, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these proposed regulations would primarily affect sophisticated ownership structures with interlocking ownership of corporations, partnerships and corporate stock. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing

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

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these regulations are Kevin I. Babitz and Joseph R. Worst, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendment to the Regulations

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

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

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Section 1.732-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 337(d), 732(f), and 1502. * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.732-3 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.732-3 Corresponding adjustment to basis of assets of a distributed corporation controlled by a corporate partner.

    (a) Determination of control. The determination of whether a corporate partner that is a member of a consolidated group has control of a distributed corporation for purposes of section 732(f) shall be made by applying the special aggregate stock ownership rules of § 1.1502-34.

    (b) Aggregation of basis within consolidated group. With respect to distributed stock of a corporation, if the following two conditions are met, then section 732(f) shall apply only to the extent that the partnership's adjusted basis in the distributed stock immediately before the distribution exceeds the aggregate basis of the distributed stock of the corporation in the hands of corporate partners that are members of the same consolidated group (as defined in § 1.1502-1(h)) immediately after the distribution:

    (1) Two or more of the corporate partners receive a distribution of stock in another corporation; and

    (2) The corporation, the stock of which was distributed by the partnership, is or becomes a member of the distributee partners' consolidated group following the distribution.

    (c) Application of section 732(f) to Gain Elimination Transactions—(1) General rule. In the event of a Gain Elimination Transaction, section 732(f) shall apply as though the Corporate Partner acquired control (as defined in section 732(f)(5)) of the Distributed Corporation immediately before the Gain Elimination Transaction.

    (2) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this paragraph (c):

    (i) Corporate Partner. The term Corporate Partner means a person that is classified a corporation for federal income tax purposes and that holds or acquires an interest in a partnership.

    (ii) Stock. The term Stock includes other equity interests, including options, warrants and similar interests.

    (iii) Distributed Stock. The term Distributed Stock means Stock distributed by a partnership to a Corporate Partner, or Stock the basis of which is determined by reference to the basis of such Stock. Distributed Stock also includes Stock owned directly or indirectly by a Distributed Corporation if the basis of such Stock has been reduced pursuant to section 732(f).

    (iv) Distributed Corporation. The term Distributed Corporation means the issuer of Distributed Stock (or, in the case of an option, the issuer of the Stock into which the option is exercisable).

    (v) Gain Elimination Transaction. The term Gain Elimination Transaction means a transaction in which Distributed Stock is disposed of and less than all of the gain is recognized unless—

    (A) The transferor of the Distributed Stock receives in exchange Stock or a partnership interest that is exchanged basis property (as defined in section 7701(a)(44)) with respect to the Distributed Stock, or

    (B) A transferee corporation holds the Distributed Stock as transferred basis property (as defined in section 7701(a)(43)) with respect to the transferor corporation's gain. A Gain Elimination Transaction includes (without limitation) a reorganization under section 368(a) in which the Corporate Partner and the Distributed Corporation combine, and a distribution of the Distributed Stock by the Corporate Partner to which section 355(c)(1) or 361(c)(1) applies.

    (d) Tiered partnerships. The rules of this section shall apply to tiered partnerships in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of section 732(f).

    (e) Effective/applicability date. The rules governing aggregation of basis in paragraph (b) of these regulations apply to distributions occurring on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. The rules governing gain elimination transactions in paragraph (c) of this section apply to transactions occurring on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. The rules governing tiered partnerships in paragraph (d) of this section apply to distributions and transactions occurring on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14404 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 917 [SATS No. KY-258-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2015-0001; S1D1SSS08011000SX066A00067F144S180110; S2D2SSS08011000SX066A00033F14XS501520] Kentucky Regulatory Program AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), is announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Kentucky regulatory program (the Kentucky program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Kentucky submitted this proposed amendment with the intent to clarify certain permit application requirements. Specifically, Kentucky proposes to amend the language of two provisions that outline the permit application requirements for an operator seeking to mine land with severed surface and mineral estates.

    This document gives the times and locations that the Kentucky program and this proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.

    DATES:

    We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), July 13, 2015. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on July 7, 2015. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4:00 p.m., EST on June 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by SATS No. KY-258-FOR and Docket ID OSM-2015-0001, by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The proposed rule has been assigned Docket ID OSM-2015-0001. If you would like to submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal, go to www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions.

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Mr. Robert Evans, Field Office Director, Lexington Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40503.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (859) 260-8410.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to review copies of the Kentucky program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, you must go to the address listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSMRE's Lexington Field Office or the full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at www.regulations.gov.

    Mr. Robert Evans, Field Office Director, Lexington Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40503, Telephone: (859) 260-3900. Email: [email protected]

    In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location:

    Mr. Steve Hohmann, Commissioner, Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, 2 Hudson Hollow, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, Telephone: (502) 564-6940. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Robert Evans, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Telephone: (859) 260-3900. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background on the Kentucky Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Kentucky Program

    Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “. . . a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act . . .; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Kentucky program on May 18, 1982. You can find background information on the Kentucky program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval, in the May 18, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 21434). You can also find later actions concerning the Kentucky program and program amendments at 30 CFR 917.11, 917.12, 917.13, 917.15, 917.16, and 917.17.

    II. Description of the Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated January 29, 2015 (Administrative Record No. KY-2001), the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources (KYDNR) submitted an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).

    SMCRA sets forth the minimum application requirements for approval of a permit at section 510. When the mineral estate has been severed from the private surface estate, section 510(b)(6) of SMCRA provides that an operator must submit a permit application demonstrating one of the following to establish right of entry and right to mine: (1) The written consent of the surface owner to the extraction of coal by surface mining methods, (2) a conveyance expressly granting or reserving the right to extract coal by surface mining methods, or (3) if the conveyance is silent regarding the right to extract coal, the regulatory authority is required to determine the “surface-subsurface legal relationship” in accordance with the State law. Moreover, SMCRA clarifies, at section 510(b)(6)(c), that the regulatory authority does not have the authority to adjudicate property rights disputes.

    Currently, the Kentucky program requires a permit applicant to submit proof of its legal right to enter and commence surface or underground mining activities within the proposed permit area. The applicant is also required to explain the legal rights claimed and identify whether that right is the subject of pending litigation, among other application requirements. When the proposed land to be mined involves severed estates where the conveyance does not expressly grant the right to extract coal by surface mining methods and the operator has not obtained the written consent of all surface owners, the approved Kentucky program provides that the submission of a copy of the original instrument of severance and documentation that under applicable State law, the applicant has the legal authority to extract the coal by those methods is sufficient to demonstrate a right of entry and right to surface mine.

    KYDNR now seeks to revise section 4 of 405 KAR 8:030 for surface coal mining permits, and 405 KAR 8:040 for underground coal mining permits. Specifically, KYDNR proposes to modify section 4(2)(c) to contain language that it believes clarifies the applicant's duty to demonstrate a right of entry and right to mine when the private surface estate and mineral estate has been severed. This revision proposes to remove the language in the current Kentucky program that requires the applicant to provide a copy of the original severance instrument. The proposed amendment would also move the proviso that the regulatory authority is prohibited from adjudicating property rights disputes into a new section, located at section 4(3) of 405 KAR 8:030 and 8:040.

    The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES or at www.regulations.gov.

    III. Public Comment Procedures

    Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program.

    Electronic or Written Comments

    If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.

    We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or sent to an address other than those listed (see ADDRESSES) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered.

    Public Availability of Comments

    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.

    Public Hearing

    If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., EST on June 29, 2015. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.

    To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

    Public Meeting

    If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.

    IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

    Other Laws and Executive Orders Affecting Rulemaking

    When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating receipt of the proposed amendment, its text or a summary of its terms, and an opportunity for public comment. We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.

    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 917

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: March 30, 2015. Thomas D. Shope, Regional Director, Appalachian Region.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14409 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969; FRL-9928-55-Region 5] Illinois; Disapproval of State Board Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 Ozone NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove an element of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Illinois regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements concerning state board requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805 (2006 PM2.5 infrastructure elements) and EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969 (2008 ozone infrastructure elements) 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) 408-2279.

    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance 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. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805 (2006 PM2.5 infrastructure elements) and EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969 (2008 ozone infrastructure elements). 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 U.S. 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 Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-9401 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401, [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 should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? II. What is the background of these SIP submissions? III. What is EPA's review of these SIP submissions? IV. What action is EPA taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:

    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).

    2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

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

    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

    This rulemaking addresses August 9, 2011, and December 31, 2012, submissions from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) intended to address all applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    This specific rulemaking is only taking action on the CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirement of these submittals. The majority of the other infrastructure elements were approved October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65478) and October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62042), rulemakings.

    III. What is EPA's review of these SIP submissions?

    On September 13, 2013, EPA issued “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” (2013 Memo). This guidance provides, among other things, advice on the development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. As noted in the 2013 Memo, pursuant to CAA section 110(a), states must provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. Illinois EPA provided public comment opportunities on both submittals. EPA is also soliciting comment on our evaluation of the state's infrastructure SIP submission in this notice of proposed rulemaking. Illinois provided a detailed synopsis of how various components of its SIP meet each of the applicable requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, as applicable. The following review only evaluates the state's submissions for CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements.

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)—Compliance With State Board Requirements of Section 128

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each SIP to contain provisions that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (1) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under this chapter, and (2) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. The 2013 Memo specifies that the provisions that implement CAA section 128 would need to be contained within the SIP. “EPA would not approve an infrastructure SIP submission that only provides a narrative description of existing air agency laws, rules, and regulations that are not approved into the SIP to address CAA section 128 requirements.” 2013 Memo at 42.

    After reviewing Illinois' SIP, EPA has made the preliminary determination that it does not contain provisions to comply with section 128 of the CAA, and thus Illinois' August 9, 2011, and December 31, 2012, infrastructure SIP submissions do not meet the requirements of the CAA. While Illinois has state statutes that may address, in whole or in part, requirements related to state boards at the state level, these provisions are not included in the SIP as required by the CAA. Based on an evaluation of the Federally-approved Illinois SIP, EPA is proposing to disapprove Illinois' infrastructure SIP submission in regards to meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of submissions from Illinois certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure element under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rulemaking proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

    Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to disapprove a state rule, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.

    Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    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 proposed 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).

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

    This rulemaking also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to disapprove a state rule.

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

    Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

    National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 19, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14348 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0915; FRL-9928-87-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Charlotte-Rock Hill; Base Year Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statements Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the portions of the state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of South Carolina, through South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control on August 8, 2014, and August 22, 2014, that address the base year emissions inventory and emissions statements requirements for the State's portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill North Carolina-South Carolina 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area. Annual emissions reporting (i.e., emissions statements) and a base year emissions inventory are required for all ozone nonattainment areas. The Area is comprised of the entire county of Mecklenburg and a portion of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Rowan, Union Counties in North Carolina and a portion of York County in South Carolina. EPA has published proposed and direct final actions on the emissions inventory and emissions statements requirements for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area in separate rulemaking documents.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0915 by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.

    4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0915,” Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's 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 Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached at (404) 562-9088 and via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal Register. 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 comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14346 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369; FRL-9922-39-OAR] RIN 2060-AS44 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2016 Critical Use Exemption From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing uses that qualify for the critical use exemption and the amount of methyl bromide that may be produced or imported for those uses for the 2016 control period. EPA is proposing this action under the authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect consensus decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer at the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties in November 2014.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.

    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343-9055; email address [email protected] You may also visit the methyl bromide section of the Ozone Depletion Web site of EPA's Stratospheric Protection Division at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr for further information about the methyl bromide critical use exemption, other Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the science of ozone layer depletion, and related topics.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Executive Summary

    This proposed rule concerns Clean Air Act (CAA) restrictions on the consumption, production, and use of methyl bromide (a Class I, Group VI controlled substance) for critical uses during calendar year 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, methyl bromide consumption (consumption is defined under section 601 of the CAA as production plus imports minus exports) and production were phased out on January 1, 2005, apart from allowable exemptions, such as the critical use and the quarantine and preshipment (QPS) exemptions. With this action, EPA is proposing and seeking comment on the uses that will qualify for the critical use exemption as well as specific amounts of methyl bromide that may be produced and imported for proposed critical uses for 2016.

    II. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities and categories of entities potentially regulated by this proposed action include producers, importers, and exporters of methyl bromide; applicators and distributors of methyl bromide; and users of methyl bromide that applied for the 2016 critical use exemption including growers of vegetable crops, ornamentals, fruits, and nursery stock, and owners of stored food commodities. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposed action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or organization could be regulated by this proposed action, you should carefully examine the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section.

    III. What is methyl bromide?

    Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless, toxic gas which is used as a broad-spectrum pesticide and is controlled under the CAA as a Class I ozone-depleting substance (ODS). Methyl bromide was once widely used as a fumigant to control a variety of pests such as insects, weeds, rodents, pathogens, and nematodes. Information on methyl bromide can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr.

    Methyl bromide is also regulated by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and other statutes and regulatory authority, as well as by States under their own statutes and regulatory authority. Under FIFRA, methyl bromide is a restricted use pesticide. Restricted use pesticides are subject to Federal and State requirements governing their sale, distribution, and use. Nothing in this proposed rule implementing Title VI of the Clean Air Act is intended to derogate from provisions in any other Federal, State, or local laws or regulations governing actions including, but not limited to, the sale, distribution, transfer, and use of methyl bromide. Entities affected by this proposal must comply with FIFRA and other pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements for pesticides (including, but not limited to, requirements pertaining to restricted use pesticides) when producing, importing, exporting, acquiring, selling, distributing, transferring, or using methyl bromide. The provisions in this proposed action are intended only to implement the CAA restrictions on the production, consumption, and use of methyl bromide for critical uses exempted from the phaseout of methyl bromide.

    IV. What is the background to the phaseout regulations for ozone-depleting substances?

    The regulatory requirements of the stratospheric ozone protection program that limit production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances are in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. The regulatory program was originally published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30566), in response to the 1987 signing and subsequent ratification of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). The Montreal Protocol is the international agreement aimed at reducing and eliminating the production and consumption of stratospheric ozone-depleting substances. The United States was one of the original signatories to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, and the United States ratified the Protocol in 1988. Congress then enacted, and President George H.W. Bush signed into law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA of 1990), which included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter VI, to ensure that the United States could satisfy its obligations under the Protocol. EPA issued regulations to implement this legislation and has since amended the regulations as needed.

    Methyl bromide was added to the Protocol as an ozone-depleting substance in 1992 through the Copenhagen Amendment to the Protocol. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Parties) agreed that each developed country's level of methyl bromide production and consumption in 1991 should be the baseline for establishing a freeze on the level of methyl bromide production and consumption for developed countries. EPA published a rule in the Federal Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018), listing methyl bromide as a Class I, Group VI controlled substance. This rule froze U.S. production and consumption at the 1991 baseline level of 25,528,270 kilograms, and set forth the percentage of baseline allowances for methyl bromide granted to companies in each control period (each calendar year) until 2001, when the complete phaseout would occur. This phaseout date was established in response to a petition filed in 1991 under sections 602(c)(3) and 606(b) of the CAAA of 1990, requesting that EPA list methyl bromide as a Class I substance and phase out its production and consumption. This date was consistent with section 602(d) of the CAAA of 1990, which, for newly listed Class I ozone-depleting substances provides that “no extension [of the phaseout schedule in section 604] under this subsection may extend the date for termination of production of any class I substance to a date more than 7 years after January 1 of the year after the year in which the substance is added to the list of class I substances.”

    At the Seventh Meeting of the Parties (MOP) in 1995, the Parties agreed to adjustments to the methyl bromide control measures and agreed to reduction steps and a 2010 phaseout date for developed countries with exemptions permitted for critical uses. At that time, the United States continued to have a 2001 phaseout date in accordance with section 602(d) of the CAAA of 1990. At the Ninth MOP in 1997, the Parties agreed to further adjustments to the phaseout schedule for methyl bromide in developed countries, with reduction steps leading to a 2005 phaseout. The Parties also established a phaseout date of 2015 for countries operating under Article 5 of the Protocol (developing countries).

    V. What is the legal authority for exempting the production and import of methyl bromide for critical uses permitted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol?

    In October 1998, the U.S. Congress amended the Clean Air Act to prohibit the termination of production of methyl bromide prior to January 1, 2005, to require EPA to align the U.S. phaseout of methyl bromide with the schedule specified under the Protocol, and to authorize EPA to provide certain exemptions. These amendments were contained in Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-277, October 21, 1998) and were codified in section 604 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. The amendment that specifically addresses the critical use exemption appears at section 604(d)(6), 42 U.S.C. 7671c(d)(6). EPA revised the phaseout schedule for methyl bromide production and consumption in a rulemaking on November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), which allowed for the reduction in methyl bromide consumption specified under the Protocol and extended the phaseout to 2005 while creating a placeholder for critical use exemptions. Through an interim final rule on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37751), and a final rule on January 2, 2003 (68 FR 238), EPA amended the regulations to allow for an exemption for quarantine and preshipment purposes.

    On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982), EPA published a rule (the “Framework Rule”) that established the framework for the critical use exemption, set forth a list of approved critical uses for 2005, and specified the amount of methyl bromide that could be supplied in 2005 from stocks and new production or import to meet the needs of approved critical uses. EPA subsequently published rules applying the critical use exemption framework for each of the annual control periods from 2006 to 2015.

    In accordance with Article 2H(5) of the Montreal Protocol, the Parties have issued several Decisions pertaining to the critical use exemption. These include Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4, which set forth criteria for review of critical uses. The status of Decisions is addressed in NRDC v. EPA, (464 F.3d 1, D.C. Cir. 2006) and in EPA's “Supplemental Brief for the Respondent,” filed in NRDC v. EPA and available in the docket for this proposed action. In this proposed rule on critical uses for 2016, EPA is honoring commitments made by the United States in the Montreal Protocol context.

    Under authority of section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, EPA is now proposing the uses that will qualify as approved critical uses for 2016, as well as the amount of methyl bromide that may be produced or imported to satisfy those uses. The proposed critical uses and amounts reflect Decision XXVI/6, taken at the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties in November 2014.

    VI. What is the critical use exemption process? A. Background of the Process

    Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol established the critical use exemption provision. At the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in 1997, the Parties established the criteria for an exemption in Decision IX/6. In that Decision, the Parties agreed that “a use of methyl bromide should qualify as `critical' only if the nominating Party determines that: (i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.” EPA promulgated these criteria in the definition of “critical use” at 40 CFR 82.3.

    In addition, Decision IX/6 provides that production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if a variety of conditions have been met, including that all technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide, that research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes, and that methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide.

    EPA requested critical use exemption applications for 2016 through a Federal Register notice published on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32646). Applicants submitted data on their use of methyl bromide, the technical and economic feasibility of using alternatives, ongoing research programs into the use of alternatives in their sector, and efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide.

    EPA reviews the data submitted by applicants, as well as data from governmental and academic sources, to establish whether there are technically and economically feasible alternatives available for a particular use of methyl bromide, and whether there would be a significant market disruption if no exemption were available. In addition, an interagency workgroup reviews other parameters of the exemption applications such as dosage and emissions minimization techniques and applicants' research or transition plans. As required in section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, for each exemption period, EPA consults with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).1 This assessment process culminates in the development of the U.S. critical use nomination (CUN). Annually since 2003, the U.S. Department of State has submitted a CUN to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Ozone Secretariat. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), which are advisory bodies to Parties to the Montreal Protocol, review each Party's CUN and make recommendations to the Parties on the nominations. The Parties then take Decisions on critical use exemptions for particular Parties, including how much methyl bromide may be supplied for the exempted critical uses. EPA then provides an opportunity for public comment on the amounts and specific uses of methyl bromide that the agency is proposing to exempt.

    1 See CAA section 604(d)(6): “To the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol, the Administrator, after notice and the opportunity for public comment, and after consultation with other departments or instrumentalities of the Federal Government having regulatory authority related to methyl bromide, including the Secretary of Agriculture, may exempt the production, importation, and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses.”

    On January 22, 2014, the United States submitted the twelfth Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of America to the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP. This nomination contained the request for 2016 critical uses. In March 2014, MBTOC sent questions to the United States concerning technical and economic issues in the 2016 nomination. The United States transmitted responses to MBTOC in March 2014. In May 2014, the MBTOC provided their interim recommendations on the U.S. nomination in the May TEAP Interim Report. These documents, together with reports by the advisory bodies noted above, are in the public docket for this rulemaking. The proposed critical uses and amounts approved in this rule reflect the analyses contained in those documents.

    B. How does this proposed rule relate to previous critical use exemption rules?

    The December 23, 2004, Framework Rule established the framework for the critical use exemption program in the United States, including definitions, prohibitions, trading provisions, and recordkeeping and reporting obligations. The preamble to the Framework Rule included EPA's determinations on key issues for the critical use exemption program.

    Since publishing the Framework Rule, EPA has annually promulgated regulations to exempt specific quantities of production and import of methyl bromide and to indicate which uses meet the criteria for the exemption program for that year.

    This proposed action continues the approach established in the 2013 Rule (78 FR 43797, July 22, 2013) for determining the amounts of Critical Use Allowances (CUAs) to be allocated for critical uses. A CUA is the privilege granted through 40 CFR part 82 to produce or import 1 kilogram (kg) of methyl bromide for an approved critical use during the specified control period. A control period is a calendar year. See 40 CFR 82.3. Each year's allowances expire at the end of that control period and, as explained in the Framework Rule, are not bankable from one year to the next.

    C. Proposed Critical Uses

    In Decision XXVI/6, taken in November 2014, the Parties to the Protocol agreed “[t]o permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2015 and 2016 set forth in table A of the annex to the present decision for each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and in decision Ex.I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2015 and 2016 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to satisfy critical uses. . . .” The following uses are those set forth in table A of the annex to Decision XXVI/6 for the United States for 2016:

    • Cured pork • Strawberry field

    EPA is proposing to modify the table in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix L to reflect the agreed critical use categories for 2016. EPA is proposing to amend the table of critical uses and critical users based on the uses permitted in Decision XXVI/6 and the technical analyses contained in the 2016 U.S. nomination that assess data submitted by applicants to the CUE program.

    Specifically, EPA is proposing to remove the food processing uses that were listed as critical uses for 2014. The California Date Commission as well as all users under the food processing use (rice millers, pet food manufacturing facilities, and members of the North American Millers' Association) did not submit CUE applications for 2016 and therefore were not included in the 2016 U.S. nomination to the Parties of the Montreal Protocol.

    EPA is also proposing to remove the remaining commodity uses (walnuts, dried plums, figs, and raisins). These sectors applied for a critical use in 2016 but the United States did not nominate them for 2016. In addition, some sectors that were not on the list of critical uses for 2014 or 2015 submitted applications for 2016. These sectors are: Michigan cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and tomato growers; Florida eggplant, pepper, strawberry, and tomato growers; the California Association of Nursery and Garden Centers; California stone fruit, table and raisin grape, walnut, and almond growers; ornamental growers in California and Florida; and the U.S. Golf Course Superintendents Association. EPA conducted a thorough technical assessment of each application and considered the effects that the loss of methyl bromide would have for each agricultural sector, and whether significant market disruption would occur as a result. Following this technical review, EPA consulted with the USDA and the Department of State. EPA determined that these users did not meet the critical use criteria in Decision IX/6 and the United States therefore did not include them in the 2016 Critical Use Nomination. EPA notified these sectors of their status by letters dated March 28, 2014. For each of these uses, EPA found that there are technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. EPA refers readers to the Federal Register Notice “Request for Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2017” (79 FR 38887; July 9, 2014) for a summary of information on how the agency evaluated specific uses and available alternatives when considering applications for critical uses for 2016. EPA requests comment on the technical assessments of the applications in the sector summary documents found in the docket to this rule and the determination that these users did not meet the critical use criteria and whether there is any new or additional information that the agency may consider in preparing future nominations.

    EPA is also seeking comment on the technical analyses contained in the U.S. nomination (available for public review in the docket) and information regarding any changes to the registration (including cancellations or registrations), use, or efficacy of alternatives that occurred after the nomination was submitted. EPA recognizes that as the market for alternatives evolves, the thresholds for what constitutes “significant market disruption” or “technical and economic feasibility” may change. Such information has the potential to alter the technical or economic feasibility of an alternative and could thus cause EPA to modify the analysis that underpins EPA's determination as to which uses and what amounts of methyl bromide qualify for the CUE. EPA notes that it will not finalize a rule containing uses beyond those agreed to by the Parties for 2016.

    D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts

    Table A of the annex to Decision XXVI/6 lists critical uses and amounts agreed to by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 2016. The maximum amount of new production and import for U.S. critical uses in 2016, specified in Table B of the annex to Decision XXVI/6, is 234.78 MT, minus available stocks. This figure is equivalent to less than 1 percent of the U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption baseline of 25,528 MT.

    EPA is proposing to determine the level of new production and import according to the framework and as modified by the 2013 Rule. Under this approach, the amount of new production for each control period would equal the total amount permitted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in their Decisions minus any reductions for available stocks, carryover, and the uptake of alternatives. These terms (available stocks, carryover, and the uptake of alternatives) are discussed in detail below. Applying this approach, EPA is proposing to allocate allowances to exempt 140,531 kg of new production and import of methyl bromide for critical uses in 2016, making reductions for available stocks and carryover. EPA invites comment on the proposal to make reductions for available stocks and carryover and on the analyses below.

    Available Stocks: For 2016 the Parties indicated that the United States should use “available stocks,” but did not indicate a minimum amount expected to be taken from stocks. Consistent with EPA's past practice, EPA is considering what amount, if any, of the existing stocks may be available to critical users during 2016. The latest data reported to EPA from December 31, 2014, show existing stocks to be 158,121 kg (158 MT). This shows that 198 MT of pre-2005 stocks were used in 2014. These data do not reflect drawdown of stocks that is likely to occur during 2015.

    The Parties to the Protocol recognized in their Decisions that the level of existing stocks may differ from the level of available stocks. Decision XXVI/6 states that “production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks. . . .” In addition, the Decision states that “parties operating under critical-use exemptions should take into account the extent to which methyl bromide is available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks. . . .” Earlier Decisions also refer to the use of “quantities of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has recognized to be available.” Thus, it is clear that individual Parties may determine their level of available stocks. Section 604(d)(6) of the CAA does not require EPA to adjust the amount of new production and import to reflect the availability of stocks; however, as explained in previous rulemakings, making such an adjustment is a reasonable exercise of EPA's discretion under this provision.

    In the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43797, July 22, 2013), EPA established an approach that considered whether a percentage of the existing inventory was available. In that rule, EPA took comment on whether 0% or 5% of the existing stocks was available. The final rule found that 0% was available for critical use in 2013 for a number of reasons including: A pattern of significant underestimation of inventory drawdown; the increasing concentration of critical users in California while inventory remained distributed nationwide; and the recognition that the agency cannot compel distributors to sell inventory to critical users. For further discussion, please see the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43802).

    EPA believes that 5% of existing stocks will be available in 2016 for the two proposed critical uses. As a result of the changes to the FIFRA labeling, methyl bromide sold or distributed in 2015 can only be used for approved critical uses or for quarantine and preshipment purposes. Except for sectors with quarantine and preshipment uses, California strawberries is the only pre-plant sector that will be able to use stocks in 2015 or 2016. EPA does not anticipate stocks to be used for quarantine and preshipment uses as there are no production allowances required to manufacture that material and it tends to be less expensive than stocks. Distributors will therefore likely make stocks available to California strawberry growers in 2015 and 2016.

    While EPA is not proposing to estimate the amount that will be used in 2015, EPA believes that at least 5% stocks will be available in 2016. As discussed in the carryover section below, demand by California strawberry growers in 2014 for critical use methyl bromide was lower than anticipated. For the first time since 2009, not all of the critical use material produced or imported for a control period was sold. Decreased demand for critical use methyl bromide in 2014 means that unsold material already produced will be available in 2015 in addition to stocks.

    Furthermore, EPA now knows the national distribution and composition of stocks (e.g. pure or mixed with chloropicrin) due to a recent information collection request under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. EPA believes there is geographically accessible pure methyl bromide for ham producers in the Southeastern U.S. as well as pre-plant methyl bromide for California strawberry producers.

    For these reasons, EPA is proposing to find 5% of the existing inventory available for use in 2016. EPA specifically invites comment on whether between 0% and 5% of existing inventory will be available to critical users in 2016, taking into consideration the FIFRA labeling changes, the recent history of inventory drawdown, the amount of unsold 2014 critical use methyl bromide, the removal of the critical stock allowance provisions that limited the amount of stocks that can be sold for critical uses, the quantity and geographical location of approved uses, and the quantity and location of stocks. Existing stocks, as of December 31, 2014, were equal to 158,121 kg. Therefore, EPA is proposing to reduce the amount of new production for 2016 by 7,906 kg.

    Carryover Material: EPA regulations prohibit methyl bromide produced or imported after January 1, 2005, under the critical use exemption, from being added to the pre-2005 inventory. Quantities of methyl bromide produced, imported, exported, or sold to end-users under the critical use exemption in a control period must be reported to EPA the next year. EPA uses these reports to calculate any excess methyl bromide left over from that year's CUE and, using the framework established in the 2005 CUE Rule, reduces the following year's total allocation by that amount. Carryover had been reported to the Agency every year from 2005 to 2009. Carryover material (which is produced using critical use allowances) is not included in EPA's definition of existing inventory (which applies to pre-2005 material) because this would lead to a double-counting of carryover amounts.

    In 2015, companies reported that 442,200 kg of methyl bromide was produced or imported for U.S. critical uses in 2014. EPA also received reports that 355,857 kg of critical use methyl bromide was sold to end-users in 2014. EPA calculates that the carryover amount at the end of 2014 was 86,343 kg, which is the difference between the reported amount of critical use methyl bromide produced or imported in 2014 and the reported amount of sales of that material to end users in 2014. EPA's calculation of carryover is consistent with the method used in previous CUE rules, and with the format in Decision XVI/6 for calculating column L of the U.S. Accounting Framework. All U.S. Accounting Frameworks for critical use methyl bromide are available in the public docket for this rulemaking. EPA is therefore proposing to reduce the total level of new production and import for critical uses by 86,343 kg to reflect the amount of carryover material available at the end of 2014, in addition to the 7,906 kg reduction for available stocks discussed above.

    Uptake of Alternatives: EPA considers data on the availability of alternatives that it receives following submission of each nomination to UNEP. In previous rules EPA has reduced the total CUE amount when a new alternative has been registered and increased the new production amount when an alternative is withdrawn, but not above the amount permitted by the Parties. Neither circumstance has occurred since the nomination was submitted for 2016.

    EPA is not proposing to make any other modifications to CUE amounts to account for availability of alternatives. Rates of transition to alternatives have already been applied for permitted 2016 critical use amounts through the nomination and authorization process. EPA will consider new data received during the comment period and continues to gather information about methyl bromide alternatives through the CUE application process, and by other means. EPA also continues to support research and adoption of methyl bromide alternatives, and to request information about the economic and technical feasibility of all existing and potential alternatives.

    Allocation Amounts: EPA is proposing to allocate critical use allowances for new production or import of methyl bromide equivalent to 140,531 kg to Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, Albemarle Corporation, ICL-IP America, and TriCal, Inc in proportion to their respective baselines. Paragraph 3 of Decision XXVI/6 states that “parties shall endeavour to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of methyl bromide for critical uses as listed in table A of the annex to the present decision. . . .” This is similar to language in prior Decisions permitting critical uses. These Decisions call on Parties to endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis.

    EPA is proposing to assign the 7,906 kg reduction for available stocks and 86,343 kg reduction for carryover in proportion to the amounts indicated in Table A of the annex to Decision XXVI/6. In other words, both the pre-plant and the post-harvest allocation would be reduced by 40%. Specifically, the pre-plant allocation for California strawberry production would decline from 231,540 kg to 138,592 kg and the post-harvest allocation for dry cured ham would decline from 3,240 kg to 1,939 kg. Reported data show that the critical use methyl bromide carried over from 2014 and the existing stocks include both pre-plant and post-harvest material. EPA invites comment on reducing the allocation in this proportional manner or whether an alternate method is preferable.

    The proposed Framework Rule contained several options for allocating critical use allowances, including a sector-by-sector approach. The agency evaluated various options based on their economic, environmental, and practical effects. After receiving comments, EPA determined in the final Framework Rule that a lump-sum, or universal, allocation, modified to include distinct caps for pre-plant and post-harvest uses, was the most efficient and least burdensome approach that would achieve the desired environmental results, and that a sector-by-sector approach would pose significant administrative and practical difficulties. Because EPA is proposing only one use in the pre-plant sector and one use in the post-harvest sector for 2016, this proposed rule follows the breakout of specific uses in Decision XXVI/6.

    Emergency Use: The U.S. government is committed to using flexibility in the Protocol's existing mechanisms as an avenue to address changes in national circumstance that affect the transition to alternatives. EPA welcomes comments and any new information on specific emergency situations that may necessitate the use of methyl bromide, consistent with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol, and which could be difficult to address using current tools and authorities.

    E. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4

    Decision XXVI/6 calls on Parties to apply the criteria in Decision IX/6, paragraph 1 and the conditions set forth in Decision Ex. I/4 (to the extent applicable) to exempted critical uses for the 2016 control period. The following section provides references to sections of this preamble and other documents where EPA considers the criteria of those two Decisions.

    Decision IX/6, paragraph 1 contains the critical use criteria, which are summarized in Section III.A of the preamble. The nomination documents detail how each proposed critical use meets the criteria in Decision IX/6, paragraph 1 including: The lack of available technically and economically feasible alternatives under the circumstance of the nomination; efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide where technically and economically feasible; and the development of research and transition plans. The nomination documents also address the requests in Decision Ex. I/4 paragraphs 5 and 6 that Parties consider and implement MBTOC recommendations, where feasible, on actions a Party may take to reduce the critical uses of methyl bromide and include information on the methodology they use to determine economic feasibility.

    A discussion of the agency's application of the critical use criteria to the proposed critical uses for 2016 appears in Sections III.A., III.C., and III.D. of this preamble. EPA solicits comments on the technical and economic basis for determining that the uses listed in this proposed rule meet the criteria of the critical use exemption.

    The agency has previously provided its interpretation of the criterion in Decision IX/6, paragraph (1)(a)(i) regarding the presence of significant market disruption in the absence of an exemption. EPA refers readers to the preamble to the 2006 CUE rule (71 FR 5989, February 6, 2006) as well as to the memo in the docket titled “Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of America” for further elaboration. As explained in those documents, EPA's interpretation of this term has several dimensions, including looking at potential effects on both demand and supply for a commodity, evaluating potential losses at both an individual level and at an aggregate level, and evaluating potential losses in both relative and absolute terms.

    The United States has also considered the adoption of alternatives and research into methyl bromide alternatives in the development of the National Management Strategy submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in December 2005 and updated in October 2009. The National Management Strategy addresses all of the aims specified in Decision Ex. I/4, paragraph 3 to the extent feasible and is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

    F. Emissions Minimization

    Previous Decisions of the Parties have stated that critical users shall employ emissions minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically feasible. EPA developed a comprehensive strategy for risk mitigation through the 2009 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) 2 for methyl bromide, available in the docket to this rulemaking, which is implemented through restrictions on how methyl bromide products can be used. This approach means that methyl bromide labels require that treated sites be tarped. The RED also incorporated incentives for applicators to use high-barrier tarps, such as virtually impermeable film, by allowing smaller buffer zones around those sites. In addition to minimizing emissions, use of high-barrier tarps has the benefit of providing pest control at lower application rates. The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the United States reflects the lower application rates necessary when using high-barrier tarps.

    2 Additional information on risk mitigation measures for soil fumigants is available at http://epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/.

    EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) to promote emissions reduction techniques. The federal government has invested substantial resources into developing and implementing best practices for methyl bromide use, including emissions reduction practices. The Cooperative Extension System, which receives some support from USDA-NIFA, provides locally appropriate and project-focused outreach education regarding methyl bromide transition best practices. Additional information on USDA research on alternatives and emissions reduction can be found at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?NP_CODE=303, http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?NP_CODE=304, and http://www.csrees.usda.gov.

    Users of methyl bromide should continue to make every effort to minimize overall emissions of methyl bromide. EPA also encourages researchers and users who are using techniques to minimize emissions of methyl bromide to inform EPA of their experiences and to provide information on such techniques with their critical use applications.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This action was deemed to raise novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0482. The application, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements have already been established under previous critical use exemption rulemakings.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. Since this rule would allow the use of methyl bromide for approved critical uses after the phaseout date of January 1, 2005, this action would confer a benefit to users of methyl bromide. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This action would allocate allowances for the production and import of methyl bromide to private entities. This rule also would limit the proposed critical uses to geographical areas that reflect the scope of the trade associations that applied for a critical use. This rule does not impose any duties or responsibilities on State governments or allocate any rights to produce or use methyl bromide to a State government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments nor does it impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the Regulatory Impacts Analysis and Benefits Analysis found in the docket.

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

    This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This action does not pertain to any segment of the energy production economy nor does it regulate any manner of energy use.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA believes this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, because it affects the level of environmental protection equally for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. Any ozone depletion that results from this action will result in impacts that are, in general, equally distributed across geographical regions in the United States. The impacts do not fall disproportionately on minority or low-income populations but instead vary with a wide variety of factors. Populations that work or live near fields or other application sites may benefit from the reduced amount of methyl bromide applied, as compared to amounts allowed under previous critical use exemption rules.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Ozone depletion.

    Dated: June 3, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 82 as follows:

    PART 82—PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    2. Amend § 82.8 by revising the table in paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances and critical use allowances.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Company 2016 Critical use
  • allowances for
  • pre-plant uses *
  • (kilograms)
  • 2016 Critical use
  • allowances for
  • post-harvest uses *
  • (kilograms)
  • Great Lakes Chemical Corp. A Chemtura Company 84,222 1,179 Albemarle Corp 34,634 485 ICL-IP America 19,140 268 TriCal, Inc 596 8 Total 138,592 1,939 * For production or import of Class I, Group VI controlled substance exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in appendix L to this subpart.
    3. Amend subpart A by revising appendix L to read as follows: Appendix L to Subpart A of Part 82—Approved Critical Uses and Limiting Critical Conditions for Those Uses for the 2016 Control Period Column A Column B Column C Approved Critical Uses Approved Critical User, Location of Use Limiting Critical Conditions that exist, or that the approved critical user reasonably expects could arise without methyl bromide fumigation. PRE-PLANT USES Strawberry Fruit California growers Moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot.
  • Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
  • Moderate to severe nematode infestation.
  • Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene.
  • POST-HARVEST USES Dry Cured Pork Products Members of the National Country Ham Association and the American Association of Meat Processors, Nahunta Pork Center (North Carolina), and Gwaltney of Smithfield Inc Red legged ham beetle infestation.
  • Cheese/ham skipper infestation.
  • Dermestid beetle infestation.
  • Ham mite infestation.
  • [FR Doc. 2015-14473 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 150121066-5497-01] RIN 0648-BE81 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to modify the baseline annual U.S. quota and subquotas for Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT). NMFS also proposes minor modifications to the regulatory text regarding Atlantic tuna purse seine auxiliary vessel activity under the “transfer at sea” provisions. This action is necessary to implement binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015. NMFS will host an operator-assisted public hearing conference call and webinar on July 1, 2015, from 2 to 4 p.m. EDT, providing an opportunity for individuals from all geographic areas to participate. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0011,” by either 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-2015-0011, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Sarah McLaughlin, Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

    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 generally will 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).

    The public hearing conference call information is phone number 1-800-779-5379; participant passcode 1594994. Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show a brief presentation via webinar followed by public comment. To join the webinar, go to: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?d=990480432&t=a. Enter your name, email address, and password “webtuna” (without typing the quotation marks) and click the “JOIN” button. Participants who have not used WebEx before will be prompted to download and run a plug-in program that will enable them to view the webinar.

    Supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, may be downloaded from the HMS Web site at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. These documents also are available by contacting Sarah McLaughlin at the mailing address specified above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Atlantic bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna (hereafter referred to as “Atlantic tunas”) are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. As an active member of ICCAT, the United States implements binding ICCAT recommendations. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

    Background

    Since 1982, ICCAT has recommended a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of western Atlantic BFT, and since 1991, ICCAT has recommended specific limits (quotas) for the United States and other Contracting Parties.

    In 2006, NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register implementing the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP), which consolidated management of all Atlantic HMS (i.e., sharks, swordfish, tunas, and billfish) into one comprehensive FMP (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006). Among other things, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP maintained an allocation scheme, established in the 1999 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP), for dividing the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota among several domestic quota categories. NMFS amended the BFT allocations, effective January 1, 2015, in the recently published Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 7) (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014).

    Regulations implemented under the authority of ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. NMFS is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota. Section 635.27 currently codifies the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota first recommended by ICCAT in 2010 and divides it among the various domestic fishing categories consistent with the process established in Amendment 7. Adjustment of the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota is necessary to implement the new quota adopted in a 2014 ICCAT recommendation for western BFT, as required by ATCA, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including rebuilding stocks and ending overfishing. NMFS also is proposing minor modifications to regulatory text to clarify that while transfer at sea is prohibited, an auxiliary vessel (i.e., a skiff) may conduct limited assistance activities for its associated purse seine vessel in catch operations for BFT. The text modification reflects current practice but is necessary to clarify that “transfer at sea” is prohibited consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 14-05 (Recommendation by ICCAT Amending the Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the Western Atlantic BFT Rebuilding Program) and its intended application. This text modification is administrative, reflects current practice, and would have no environmental impacts or effects on current fishing operations.

    NMFS has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), which present and analyze anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of several alternatives for each of the major issues contained in this proposed rule. The list of alternatives and their analyses are provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA and are not repeated here in their entirety. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

    2014 ICCAT Recommendation

    At its November 2014 meeting, ICCAT adopted a western Atlantic BFT TAC of 2,000 mt annually for 2015 and 2016 after considering the results of the 2014 BFT stock assessment and following negotiations among Contracting Parties (ICCAT Recommendation 14-05). This TAC, which is an increase from the 1,750-mt TAC that has applied annually since 2011, is consistent with scientific advice from the 2014 stock assessment, which indicated that annual catches of less than 2,250 mt would have a 50-percent probability of allowing the spawning stock biomass to be at or above its 2013 level by 2019 under either recruitment scenario, and that annual catches of 2,000 mt or less would continue to allow stock growth under both the low and high recruitment scenarios for the remainder of the rebuilding program. All TAC, quota, and weight information discussed in this notice are whole weight amounts.

    For 2015 and 2016, the ICCAT Recommendation also makes the following allocations from the western BFT 2,000-mt TAC for bycatch related to directed longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED): 15 mt for Canada and 25 mt for the United States. Following subtraction of these allocations from the TAC, the recommendation allocates the remainder to the United States (54.02 percent), Canada (22.32 percent) Japan (17.64 percent), Mexico (5.56 percent), UK (0.23 percent), and France (0.23 percent). For the United States, 54.02 percent of the remaining 1,960 mt is 1,058.79 mt annually for 2015 and 2016. This represents an increase of approximately 135 mt (approximately 14 percent) from the U.S. baseline BFT quota that applied annually for 2011 through 2014. Thus, the annual total U.S. quota, including the 25 mt to account for bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the NED, is 1,083.79 mt.

    As a method for limiting fishing mortality on juvenile BFT, ICCAT continued to recommend a tolerance limit on the annual harvest of BFT measuring less than 115 cm (straight fork length) to no more than 10 percent by weight of a Contracting Party's total BFT quota over the 2015 and 2016 fishing periods. The United States implements this provision by limiting the harvest of school BFT (measuring 27 to less than 47 inches (68.5 to less than 119 cm curved fork length)) as appropriate to not exceed the 10-percent limit over the two-year period.

    Domestic Allocations and Quotas

    The 1999 FMP and its implementing regulations established baseline percentage quota shares for the domestic fishing categories. These percentage shares were based on allocation procedures that NMFS developed over several years, based on historical share, fleet size, effort, and landings by category, and stock assessment data collection needs. The baseline percentage quota shares established in the 1999 FMP were continued in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP modified the quota calculation process as follows: First, 68 mt is subtracted from the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota and allocated to the Longline category quota. Second, the remaining quota is divided among the categories according to the following percentages: General—47.1 percent; Angling—19.7 percent; Harpoon—3.9 percent; Purse Seine—18.6 percent; Longline—8.1 percent (plus the 68-mt initial allocation); Trap—0.1 percent; and Reserve—2.5 percent.

    The table below shows the proposed quotas and subquotas that result from applying this process. These quotas would be codified at § 635.27(a) and would remain in effect until changed (for instance, if any new ICCAT western BFT TAC recommendation is adopted). Because ICCAT adopted TACs for 2015 and 2016 in Recommendation 14-05, NMFS currently anticipates that these annual base quotas would be in effect through 2016.

    Table 1—Proposed Annual Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (BFT) Quotas [In metric tons] Category Annual baseline quotas and subquotas Quota Subquotas General 466.7 January-March 1 24.7 June-August 233.3 September 123.7 October-November 60.7 December 24.3 Harpoon 38.6 Longline 148.3 Trap 1.0 Purse Seine 2 184.3 Angling 195.2 School 108.4 Reserve 20.1 North of 39°18′ N. lat 41.7 South of 39°18′ N. lat 46.6 Large School/Small Medium 82.3 North of 39°18′ N. lat 38.9 South of 39°18′ N. lat 43.5 Trophy 4.5 North of 39°18′ N. lat 1.5 South of 39°18′ N. lat 1.5 Gulf of Mexico 1.5 Reserve 2 24.8 U.S. Baseline BFT Quota 3 1,058.9 Total U.S. Quota, including 25 mt for NED (Longline) 3 1,083.9 1 January 1 through the effective date of a closure notice filed by NMFS announcing that the January subquota is reached or projected to be reached, or through March 31, whichever comes first. 2 Baseline amount shown. Does not reflect the annual adjustment process (for the Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas) adopted in Amendment 7, discussed below. 3 Totals subject to rounding error.

    Also as a result of the Amendment 7 process and consistent with the regulations, NMFS at the beginning of the year calculated the quota available to individual Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category fishery participants for 2015 based on BFT catch (landings and dead discards) by those fishery participants in 2014 and then reallocated the remaining 87.4 mt of available Purse Seine category quota to the Reserve category for the 2015 fishing year. This process resulted in revised Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas of 71.7 mt and 108.8 mt, respectively (80 FR 7547, February 11, 2015). If NMFS finalizes the U.S. baseline BFT quota as proposed here, NMFS will again calculate the amounts of quota available to individual Purse Seine fishery participants for 2015 applying the baseline Purse Seine category quota as finalized (and adjust the Reserve category quota as appropriate). Based on the proposed U.S. baseline BFT quota, the Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas would be further adjusted to 82.9 mt (an 11.2-mt increase) and 126.2 mt (a 17.4-mt decrease), respectively. Consistent with § 635.27(a)(4)(v)(C), NMFS would notify Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine fishery participants of the adjusted amount of quota available for their use in 2015 through the Individual Bluefin Quota electronic system established under § 635.15 and in writing and will publish notice of the adjusted Purse Seine and Reserve category quotas for 2015 in the Federal Register notice announcing the final rule.

    Amendment 7 also changed the way that NMFS adjusts the U.S. annual quota for any previous year's underharvest. Rather than publishing proposed and final quota specifications annually to adjust the quota for the underharvest as NMFS has in the past, NMFS will automatically augment the Reserve category quota to the extent that underharvest from the previous year is available. Such adjustment will be consistent with ICCAT limits and will be calculated when complete BFT catch information for the prior year is available and finalized. NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category quota for inseason or annual adjustments to any fishing category quota pursuant to regulatory determination criteria described at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(8), or for scientific research.

    Although preliminary 2014 landings and dead discard estimates indicate an underharvest of approximately 218 mt (using the 160.6-mt 2013 dead discard estimate as a proxy), the amount the United States may carry forward to 2015 is limited to 94.9 mt by ICCAT recommendation. The final 2013 estimate and a preliminary 2014 estimate will be available in June 2015, and NMFS will announce any adjustment to the 2015 Reserve category quota based on the amount of 2014 underharvest.

    Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine Auxiliary Vessel Activity

    Currently, HMS regulations specify that an owner or operator of a vessel for which an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit has been issued “may transfer large medium and giant BFT at sea from the net of the catching vessel to another vessel for which an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit has been issued, provided the amount transferred does not cause the receiving vessel to exceed its currently authorized vessel allocation, including incidental catch limits.” NMFS is proposing minor modifications to this regulatory text to clarify that this text was not meant to allow “transfer at sea,” which clearly is prohibited by ICCAT Recommendation 14-05, but only to allow the routine, limited operations of an auxiliary vessel (i.e., a skiff) that is assisting its associated purse seine vessel in catch operations for BFT. Such activities are not the type of activity meant to be prohibited by that Recommendation. This clarification would be administrative, reflect current practice, and would have no environmental impacts or effects on current fishing operations.

    Request for Comments

    NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule through July 13, 2015. See instructions in ADDRESSES section.

    Public Hearing Conference Call

    NMFS will hold a public hearing conference call and webinar on July 1, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. EDT, to allow for an additional opportunity for interested members of the public from all geographic areas to submit verbal comments on the proposed quota rule.

    The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public hearings and on conference calls to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the conference call, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (all comments are to be directed to the agency on the proposed action; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they will be asked to leave the meeting.

    Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

    An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

    In compliance with section 603(b)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is, consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, to analyze the impacts of the alternatives for implementing and allocating the ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota for 2015 and 2016; and to clarify the purse seine transfer at sea regulations for Atlantic tunas.

    In compliance with section 603(b)(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the objective of this proposed rulemaking is to implement ICCAT recommendations.

    Section 603(b)(3) requires agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. This proposed rule is expected to directly affect commercial and for-hire fishing vessels that possess an Atlantic Tunas permit or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit. In general, the HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders can be regarded as small entities for RFA purposes. HMS Angling (recreational) category permit holders are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered small entities for purposes of the RFA. The SBA has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States including fish harvesters (79 FR 33647; June 12, 2014). A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a “small business” if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts (revenue) not in excess of $20.5 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing). NAICS is the North American Industry Classification System, a standard system used by business and government to classify business establishments into industries, according to their economic activity. The United States government developed NAICS to collect, analyze, and publish data about the economy. In addition, the SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity (NAICS code 487210, for-hire) as one with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $7.5 million.

    As described in the recently published final rule to implement Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014), the average annual gross revenue per active pelagic longline vessel was estimated to be $187,000 based on the 170 active vessels between 2006 and 2012 that produced an estimated $31.8 million in revenue annually. The maximum annual revenue for any pelagic longline vessel during that time period was less than $1.4 million, well below the SBA size threshold of $20.5 million in combined annual receipts. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit holders to be small entities. NMFS is unaware of any other Atlantic Tunas category permit holders that potentially could earn more than $20.5 million in revenue annually. NMFS is also unaware of any charter/headboat businesses that could exceed the $7.5 million thresholds for those small entities. HMS Angling category permit holders are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered small entities for purposes of the RFA. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas permit holders and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders subject to this action to be small entities.

    This action would apply to all participants in the Atlantic BFT fishery, i.e., to the over 27,000 vessels that held an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat, Atlantic HMS Angling, or an Atlantic Tunas permit as of October 2014. This proposed rule is expected to directly affect commercial and for-hire fishing vessels that possess an Atlantic Tunas permit or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit. It is unknown what portion of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders actively participate in the BFT fishery or fishing services for recreational anglers. As summarized in the 2014 SAFE Report for Atlantic HMS, there were 6,792 commercial Atlantic tunas or Atlantic HMS permits in 2014, as follows: 2,782 in the Atlantic Tunas General category; 14 in the Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category; 5 in the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category; 246 in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category; 3 in the Atlantic Tunas Trap category; and 3,742 in the HMS Charter/Headboat category. In the process of developing the IBQ regulations implemented in the Amendment 7 final rule, NMFS deemed 135 Longline category vessels as eligible for IBQ shares (i.e., 135 vessels reported a set in the HMS logbook between 2006 and 2012 and had valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits on a vessel as of August 21, 2013, the publication date of the Amendment 7 proposed rule). This constitutes the best available information regarding the universe of permits and permit holders recently analyzed. No impacts are expected to occur from the clarification of the transfer at sea prohibition regulatory text.

    NMFS has determined that this action would not likely directly affect any small government jurisdictions defined under the RFA.

    Under section 603(b)(4) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, agencies are required to describe any new reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements. There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements in any of the alternatives considered for this action.

    Under section 603(b)(5) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ATCA, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed rule has also been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any relevant regulations, Federal or otherwise.

    Under section 603(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, agencies are required to describe any alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts. These alternatives and their impacts are discussed below. Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 (c) (1)-(4)) lists four general categories of significant alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and, (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities.

    In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the ESA, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities affected are considered small entities. Thus, no alternatives are discussed that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. Amendment 7 implemented criteria for determining the availability of quota for Purse Seine fishery category participants and IBQs for the Longline category. Both of these and the eligibility criteria for IBQs and access to the Cape Hatteras GRA for the Longline category can be considered individual performance standards. NMFS has not yet found a practical means of applying individual performance standards to the other quota categories while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, there are no alternatives considered under the third category.

    NMFS has estimated the average impact that establishing the increased baseline annual U.S. BFT quota for all domestic fishing categories would have on each quota category and the vessels within those categories. As mentioned above, the 2014 ICCAT recommendation increased the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota for each of 2015 and 2016 to 1,058.79 mt and provides 25 mt annually for incidental catch of BFT related to directed longline fisheries in the NED. The baseline annual subquotas would be adjusted consistent with the process established in Amendment 7 (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014), and these amounts would be codified.

    To calculate the average ex-vessel revenues under the proposed action, NMFS first estimated potential category-wide revenues. The most recent ex-vessel average price per pound information for each commercial quota category is used to estimate potential ex-vessel gross revenues under the proposed subquotas (i.e., 2014 prices for the General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, and Longline/Trap categories). For comparison, in 2014, gross revenues were approximately $7.8 million, broken out by category as follows: General—$5.9 million, Harpoon—$544,778, Purse Seine—$391,607, Longline—$953,055, and Trap—$0. The proposed baseline subquotas could result in estimated gross revenues of $11 million, if finalized and fully utilized, broken out by category as follows: General category: $6.8 million (466.7 mt * $6.60/lb); Harpoon category: $611,851 (38.6 mt * $7.19/lb); Purse Seine category: $1.9 million (184.3 mt * $ 4.77/lb); Longline category: $1.7 million (148.3 mt * $5.22/lb); and Trap category: $11,508 (1.0 mt * $ 5.22/lb). This rulemaking proposes to implement the recently adopted ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota and applies the allocations for each quota category as recently amended in the implementing regulations for Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. This action would be consistent with ATCA, under which the Secretary promulgates regulations as necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations.

    No affected entities would be expected to experience negative, direct economic impacts as a result of this action. On the contrary, each of the quota categories would increase relative to the baseline quotas that applied in 2011 through 2014 and the quotas finalized in Amendment 7. To the extent that Purse Seine fishery participants and IBQ participants could receive additional quota as a result of Amendment 7-implemented allocation formulas being applied to increases in available Purse Seine and Longline category quota, those participants would receive varying increases, which would result in direct benefits from either increased fishing opportunities or quota leasing.

    To estimate potential average ex-vessel revenues that could result from this action, NMFS divides the potential annual gross revenues for the General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, and Trap category by the number of permit holders. For the Longline category, NMFS divides the potential annual gross revenues by the number of active vessels as defined in Amendment 7. This is an appropriate approach for BFT fisheries, in particular because available landings data (weight and ex-vessel value of the fish in price-per-pound) allow NMFS to calculate the gross revenue earned by a fishery participant on a successful trip. The available data (particularly from non-Longline participants) do not, however, allow NMFS to calculate the effort and cost associated with each successful trip (e.g., the cost of gas, bait, ice, etc.), so net revenue for each participant cannot be calculated. As a result, NMFS analyzes the average impact of the proposed alternatives among all participants in each category.

    Success rates vary widely across participants in each category (due to extent of vessel effort and availability of commercial-sized BFT to participants where they fish) but for the sake of estimating potential revenues per vessel, category-wide revenues can be divided by the number of permitted vessels in each category. For the Longline fishery, the number of vessels deemed eligible for IBQ shares is used, and actual revenues would depend, in part, on each vessel's IBQ in 2015. Although HMS Charter/Headboat vessels may fish commercially under the General category quota and retention limits, because it is unknown what portion of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders actively participate in the BFT fishery, NMFS is estimating potential General category ex-vessel revenue changes using the number of General category vessels only.

    Estimated potential 2015 revenues on a per vessel basis, considering the number of permit holders listed above and the proposed subquotas, could be $2,441 for the General category; $43,703 for the Harpoon category; $387,618 for the Purse Seine category; $12,642 for the Longline category, using the 135 vessels eligible for IBQ shares; and $3,836 for the Trap category. Thus, all of the entities affected by this rule are considered to be small entities for the purposes of the RFA.

    Consistent with Amendment 7 regulations, NMFS calculated the quota available to Purse Seine fishery participants for 2015 and then reallocated the remaining 87.4 mt of available Purse Seine category quota to the Reserve category (80 FR 7547, February 11, 2015). NMFS will further adjust those amounts if the U.S. baseline BFT quota in this proposed rule is finalized. The analyses in this IRFA are limited to the proposed baseline subquotas.

    Because the directed commercial categories have underharvested their subquotas in recent years, the potential increases in ex-vessel revenues above may overestimate the probable economic impacts to those categories relative to recent conditions. Additionally, there has been substantial interannual variability in ex-vessel revenues per category in recent years due to recent changes in BFT availability and other factors.

    The proposed modifications to the regulatory text concerning Atlantic tunas purse seine transfer at sea are intended to clarify the prohibition on transfer at sea. They apply to the five Purse Seine fishery participants only and are not expected to have significant economic impacts as they are administrative in nature, reflect current practice, and would not result in changes to Atlantic tunas purse seine operations.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: June 8, 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 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 635.27, paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4)(i), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7)(i), and (a)(7)(ii) are revised to read as follows:
    § 635.27 Quotas.

    (a) Bluefin tuna. Consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and with paragraph (a)(10)(iv) of this section, NMFS may subtract the most recent, complete, and available estimate of dead discards from the annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota, and make the remainder available to be retained, possessed, or landed by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The remaining baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota will be allocated among the General, Angling, Harpoon, Purse Seine, Longline, Trap, and Reserve categories, as described in this section. Bluefin tuna quotas are specified in whole weight. The baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota is 1,058.79 mt, not including an additional annual 25-mt allocation provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The bluefin quota for the quota categories is calculated through the following process. First, 68 mt is subtracted from the baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota and allocated to the Longline category quota. Second, the remaining quota is divided among the categories according to the following percentages: General—47.1 percent (466.7 mt); Angling—19.7 percent (195.2 mt), which includes the school bluefin tuna held in reserve as described under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section; Harpoon—3.9 percent (38.6 mt); Purse Seine—18.6 percent (184.3 mt); Longline—8.1 percent (80.3 mt) plus the 68-mt allocation (i.e., 148.3 mt total not including the 25-mt allocation from paragraph (a)(3)); Trap—0.1 percent (1.0 mt); and Reserve—2.5 percent (24.8 mt). NMFS may make inseason and annual adjustments to quotas as specified in paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) of this section, including quota adjustments as a result of the annual reallocation of Purse Seine quota described under paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section.

    (1) * * *

    (i) Catches from vessels for which General category Atlantic Tunas permits have been issued and certain catches from vessels for which an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued are counted against the General category quota in accordance with § 635.23(c)(3). Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or sold under the General category quota is 466.7 mt, and is apportioned as follows, unless modified as described under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section:

    (A) January 1 through the effective date of a closure notice filed by NMFS announcing that the January subquota is reached, or projected to be reached under § 635.28(a)(1), or through March 31, whichever comes first—5.3 percent (24.7 mt);

    (B) June 1 through August 31—50 percent (233.3 mt);

    (C) September 1 through September 30—26.5 percent (123.7 mt);

    (D) October 1 through November 30—13 percent (60.7 mt); and

    (E) December 1 through December 31—5.2 percent (24.3 mt).

    (2) Angling category quota. In accordance with the framework procedures of the Consolidated HMS FMP, prior to each fishing year, or as early as feasible, NMFS will establish the Angling category daily retention limits. In accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the total amount of bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, and landed by anglers aboard vessels for which an HMS Angling permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued is 195.2 mt. No more than 2.3 percent (4.5 mt) of the annual Angling category quota may be large medium or giant bluefin tuna. In addition, over each two-consecutive-year period (starting with 2015-2016), no more than 10 percent of the annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota, inclusive of the allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, may be school bluefin tuna (i.e., 108.4 mt). The Angling category quota includes the amount of school bluefin tuna held in reserve under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section. The size class subquotas for bluefin tuna are further subdivided as follows:

    (i) After adjustment for the school bluefin tuna quota held in reserve (under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section), 52.8 percent (46.6 mt) of the school bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining school bluefin tuna Angling category quota (41.7 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. lat.

    (ii) An amount equal to 52.8 percent (43.5 mt) of the large school/small medium bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining large school/small medium bluefin tuna Angling category quota (38.9 mt) may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. lat.

    (iii) One third (1.5 mt) of the large medium and giant bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed, in each of the three following geographic areas: (1) North of 39°18′ N. lat.; (2) south of 39°18′ N. lat., and outside of the Gulf of Mexico; and (3) in the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes of this section, the Gulf of Mexico region includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west and north of the boundary stipulated at 50 CFR 600.105(c).

    (3) Longline category quota. Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the total amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, discarded dead, or retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits is 148.3 mt. In addition, 25 mt shall be allocated for incidental catch by pelagic longline vessels fishing in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area, and subject to the restrictions under § 635.15(b)(8).

    (4) * * *

    (i) Baseline Purse Seine quota. Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the baseline amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permits is 184.3 mt, unless adjusted as a result of inseason and/or annual adjustments to quotas as specified in paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) of this section; or adjusted (prior to allocation to individual participants) based on the previous year's catch as described under paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. Annually, NMFS will make a determination when the Purse Seine fishery will start, based on variations in seasonal distribution, abundance or migration patterns of bluefin tuna, cumulative and projected landings in other commercial fishing categories, the potential for gear conflicts on the fishing grounds, or market impacts due to oversupply. NMFS will start the bluefin tuna purse seine season between June 1 and August 15, by filing an action with the Office of the Federal Register, and notifying the public. The Purse Seine category fishery closes on December 31 of each year.

    (5) Harpoon category quota. The total amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or sold by vessels that possess Harpoon category Atlantic Tunas permits is 38.6 mt. The Harpoon category fishery commences on June 1 of each year, and closes on November 15 of each year.

    (6) Trap category quota. The total amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that possess Trap category Atlantic Tunas permits is 1.0 mt.

    (7) * * *

    (i) The total amount of bluefin tuna that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and research using quota or subquotas is 24.8 mt, which may be augmented by allowable underharvest from the previous year, or annual reallocation of Purse Seine category quota as described under paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. Consistent with paragraphs (a)(8) through (10) of this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category quota for inseason or annual adjustments to any fishing category quota.

    (ii) The total amount of school bluefin tuna that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and fishery-independent research is 18.5 percent (20.1 mt) of the total school bluefin tuna Angling category quota as described under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This amount is in addition to the amounts specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section. Consistent with paragraph (a)(8) of this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of the school bluefin tuna Angling category quota held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments to the Angling category.

    3. In § 635.29, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
    § 635.29 Transfer at sea and transshipment.

    (c) An owner or operator of a vessel for which an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit has been issued under § 635.4 may use an auxiliary vessel associated with the permitted vessel (i.e., a skiff) to assist in routine purse seine fishery operations, provided that the vessel has not been issued an Atlantic Tunas or HMS vessel permit and functions only in an auxiliary capacity during routine purse seine operations. The auxiliary vessel may transfer large medium and giant Atlantic BFT to its associated purse seine vessel during routine purse seine operations, provided that the amount transferred does not cause the receiving vessel to exceed its currently authorized vessel allocation, including incidental catch limits.

    [FR Doc. 2015-14284 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 113 Friday, June 12, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Farm Service Agency Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Biomass Crop Assistance Program AGENCY:

    Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Intent (NOI); request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Farm Service Agency (FSA), on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), intends to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The PEIS will assess the potential environmental consequences associated with proposed discretionary changes to the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). This notice informs the public of FSA's intent to seek public comment on potential changes being considered for BCAP and on any environmental concerns related to the proposed changes. The input we receive as a result of this notice will enable us to develop alternatives for implementing the proposed changes to BCAP and begin to evaluate the impacts of those alternatives, as required by NEPA.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments that we receive by July 13, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered to the extent possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on this NOI. In your comments, include the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    • Email: [email protected]

    • Online: Go to http://bcappeis.com. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    • Fax: (757) 594-1469.

    • Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: BCAP PEIS, c/o Cardno TEC, Inc., 11817 Canon Blvd., Suite 300, Newport News, VA 23606.

    All written comments will be available for inspection online at www.regulations.gov and in the Office of the Director, Conservation and Environmental Programs Division, FSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave SW., Room 4709, South Building, Washington, DC, 20250, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. A copy of this notice is available through the FSA homepage at http://www.fsa.usda.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nell Fuller, National Environmental Compliance Manager, USDA, FSA, CEPD, Stop 0513, 1400 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC, 20250-0513, telephone: (202) 720-6303. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As required by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA's NEPA compliance regulations (7 CFR part 799), FSA intends to assess potential discretionary changes to BCAP in 2015 by preparing a PEIS. The purpose of the PEIS process is to provide FSA decision makers, other agencies, Tribes, and the public with an analysis of the potential beneficial, adverse, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with proposed discretionary changes to BCAP.

    BCAP was first authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill, Pub. L. 110-246). BCAP is a voluntary program that is intended to assist agricultural and forest land owners and operators with the establishment and production of eligible crops in selected project areas for conversion to bioenergy. Additionally, BCAP provides matching payments for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of eligible material to designated biomass conversion facilities for use as heat, power, biobased products, research, or advanced biofuels. BCAP is administered by FSA on behalf of CCC with the support of other Federal and local agencies. More detailed information on BCAP may be obtained at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/bcap.

    Since BCAP was initially authorized, FSA has completed extensive NEPA analysis relating to BCAP and to specific project areas and feedstocks. In 2010, a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for BCAP was published by FSA and resulted in a Record of Decision (ROD) that was signed on October 27, 2010. That PEIS evaluated environmental consequences of establishing and administering the BCAP as specified in the 2008 Farm Bill. The PEIS examined the environmental consequences of two alternatives: Targeted BCAP Implementation and Broad BCAP Implementation. Since 2010, Environmental Assessments (EA) have been prepared for various project areas and for specific feedstocks.

    The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill, Pub. L. 113-79) amended and reauthorized BCAP through 2018. The 2014 Farm Bill included a number of non-discretionary changes to BCAP. Those changes are primarily administrative in nature and do not alter the general scope of the program. The 2014 Farm Bill changes have already been implemented through rulemaking (80 FR 10569-10575) and do not require additional analysis under NEPA.

    FSA is currently considering discretionary changes to the way BCAP is implemented. Those discretionary changes define the scope of the new PEIS for which this NOI applies. The new PEIS that will be prepared for the proposed discretionary changes to BCAP will tie to the other applicable BCAP NEPA documentation as appropriate and will examine only those aspects of the program that are not covered in previous analyses. Copies of all FSA NEPA documents can be found at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/nepa.

    Proposed Changes

    FSA is proposing several discretionary changes to further improve the functionality and flexibility of the establishment and annual payments part of BCAP. No discretionary changes are being proposed for the matching payments part of BCAP. The proposed changes include:

    • Consideration and review of additional crops including: pongamia pinnata, giant miscanthus seeded and rhizome clones, giant reed (Arundo donax), pennycress (Thlaspi arvense), energy cane (Saccharum spp.), biomass sorghum, sweet sorghum, yellowhorned fruit tree, eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), kenaf, jatropha, eucalyptus (fast growing), castor beans (Ricinus communis), short rotation pine, tropical maize, hybrid willow, sweetgum, black locust, loblolly pine, aspen, rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa) and guayule (Parthenium argentatum).

    • Requirements or additional practices for conservation plans on expiring Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) land acres that would be enrolled in BCAP project areas.

    • Potential for enrolling annual crops in BCAP project areas for contracts of less than five years.

    • Program management processes that could help offset the lack of crop insurance for biomass crops or provide sufficient information for the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) to establish coverage.

    • Treatment of the required FSA annual rental reductions in the event of no bioenergy market end use (conversion to heat, power, advance biofuel or biobased product) for the harvested or collected biomass crops.

    FSA will conduct scoping meetings to provide information on the proposed changes to BCAP and to solicit input from program participants, the public, and other stakeholders on the environmental impacts of these changes and alternatives to these changes. FSA will hold five scoping meetings. Each meeting will begin with an Open House (6 p.m.-6:30 p.m.) followed by a presentation (6:30 p.n.-7 p.m.). At the conclusion of the presentation FSA will accept verbal comments and answer questions. Times and locations are provided in the table below.

    Table 1—Public Meeting Dates, Times, and Locations* Date Time Location July 14, 2015 6 p.m.-8 p.m. Hilton Garden Inn Sacramento/South Natomas, 2540 Venture Oaks Way, Sacramento, CA 95833. July 15, 2015 6 p.m.-8 p.m. Pacific Beach Hotel, 2490 Kalakaua Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96815. August 3, 2015 6 p.m.-8 p.m. Hampton Inn & Suites Raleigh-Durham Airport, 8021 Acro Corporate Drive, Raleigh, NC 27617. August 4, 2015 6 p.m.-8 p.m. Orlando Airport Marriott Lakeside, 7499 Augusta National Drive, Orlando, FL 32822. August 5, 2015 6 p.m.-8 p.m. Holiday Inn Sioux City, 701 Gordon Drive, Sioux City, IA 51101. * The five public meeting locations were chosen for the purposes of allowing public input from communities where BCAP has an existing project area or where FSA is aware that project area planning is in underway.

    Under NEPA, the PEIS process provides a means for the public to provide input on implementation alternatives and environmental concerns for federal actions and programs. This notice informs the public of FSA's intent to prepare a PEIS for discretionary changes to BCAP, and provides notice of the opportunity for public input on the proposed discretionary changes. The PEIS will provide an analysis that evaluates program effects in appropriate contexts, describes the intensity of adverse as well as beneficial environmental impacts, and addresses the cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes to BCAP. There will be additional opportunities for public comment on the draft PEIS when it is developed. The final PEIS and subsequent Record of Decision will be used by FSA decision-makers in implementing changes to BCAP.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on June 9, 2015. Val Dolcini, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation, and Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14393 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests; California; San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Management Plan AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental assessment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service intends to prepare an environmental assessment to establish management direction for the land and resources within San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, designated by Presidential Proclamation on October 10, 2014. The Forest Service, as the responsible agency, proposes to amend the 2006 Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan with a management plan to provide for the protection of the objects of interest identified in the Proclamation. Approximately 99 percent of the Monument occurs on the Angeles National Forest and 1 percent on the San Bernardino National Forest.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by July 27, 2015. The draft environmental assessment is expected in the spring of 2016, and the final environmental assessment and draft decision notice is expected in the summer of 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Justin Seastrand, on behalf of the Angeles National Forest Supervisor, 701 North Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006. Comments may also be provided via facsimile to 626-574-5235. Or submitted on the San Gabriel Mountain National Monument project Web page: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=46964.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Justin Seastrand, Environmental Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Angeles National Forest, 701 North Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006; phone 626-574-5278; email [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 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action

    The Presidential Proclamation establishing San Gabriel Mountains National Monument (the Monument) requires the preparation of a management plan. The purpose and need of developing the management plan is to ensure that the lands and resources within the Monument are managed in accordance with the intent of the Presidential Proclamation that established the Monument. As stated in the Proclamation, the plan will provide for the protection and interpretation of the scientific and historic objects within the Monument and for continued public access to those objects, consistent with their protection, as well as access by Indian tribal members for traditional cultural, spiritual, and tree and forest product-, food- and medicine-gathering purposes. Scientific and historic objects relate to cultural resources; modern recreation; scientific significance; wildlife and habitat; infrastructure; watershed values; recreation and scenery; and vegetation communities. The Proclamation withdrew the area from all forms of location, entry, and patent under mining laws and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing, except under the Materials Act of 1947 (sand, stone, gravel). Existing claims will still be honored. The Proclamation also requires the development of a transportation plan that focuses on protecting the objects of historic and scientific interest.

    Based on a preliminary comparison of the Proclamation to the existing Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan), agency personnel have concluded that, generally, Forest Plan direction is consistent with the management direction provided in the Proclamation for the Monument. However, some changes are necessary. Preliminary needs for changes to the Forest Plan to ensure consistency with the Proclamation include:

    1. Transportation: The Proclamation requires the development of a transportation plan for the Monument that focuses on protecting those objects of historic and scientific interest identified by the President.

    2. Land Use Zones: Some land use zones identified in the Forest Plan need to be updated to reflect new wilderness designations and other relevant and overlapping designations such as the Pacific Crest Trail, San Dimas, etc., that have taken place since the Forest Plan was adopted.

    3. Minerals/Mining: Forest Plan direction needs revision to reflect the mineral withdrawal of lands within the Monument as directed by the Proclamation. Existing claims will still be honored.

    4. Recreation: Forest Plan direction may need to be revised to ensure that recreation settings, opportunities, and access are managed to meet public expectations while minimizing resource concerns associated with high public use and limited facilities. The Monument Management Plan and associated Forest Plan direction should provide a framework for making ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable recreation management decisions.

    Proposed Action

    The Angeles National Forest proposes to change some existing management direction in the Forest Plan and to capture those changes in the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Management Plan. The Forest Plan may be amended in the following areas to ensure appropriate management of the Monument, consistent with the Proclamation: (1) Forest Plan Part 1—Goal 4.1, related to Energy and Minerals Production; (2) Forest Plan Part 2—Land Use Zones (as amended), related to Wilderness Areas and suitable uses allowed within land use zones; (3) Forest Plan Part 2—Appendix B—Strategies, related to Minerals management and Off Highway Vehicle Use Opportunities; and (4) Forest Plan Part 3—Appendix D—Standard S34, related to the framework for regulation of recreational uses.

    All other aspects of the Forest Plan in Part 1 (Vision, including goals), Part 2 (Strategy including objectives, suitable uses within land use zones, and `places'), and Part 3 (Design Criteria, including standards) would not change as part of this proposal and would be carried forward as written into the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Management Plan.

    At the end of the process, there would be a single document that would serve as a standalone San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Management Plan, even though it would be adopted as an amendment to the Forest Plan. Any existing direction from the Forest Plan that applies to and is brought forward for the Monument will be repeated in the Management Plan, so that a single document provides all management direction for the Monument. The Management Plan will apply to all National Forest Systems lands within the monument including the small portion of the Monument that is on San Bernardino National Forest System lands (1 percent), which would also be guided by the direction provided by the Management Plan.

    Responsible Official

    The Angeles National Forest Supervisor will issue the decision.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    This decision will amend the Angeles Forest Plan, and in doing so, create the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Management Plan. The decision would only apply to National Forest System lands within the Monument. Those National Forest System lands outside the Monument will continue to be managed according to current direction in the Angeles Forest Plan.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental assessment. The Angeles National Forest encourages public review of this preliminary purpose and need for action and preliminary proposal. Public meetings will be held to answer questions about the preliminary Need to Change analysis, provide additional information, and gather comments and concerns. Public meetings will be held at the following locations and during the following times (Pacific time):

    • June 22, 4-8 p.m., Pacific Community Center, 501 S. Pacific Ave., Glendale, CA • June 23, 4-8 p.m., Palmdale Legacy Commons Senior Center, 930 East Avenue Q9, Palmdale, CA • June 24, 4-8 p.m., Glendora Public Library, 140 S Glendora Ave;, Glendora, CA • June 25, 3-7 p.m., Pico House, 424 N Main St, Los Angeles, CA • June 26, 4-8 p.m., Big Pines Lodge, 24537 Big Pines Highway, Wrightwood, CA

    While public input is welcome through the planning process, two additional formal opportunities for public comment will occur when the draft environmental assessment is released for a 45-day comment period (anticipated spring 2016) and when the final environmental assessment and draft decision notice are released for a 45-day objection period (anticipated summer 2016).

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental assessment. Therefore, comments should be provided before the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.

    The San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Management Plan will be developed pursuant to the requirements of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and the U.S. Forest Service Planning Rule. This project is an action to amend a Forest Plan, and as such, is subject to pre-decisional administrative review, pursuant to Subpart B of the Planning Rule (36 CFR part 219).

    Dated: June 5, 2015. Daniel Lovato, Acting Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14412 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture Notice of Intent To Revise a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to revise a currently approved information collection entitled, “Research, Education, and Extension project online reporting tool (REEport).”

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be received by August 17, 2015, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email: [email protected]; Fax: 202-720-0857; Mail: Office of Information Technology (OIT), NIFA, USDA, STOP 2216, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2216.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Martin, Records Officer; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Reporting Requirements for Research, Education, and Extension project online reporting tool (REEport).

    OMB Number: 0524-0048.

    Expiration Date of Current Approval: January 31, 2018.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), NIFA administers several competitive, peer-reviewed research, education, and extension programs, under which awards of a high-priority are made. These programs are authorized pursuant to the authorities contained in the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); Competitive, special, and facilities research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i) and other legislative authorities. NIFA also administers several formula funded research programs. The programs are authorized pursuant to the authorities contained in the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Act of October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-1-582a-7); the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 4361a-361i); Section 1445 of Public Law 95-113, the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3222); and Section 1433 of Subtitle E (Sections 1429-1439), Title XIV of Public Law 95-113, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3191-3201).

    The purpose of this revision is to collect two new pieces of information as part of REEport: (1) Demographic data on grant participants, and (2) additional lines on the REEport Financial Report for “Non-Federal Funds” used on projects funded by NIFA.

    Demographic Data: NIFA proposes to collect the following data as approved in the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR). NIFA is being asked by other Federal Government entities for information regarding the demographics of grantee participants in research, higher education, and extension, including Project Directors, Co-Project Directors, Students, etc. Demographic data (i.e., gender, ethnicity, race, and disability status) should be provided directly by significant contributors, with the understanding that submission of such data is voluntary. There are no adverse consequences if the data are not provided. Confidentiality of demographic data will be in accordance with agency's policy and practices for complying with the requirements of the Privacy Act.

    Gender • Male; • Female; • Do not wish to provide Ethnicity • Hispanic or Latino; • Not-Hispanic or not-Latino; • Do not wish to provide Race (Select One or More) • American Indian or Alaska Native; • Asian; • Black or African American; • Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; • White; • Do not wish to provide Disability Status • Yes (check yes if any of the following apply to you) • Deaf or serious difficulty hearing • Blind or serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses • Serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs • Other serious disability related to a physical, mental, or emotional condition No • Do not wish to provide Addition to the “Non-Federal Funds” Section of the REEport Financial Report: NIFA proposes to collect the following data as part of the REEport Financial Report: Other Non-Federal Funds • Foundation Funding • International Funding I. Demographic Data

    Estimate of the Burden: The total reporting and record keeping requirements for the submission of the “Demographic Data on Grant Project Participants” is estimated to average 0.1 hour per response. This estimate is based on a percentage of 5 percent of the burden for a full Progress Report as previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 8700.

    Estimated Burden per Response: 0.1 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 870 hours.

    Frequency of Responses: Annually.

    II. Addition of Data to “Non-Federal Funds” Section of the REEport Financial Report

    Estimate of the Burden: The total reporting and record keeping requirements for the submission of the “Non-Federal Funds” data on the REEport Financial Report is estimated to average 0.1 hour per response. This estimate is based on a percentage 5 percent of the burden for a full Financial Report as previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 8700.

    Estimated Burden per Response: 0.1 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 870 hours.

    Frequency of Responses: Annually.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. Comments should be sent to the address stated in the preamble.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments also will become a matter of public record.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 5 day of June 2015. Ann Bartuska, Deputy Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14416 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-39-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 64—Jacksonville, Florida; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Saft America Inc. (Lithium-Ion Batteries); Jacksonville, Florida

    The Jacksonville Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 64, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Saft America Inc. (Saft), located in Jacksonville, Florida. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 1, 2015.

    The Saft facility is located within Site 10 of FTZ 64. The facility is used for the warehousing, production and distribution of lithium-ion batteries. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Saft from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Saft would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Lithium-ion batteries; lithium-ion batteries for vehicles; lithium-ion battery covers and jelly rolls; battery terminals; and, battery components (duty rate 3.4%) for the foreign status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Natural graphite powder; lithium nickel cobalt; plastic casing; PVC sleeves; stand wire cables for batteries; wire fitted parts; aluminum can stocks; aluminum cans; storage battery modules; lithium-ion batteries and internal components; connecting cables; board panels; electrical circuits; copper cables; ocean-ready containers; and, battery test systems (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.8%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 22, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: June 9, 2015. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14453 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1978] Approval of Expansion of Subzone 72B, Eli Lilly and Company, Plainfield, Indiana

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “. . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the establishment of subzones for specific uses;

    Whereas, the Indianapolis Airport Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 72, has made application to the Board for the expansion of Subzone 72B on behalf of Eli Lilly and Company to include a site located in Plainfield, Indiana (FTZ Docket B-8-2015, docketed 2-13-2015);

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (80 FR 9434, 2-23-2015) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's memorandum, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby approves the application to expand Subzone 72B to include a site located in Plainfield, Indiana, as described in the application and Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of June 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    ATTEST:

    Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14455 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-38-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone 8—Toledo, Ohio; Application for Reorganization (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 8, requesting authority to reorganize the zone to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on June 9, 2015.

    FTZ 8 was approved by the FTZ Board on October 11, 1960 (Board Order 51, 25 FR 9909, 10/15/1960) and reorganized under the ASF on December 20, 2012 (Board Order 1875, 78 FR 1197, 1/8/2013). The zone currently has a service area that includes Sandusky, Henry, Wood, Lucas and Defiance Counties, Ohio.

    The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Erie, Fulton, Ottawa, Paulding and Williams Counties, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the expanded service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed expanded service area is adjacent to the Toledo Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 11, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 26, 2015.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: June 9, 2015. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14454 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a request from P.A.P. S.R.L. (PAP SRL), a producer/exporter of certain pasta from Italy, and pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.22l(c)(3)(ii), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain pasta from Italy with regard to PAP SRL. Based on the information received, we preliminarily determine that PAP SRL is the successor-in-interest to P.A.P. SNC Di Pazienza G. B. & C (PAP SNC) for purposes of determining AD liability. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Robinson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register the AD duty order on certain pasta from Italy.1 On April 22, 2015, PAP SRL requested that the Department conduct a CCR under section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 (b) to determine that it is the successor-in-interest to PAP SNC,2 and assign it the cash deposit rate of its predecessor, PAP SNC. PAP SRL based its request on the claim that it operates as the same business entity as PAP SNC.3

    1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996) (Pasta Italy Order).

    2See PAP SRL's request for Changed-Circumstances Review dated April 22, 2015 (CCR Request).

    3Id., at 2-4.

    We received no comments from interested parties.

    Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.4

    4 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the memorandum titled “Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Pasta from Italy” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Initiation and Issuance of Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request from an interested party or receipt of information concerning an AD order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.

    As noted above in the “Background” section, we received information indicating that in January 2015, PAP SNC's legal form was changed from a Società in nome collettivo, or SNC, which is a form of partnership, to a Società a responsabilità limitata, or SRL, which is a form of limited-liability corporation. The Department determines that the information submitted by PAP SRL constitutes sufficient evidence to warrant a CCR of this order.5 Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), we are initiating a CCR based upon the information contained in PAP SRL's submission.6

    5See 19 CFR 351.216(d).

    6See, generally, CCR Request.

    19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notice of initiation of a CCR and the notice of preliminary results if the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this instance, because we have the information necessary on the record to make a preliminary finding, we find that expedited action is warranted, and are combining the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii).7

    7See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of Korea: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 76 FR 27005 (May 10, 2011) (PET Film from Korea); Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 71 FR 14679 (March 23, 2006); Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway; Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 50880 (September 23, 1998).

    Methodology

    In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors, including but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.8 While no single factor or combination of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting operation is essentially similar to that of its predecessor.9 Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the former predecessor company, the Department will afford the new company the same AD treatment as its predecessor, i.e., will assign the new company the same cash deposit rate of its predecessor.10

    8See, e.g., Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 75 FR 8925 (February 26, 2010), unchanged in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 75 FR 27706 (May 18, 2010); Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 69941 (November 18, 2005), citing Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992); and Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 15834 (March 21, 2001).

    9See, e.g., PET Film from Korea, 76 FR at 27006; Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992) at Comments 1 and 2; and Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 183873 (April 6, 2015).

    10See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.11 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    11See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review

    Based on the evidence reviewed, we preliminarily determine that PAP SRL is the successor-in-interest to PAP SNC. Specifically, we find that the change of the company's legal form from SNC to SRL resulted in no significant changes to management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise. Thus, PAP SRL operates essentially as the same business entity as PAP SNC with respect to the subject merchandise.

    If the Department adopts these preliminary results in the final results, PAP SRL will be assigned the AD cash deposit rate currently assigned to PAP SNC with respect to the subject merchandise (i.e., zero percent ad valorem),12 we will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of certain pasta from Italy made by PAP SRL, effective on the publication date of the final results, at the cash deposit rate that is currently assigned to PAP SNC.13

    12See Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Certain Pasta from Italy, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands, Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Spain, Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy, and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan, 77 FR 36257 (June 18, 2012).

    13See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011, 78 FR 22232 (April 15, 2013).

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.14 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs.15 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. All comments are to be filed electronically using ACCESS, and must also be served on interested parties.16 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the day it is due.17

    14See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).

    15See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    16See 19 CFR 351.303(b) and (f).

    17See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    Interested parties that wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.18 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.19 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.

    18See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    19See 19 CFR 351.310.

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this CCR no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.

    We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(ii).

    Dated: June 5, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Decision Memorandum for Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Pasta From Italy I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review V. Discussion of Methodology VI. Analysis A. Management B. Production Facilities C. Supplier Relationship D. Customer Base
    [FR Doc. 2015-14450 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-838] Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On December 9, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of the 2012-2013 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper tube and pipe from Mexico.1 This review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. (Golden Dragon) 2 and Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (Nacobre). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results and, based upon our analysis of the comments received, we continue to find that sales of subject merchandise have been made at prices below normal value.

    1See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 73028 (December 9, 2014), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Results).

    2 The Department has previously treated GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. as part of a single entity including: (1) GD Copper Cooperatief U.A.; (2) Hong Kong GD Trading Co. Ltd.; (3) Golden Dragon Holding (Hong Kong) International, Ltd.; (4) GD Copper U.S.A. Inc.; (5) GD Affiliates Servicios S. de R.L. de C.V.; and (6) GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V., which is collectively referred to as Golden Dragon. See, e.g., Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 36719 (June 30, 2014), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    DATES:

    Effective date: June 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Eastwood or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3874 or (202) 482-5973, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 9, 2014, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of the 2012-2013 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results.

    From December 15 through 19, 2014, we conducted a verification of the cost data reported by Golden Dragon.

    On January 29, 2015, we received case briefs from Golden Dragon, Nacobre 3 , and the petitioners.

    3 Nacobre withdrew its case brief on February 3, 2015.

    On March 23, 2015, we postponed the final results by 60 days, until June 8, 2015.4

    4See memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Dennis McClure, Senior Analyst, Office II, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled “Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013,” dated March 24, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order 5 is seamless refined copper pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description, available in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,6 remains dispositive.

    5See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico and the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value From Mexico, 75 FR 71070 (November 22, 2010) (Amended Final and Order).

    6See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico; 2012-2013,” issued concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by Golden Dragon and the petitioners are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov; the Issues and Decision Memorandum is also available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we revised our preliminary margin calculations for Golden Dragon. These changes are listed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We made no changes to the calculation of Nacobre's weighted-average dumping margin in these final results.

    Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013.

    Final Results of the Review Producer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V 0.00 Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V 0.00
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed for Golden Dragon within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Because the Nacobre calculations did not change, there is nothing to disclose.

    Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

    Pursuant to the Final Modification for Reviews, 7 because the weighted-average dumping margins for Golden Dragon and Nacobre are zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.8

    7See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    8Id. at 8102.

    The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these final results of review, pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of these final results for all shipments of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Golden Dragon and Nacobre will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a completed prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 26.03 percent, the all-others rate established in the Amended Final and Order. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

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

    Administrative Protective Order

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: June 5, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Margin Calculations Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Date of Sale for Consignment Sales Comment 2: Imputed Credit Expense for Consignment Sales Comment 3: Reporting of Costs Related to Global Operations Comment 4: Use of Updated Cost Database Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-14451 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST Cloud Computing Forum & Workshop AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 8th NIST Cloud Computing Forum and Workshop will be held in Gaithersburg, Maryland on Tuesday, July 7, Wednesday, July 8, Thursday, July 9, and Friday July 10, 2015. The format is a four-day forum that emphasizes the participation and progress made by standard development organizations, researchers and the community of cloud computing experts. The Forum and Workshop will bring together leaders and innovators from industry, academia and government in an interactive format that combines keynote presentations, panel discussions, and breakout sessions. The forum and workshop are open to the general public. NIST invites presentations from interested speakers at this event as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    In addition, NIST invites organizations to participate as exhibitors as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    DATES:

    The 8th Forum and Workshop will be held 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, July 7, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday, July 8, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, July 9, and 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, July 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The event will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 in the Red Auditorium of the Administration Building (Building 101). Please note admittance instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Bohn by email at [email protected] or by phone at (301) 975-4731.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NIST hosted seven prior Cloud Computing Forum and Workshop events in May 2010, November 2010, April 2011, November 2011, June 2012, January 2013 and March 2014. This year's meeting will focus on the progress the cloud community has made on the 10 requirements provided in the USG Cloud Computing Technology Roadmap (NIST Special Publication 500-293). The NIST Cloud Computing Program (NCCP) published the final version of the Roadmap in October 2014.

    Each of the 10 requirements described in the Roadmap comes with a set of Priority Action Plans (PAPs) that are self-tasking for the cloud computing community. Therefore, the NCCP is sponsoring a call for papers that address the Requirements and PAPs found in the Roadmap and welcomes relevant submissions for a talk approximately 15-20 minutes long. Authors of accepted abstracts will be invited to present their work. Additional information may be found at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/cloud/ccfwviii.cfm.

    There will be a single-day parallel meeting on Thursday, July 9 on Cloud Forensics, which will focus on the issues enumerated in the NIST Cloud Computing Forensic Science Challenges (NIST IR 8006, draft). There will also be sessions dedicated to deployments of cloud computing in the government sector (Federal, State, Local) and on Cloud Computing Standards.

    The series of workshops was originally organized in response to the request of the U.S. Chief Information Officer that NIST lead federal efforts on standards for data portability, cloud interoperability, and security.1 The workshops' goals are to engage with industry, academia, and standards development organizations to accelerate the development of cloud standards for interoperability, portability, and security; discuss the Federal Government's experience with cloud computing; report on the status of the NIST Cloud Computing efforts; report progress on the NIST-led initiative to collaboratively develop a U.S. Government (USG) Cloud Computing Technology Roadmap among multiple federal and industrial stakeholders; and to advance the dialogue among all of these stakeholders.

    1 Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Chief Information Officer, Federal Cloud Computing Strategy, Feb. 8, 2011. Online: https://cio.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/09/Federal-Cloud-Computing-Strategy.pdf.

    NIST invites members of the public and other community stakeholders to participate in this event as a presenter or an exhibitor. To participate as a presenter, one will need to submit a completed “Abstract Submission” form to [email protected] Instructions for completing and submitting an abstract are available at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/cloud/abssubinst.cfm.

    On Tuesday, July 7, Wednesday, July 8, Thursday July 9, and Friday July 10, 2015, space will be available for 25 academic, industry, and standards development organizations to exhibit their respective Cloud Computing work at an exhibit table. The first 25 organizations requesting an exhibit table related to Cloud Computing will be accepted. Interested organizations should contact Tara Brown, email: [email protected] or (301) 975-4178. Requests for an exhibit table will be granted on a first-come, first-serve basis. Responses must be submitted by an authorized representative of the organization. Logistics information will be provided to accepted exhibitors. NIST will provide the exhibit location space and one work-table, free of charge. Exhibitors are responsible for the cost of the exhibit, including staffing and materials. NIST reserves the right to exercise its judgment in the placement of exhibits. General building security is supplied; however, exhibitors are responsible for transporting and securing exhibit equipment and materials. NIST is not liable with regard to damage or loss of equipment used in the exhibit booth/table.

    The official event Web site is with hotel information is: http://nist.gov/itl/cloud/cloud_computing_wkshp_viii.cfm. The workshop is open to the general public; however, those wishing to attend must register through https://www-s.nist.gov/CRS/conf_disclosure.cfm?conf_id=8354 by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, June 23, 2015. All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted and must have appropriate government-issued photo ID to gain entry to NIST.

    Richard Cavanagh, Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14316 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD131 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Block Island Transmission System AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of revised incidental harassment authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued a revised Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to The Narragansett Electric Company, doing business as National Grid (TNEC), to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to construction of the Block Island Transmission System (BITS).

    DATES:

    Effective November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the revised IHA is available by writing to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    An electronic copy of the revised IHA may be obtained by visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fiorentino, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8477.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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.

    An 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.

    Summary of Request

    On August 22, 2014, NMFS issued an IHA to Deepwater Wind Block Island Transmission, LLC (DWBIT) to take marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to construction of the BITS, effective from November 1, 2014 through October 31, 2015 (79 FR 51314). On January 30, 2015, DWBIT sold the BITS, in its entirety, to TNEC. The BITS, a bi-directional submarine transmission cable, will interconnect Block Island to TNEC's existing distribution system in Narragansett, Rhode Island. To date, no construction has occurred.

    DWBIT and TNEC subsequently submitted a written request to transfer the current IHA from DWBIT to TNEC. With the transfer of the BITS IHA, TNEC agrees to comply with the associated terms, conditions, stipulations, and restrictions of the original BITS IHA. No other changes were requested. The revised IHA remains effective from November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015.

    This Federal Register notice sets forth only a change in the BITS IHA holder's name. There are no other changes to the current IHA as described in the August 28, 2014, Federal Register notice of a final IHA (79 FR 51314): the specified activity; description of marine mammals in the area of the specified activity; potential effects on marine mammals and their habitat; mitigation and related monitoring used to implement mitigation; reporting; estimated take by incidental harassment; negligible impact and small numbers analyses and determinations; impact on availability of affected species or stocks for subsistence uses and the period of effectiveness remain unchanged and are herein incorporated by reference.

    Revision to BITS IHA

    NMFS is changing the name of the holder of the BITS IHA from “Deepwater Wind Block Island Transmission, LLC, 56 Exchange Terrace, Suite 101, Providence, Rhode Island, 02903” to “The Narragansett Electric Company, d/b/a National Grid, 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham, Massachusetts, 02451.”

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS published a notice of the proposed revised IHA and request for public comments in the Federal Register on April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19639). In a letter dated April 30, 2015, the Marine Mammal Commission concurred with the proposed transfer of the BITS IHA. NMFS did not receive any other comments during the 30-day public comment period.

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Donna S. Weiting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14310 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products and service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes services previously furnished by such agencies.

    Comments Must be Received on Or Before: 7/13/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    For Further Information or to Submit Comments Contact: Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    PRODUCTS: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5120-01-240-2120—Combination Tool, Fire Fighter's 5120-01-296-3592—Tool Handle, Replacement, Fire Line Combination Tool 5120-00-293-3467—Pulaski Tool, Fire Fighter's 5110-01-137-7507—Handle, Pulaski Tool, With Wedge Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Meridian, MS Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: B-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8940-00-NIB-0108—Fish Oil, 1000mg, 100 Capsules 8940-00-NIB-0109—Cyanocobalamin (B-12), 1000mcg, 100 Tablets 8940-00-NIB-0110—Cholecalciferol (D-3), 2000 IU, 100 Pills 8940-00-NIB-0111—Magnesium Oxide, 420mg, 100 Tablets 8940-00-NIB-0112—Omega-3 Fish Oil, 500mg, 45 Softgel Tablets 8940-00-NIB-0113—Omega-3 Fish Oil, 1000mg, 60 Softgel Tablets 8940-00-NIB-0114—Dual Spectrum Krill/Fish Oil-Omega-3, 120 Pills 8940-00-NIB-0115—Omega 3-6-9, 120 Pills 8940-00-NIB-0116—Krill Oil, 300mg, 60 Pills 8940-00-NIB-0118—Co-Q-10, 200mg, 100 Pills 8940-00-NIB-0119—Glucosamine Chondroitin, Triple Strength, 120 Pills Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirements of the Department of Defense Mandatory Source of Supply: Alphapointe Association for the Blind Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support—Subsistence, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8455-00-NIB-0003—Badge Reel, ID, Retractable, Bulldog Clip, Black 8455-00-NIB-0050—Flight Line Lanyard, Cord Style, Breakaway, with Holder, Black, 36” × .25” 8455-00-NIB-0051—Holder, Badge, Vinyl, Re-Sealable, Clear, 3-3/4” × 2-5/8” Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, San Angelo, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Distribution: A-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5130-00-NIB-0075—3/8 Drive Shallow Standard, SAE 6 Point Fasteners, 12 Pieces 5130-00-NIB-0076—3/8 Drive Deep Standard, SAE 6 Point Fasteners, 12 Pieces 5130-00-NIB-0077—1/2 Drive Shallow Standard, SAE 6 Point Fasteners, 11 Pieces 5130-00-NIB-0078— 1/2 Drive Deep Standard, SAE 6 Point Fasteners, 13 Pieces 5130-00-NIB-0079—3/8 Drive Shallow Metric, 6 Point Fasteners, 14 Pieces 5130-00-NIB-0080—3/8 Drive Deep Metric, 6 Point Fasteners, 14 Pieces 5130-00-NIB-0081—1/2 Drive Shallow Metric, 6 Point Fasteners, 15 Pieces 5130-00-NIB-0082—1/2 Drive Deep Metric, 6 Point Fasteners, 15 Pieces Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: Beyond Vision, Inc., Milwaukee, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Kansas City, MO Distribution: B-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8340-00-NIB-0019—20'×25' polyethylene 8×8 tarp with grommets 8340-00-NIB-0020—20'×25' polyethylene 10×10 tarp with grommets Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirements of the Department of Defense Mandatory Source of Supply: Association for Vision Rehabilitation and Employment, Inc., Binghamton, NY Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support—Construction & Equipment, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 4240-00-NIB-0237—5' Illuminating Grip Wrap 4240-00-NIB-0238—10' Illuminating Grip Wrap 4240-00-NIB-0239—SCBA ID Tags 4240-00-NIB-0240—One-Sided Exit Sign, Silver Frame, Post Mount 4240-00-NIB-0241—Two-Sided Exit Sign, Silver Frame, Post Mount 4240-00-NIB-0242—One-Sided Exit Sign, Silver Frame, Wall Mount 4240-00-NIB-0243—One-Sided Exit Sign, No Frame, No Mount 4240-00-NIB-0244—25' Illuminating Tape 4240-00-NIB-0245—50' Illuminating Tape 4240-00-NIB-0246—25' Illuminating Tape with Arrows 4240-00-NIB-0247—50' Illuminating Tape with Arrows 4240-00-NIB-0248—Illuminating Helmet Band Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirements of the Department of Defense Mandatory Source of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Cincinnati, OH Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support—Construction & Equipment, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5340-00-NIB-0152—Door Closer, Architectural Commercial Grade 5340-00-NIB-0134—Lockset, Cylindrical, Passage/Closet Function, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0239—Lockset, Cylindrical, Exit Function, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0240—Lockset, Cylindrical, Exit Function, Boston-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0254—Lockset, Cylindrical, Passage/Closet Function, Boston-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0136—Lockset, Cylindrical, Privacy Function, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0255—Lockset, Cylindrical, Privacy Function, Boston-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0154—Door Closer, Architectural Commercial Grade with Hold Open Function 5340-00-NIB-0132—Lockset, Cylindrical, Storeroom Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0133—Lockset, Cylindrical, Office/Entrance Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0250—Lockset, Cylindrical, Entrance Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0252—Lockset, Cylindrical, Storeroom Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0256—Lockset, Cylindrical, Entry Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0257—Lockset, Cylindrical, Entry Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0251—Lockset, Cylindrical, Entrance Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0253—Lockset, Cylindrical, Storeroom Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0258—Lockset, Cylindrical, Entrance Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0293—Door Closer, Architectural Commercial Grade with Door Saver Arm, Aluminum 5340-00-NIB-0294—Door Closer, Architectural Commercial Grade with Door Saver Arm, Cast Iron 5340-00-NIB-0247—Lockset, Cylindrical, Dormitory/Corridor Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0248—Lockset, Cylindrical, Dormitory/Corridor Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0249—Lockset, Cylindrical, Dormitory/Corridor Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0135—Lockset, Cylindrical, Vestibule/Classroom Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0237—Lockset, Cylindrical, Storeroom Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0241—Lockset, Cylindrical, Institutional Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0242—Lockset, Cylindrical, Institutional Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0244—Lockset, Cylindrical, Communication Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0245—Lockset, Cylindrical, Communication Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0259—Lockset, Cylindrical, Vestibule/Classroom/Security function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0236—Lockset, Cylindrical, Store Room Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0238—Lockset, Cylindrical, Storeroom Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0243—Lockset, Cylindrical, Institutional Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0246—Lockset, Cylindrical, Communication Function, Philadelphia style lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0260—Lockset, Cylindrical, Vestibule/Classroom/Security function, Boston-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0153—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade 5340-00-NIB-0299—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade, Delayed Action 5340-00-NIB-0139—Lockset, Mortise, Passage Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0282—Lockset, Mortise, Passage Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0283—Lockset, Mortise, Passage Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0295—Door Closer, Architectural Commercial Grade with Spring Cushion Stop 5340-00-NIB-0141—Lockset, Mortise, Privacy Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0291—Lockset, Mortise, Privacy Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0292—Lockset, Mortise, Privacy Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0261—Lockset, Cylindrical, Classroom Security LED Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0262—Lockset, Cylindrical, Classroom Security LED function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0298—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade with Spring Cushion Stop 5340-00-NIB-0155—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade with Hold Open Function 5340-00-NIB-0296—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade with Door Saver Arm 5340-00-NIB-0297—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade with Door Saver, Hold Open Arm 5340-00-NIB-0137—Lockset, Mortise, Storeroom Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0138—Lockset, Mortise, Office Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0263—Lockset, Mortise, Classroom Holdback Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0264—Lockset, Mortise, Holdback Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0265—Lockset, Mortise, Classroom Holdback Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0278—Lockset, Mortise, Storeroom Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0279—Lockset, Mortise, Storeroom Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0280—Lockset, Mortise, Office Function, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0281—Lockset, Mortise, Office Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0140—Mortise Lockset, Corridor Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0266—Lockset, Mortise, Front Door/Corridor Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0267—Lockset, Mortise, Front Door/Corridor Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0268—Lockset, Mortise, Front Door/Corridor Function, Escutcheon trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0275—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance/Storeroom Function, Escutcheon trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0276—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance/Storeroom Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0277—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance/Storeroom Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0284—Lockset, Mortise, Corridor Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0285—Lockset, Mortise, Corridor Function, Escutcheon Trim 5340-00-NIB-0286—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0287—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0288—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0289—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory/Exit Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0290—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory/Exit Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0301—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory/Exit Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0300—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade with Door Arm Saver, Delayed Action 5340-00-NIB-0269—Lockset, Mortise, Store Door Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0270—Lockset, Mortise, Store Door Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0271—Lockset, Mortise, Store Door Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0272—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0273—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0274—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0142—Electronic Push Button Lockset, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0143—Electronic Push Button Lockset, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0144—Exit Device, Rim, Panic Listed, 3' Door 5340-00-NIB-0148—Exit Device, Rim, Panic Listed, 4' Door 5340-00-NIB-0145—Exit Device, Rim, Fire Listed, 3' Door 5340-00-NIB-0149—Exit Device, Rim, Fire Listed, 4' Door 5340-00-NIB-0146—Exit Device, Surface Vertical Rod, Panic Listed, 3' Door 5340-00-NIB-0147—Exit Device, Surface Vertical Rod, Fire Listed 5340-01-NIB-0150—Exit Device, Surface Vertical Rod, Panic Listed, 4' Door 5340-01-NIB-0151—Exit Device, Surface Vertical Rod, Fire Listed, 4' Door Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirements of the Department of Defense Mandatory Source of Supply: VisionCorps, Lancaster, PA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support—Industrial Hardware, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7240-00-NIB-0006—Kit, Cleaning, Bucket and Caddy Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Distribution: B-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 1005-00-NIB-0016—Guard, Gun Barrel, Black, One Size Fits All Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind in New Orleans, Inc., New Orleans, LA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Columbus, OH Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-00-272-9805—Envelope, Transparent, Large, 10″ × 13″, BX/100

    7510-00-NIB-9955—Envelope, Transparent, Large, 10″ × 13″, BX/25

    Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: Georgia Industries for the Blind, Bainbridge, GA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Distribution: A-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6650-00-NIB-0009—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear plastic single vision eyewear frames and lenses. CR-39 lens material, single vision, plastic lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0010—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear plastic flat top 28 bifocal eyewear frames and lenses. CR-39 lens material, flat top 28, bifocal, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0011—35 bifocal eyewear frames and lenses. CR-39 lens material, flat top 35, bifocal, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0012—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear plastic round 25 and round 28, eyewear frames and lenses. CR-39 lens material, round 25 and 28, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0013—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear plastic flat top 7 × 28 eyewear frames and lenses. CR-39 lens material, flat top 7 × 28 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0014—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear plastic flat top 8 × 35 eyewear frames and lenses. CR-39 lens material, flat top 8 × 35 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0015—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear plastic progressives (VIP, Adaptar, Freedom, Image) eyewear frames and lenses. CR-39 lens material, progressives, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0016—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear plastic lenticular aspheric single vision eyewear frames and lenses. CR-39 lens material, single vision aspheric lenticular lens material. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0017—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear plastic flat top or round aspheric lenticular eyewear frames and lenses. CR-39 lens material, flat top or round aspheric lenticular lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0018—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear plastic executive bifocal eyewear frames and lenses. CR-39 lens material, executive bifocal clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0019—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear glass single vision eyewear frames and lenses. Glass lens material, single vision clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0020—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear glass flat top bifocal eyewear frames and lenses. Glass lens material, flat top 28 bifocal clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0021—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear glass flat top 35 bifocal eyewear frames and lenses. Glass lens material, flat top 35 bifocal clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0022—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear glass flat top 7 × 28 trifocal eyewear frames and lenses. Glass lens material, flat top 7 × 28 trifocal clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0023—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear glass flat top 8 × 35 trifocal eyewear frames and lenses. Glass lens material, flat top 8 × 35 trifocal clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0024—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear glass progressives (VIP, Adaptar, Freedom) eyewear frames and lenses. Glass lens material, progressive clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0026—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear single vision polycarbonate eyewear frames and lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, single vision clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0027—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear flat top 28 bifocal polycarbonate eyewear frames and lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, flat top 28 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0028—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear flat top 35 polycarbonate eyewear frames and lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, flat top 35 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0029—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear flat top 7 × 28 polycarbonate eyewear frames and lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, flat top 7 × 28 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0030—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses). Clear flat top 8 × 35 polycarbonate eyewear frames and lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, flat top 8 × 35 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0031—Complete Eyeglasses (frames and lenses) Progressives (VIP, Adaptar, Freedom, Image) polycarbonate eyewear frames and lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, progressives, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0032—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear plastic single vision clear eyewear lenses. CR-39 lens material, single vision plastic clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0033—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear plastic flat top 28 bifocal clear eyewear lenses. CR-39 lens material, flat top 28 bifocal clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0034—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear plastic flat top 35 bifocal clear lenses. CR-39 lens material, flat top 35 bifocal clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0035—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear plastic round 25 and round 28 clear lenses. CR-39 lens material, Round 25 and 28 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0036—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear plastic flat top 7 × 28 trifocal clear lenses. CR-39 lens material, flat top 7 × 28 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0037—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear plastic flat top 8 × 35 trifocal clear lenses. CR-39 lens material, flat top 8 × 35 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0038—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear plastic progressives (VIP, Adaptar, Freedom, Image) lenses. CR-39 lens material, progressive, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0039—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear plastic single vision aspheric lenticular lenses. CR-39 lens material, single vision aspheric lenticular lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0040—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear plastic flat top or round aspheric lenticular lenses. CR-39 lens material, flat top or round aspheric lenticular lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0041—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear plastic executive bifocal lenses. CR-39 lens material, executive bi-focal clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0042—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear glass single vision lenses. Glass lens material, single vision clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0043—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear glass bifocal flat top 28 lenses. Glass lens material, Flat Top 28, bifocal, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0044—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear glass bifocal flat top 35 eyewear lenses. Glass lens material, Flat Top 35, bifocal, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0045—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear glass trifocal flat top 7 × 28 lenses. Glass lens material, Flat Top 7 × 28, trifocal, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0046—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear glass trifocal flat top 8 × 35 lenses. Glass lens material, Flat Top 8 × 35, trifocal, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0047—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear glass progressives (VIP, Adaptar, Freedom) lenses. Glass lens material, progressive, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0049—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear polycarbonate single vision lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, single vision lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0050—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear polycarbonate flat top 28 eyewear lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, flat top 28 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0051—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear polycarbonate bifocal flat top 35 lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, flat top 35 clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0052—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear polycarbonate trifocal flat top 7 × 28 lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, flat top 7 × 28, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0053—Lenses only, 1 pair of clear polycarbonate trifocal flat top 8 × 35 lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, flat top 8 × 35, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0054—Lenses only, 1 pair of polycarbonate progressives (VIP, Adaptar, Freedom, Image) lenses. Polycarbonate lens material, progressives, clear lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0055—Plastic transition tints and coating. CR-39 or polycarbonate lens material; Single vision or multi-focal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0056—Photochromatic/transition (Polycarbonate material) tints and coating. Polycarbonate lens material; Single vision or multifocal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0057—Photogrey tints and coating. Glass lens material. Single vision or multi-focal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0058—High index transition tints and coating. CR-39 lens material. Single vision or multi-focal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0059—Anti-reflective coating. CR-39 or polycarbonate lens material; Single vision or multi-focal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0060—Ultraviolet coating. CR-39 lens material; Single vision or multifocal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0061—CR-39 lens material. (single vision) tints and coating for polarized lenses. Single vision or multi-focal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0062—Lens add-on. CR-39 or polycarbonate lens material. Single vision or multi-focal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0063—Lens add-on. High index lens material. Single vision or multifocal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0064—Lens add-on. Prism (up to 6 diopters no charge) >6 diopters/per diopter. CR-39 or polycarb lens material. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0065—Lens add-on. Diopter + or −9.0 and above. CR-39 lens material. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0066—Lens add-on. Oversize eye lenses greater than 58 excluding progressive. Roll and polish edge; CR-39 lens material and polycarbonate lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0067—Lens add-on. Hyper 3 drop single vision. CR-39 lens material; Multi-focal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0068—Lens add-on. Add powers over 4.0. CR-39 lens material; Multifocal lens type. UOI is EA. 6650-00-NIB-0069—Metal or plastic eyeglass frame without the lenses. Frame only. UOI is EA. Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirement of the Department of Veteran's Affairs Mandatory Source of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, 248-Network Contract Office 8, Tampa, FL Distribution: C-List
    SERVICE: Service Type: Laundry Service Service Mandatory For: US Army, Asymmetric Warfare Training Center Lee Drive Fort A.P. Hill, VA Mandatory Source of Supply: Rappahannock Goodwill Industries, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QK ACC-APG DIR, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD Deletions

    The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    SERVICES: Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial & Grounds Maintenance Service Service Mandatory For: Naval & Marine Corps Reserve Center 261 Industrial Park Drive, Ebensburg, PA Mandatory Source of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering CMD MID LANT, Norfolk, VA Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Service Mandatory For: OCIE Warehouse, Latrobe, PA Mandatory Source of Supply: Rehabilitation Center and Workshop, Inc., Greensburg, PA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM MICC Ctr-Ft Dix (RC), Fort Dix, NJ Service Type: Repair of Adding Machines Service Service Mandatory For: Unknown Mandatory Source of Supply: Federation Employment and Guidance Service, Inc., New York, NY Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator, Washington, DC Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Service Mandatory For: Bureau of Land Management Imperial County, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: ACHIEVE Human Services. Inc., Yuma, AZ Contracting Activity: Office of Policy, Management, and Budget, NBC Acquisition Services Division, Washington, DC Service Type: Medical Transcription Service Service Mandatory For: 355th Medical Supply-F5HOSP, 4175 South Alamo, Bldg 400, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ Mandatory Source of Supply: National Telecommuting Institute, Inc., Boston, MA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Mailroom Operation Service Service Mandatory For: 14th U.S. Coast Guard District, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, HI Mandatory Source of Supply: Goodwill Contract Services of Hawaii, Inc., Honolulu, HI Contracting Activity: U.S. Coast Guard, SILC BSS, Norfolk, VA Service Type: Car Wash Service Service Mandatory For: Customs and Border Protection, Indio Border Station, 83-801 Vin Deo Circle, Indio, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Sheltering Wings Corp., Blythe, CA Contracting Activity: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Procurement Directorate, Washington, DC Service Type: Administrative Service Service Mandatory For: GSA, Tucson PBS: Tucson Field Office, 300 W. Congress, Tucson, AZ Mandatory Source of Supply: J.P. Industries, Inc., Tucson, AZ Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator, Washington, DC Service Type: Mailroom Operation Service Service Mandatory For: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Elwyn, Inc., Aston, PA Contracting Activity: Office of Asst Secretary For Health Except National Centers, Mid-America CASU in Kansas City, Kansas City, MO Service Type: Recycling Service Service Mandatory For: Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, AZ Mandatory Source of Supply: Beacon Group SW., Inc., Tucson, AZ Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL Service Type: Mailroom Operation Service Service Mandatory For: Customs and Border Protection Laguna Niguel Facilities, 24000 Avila Road. Laguna Niguel, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Landmark Services, Inc., Santa Ana, CA Contracting Activity: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, National Acquisition Center, Indianapolis, IN Service Type: Janitorial/Grounds and Related Service Service Mandatory For: Clearfield Federal Depot: Buildings C-6, C-7, D-5 and 2, Clearfield, UT Mandatory Source of Supply: Pioneer Adult Rehabilitation Center Davis County School District, Clearfield, UT Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator, Washington, DC Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Service Mandatory For: VA Greater Los Angeles Regional Healthcare System, Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy, 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Building 222, Los Angeles, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Job Options, Inc., San Diego, CA Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL Service Type: Warehousing Operations Service Service Mandatory For: O'Brien Warehouse, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park Science Center, 1020 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Hope Services, San Jose, CA Contracting Activity: Geological Survey, Office of Acquisition and Grants—Sacramento, CA Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Service Mandatory For: VA Outreach Center, 9737 Haskell Avenue, Sepulveda, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Job Options, Inc., San Diego, CA Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Service Mandatory For: National Park Service: Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA Contracting Activity: National Park Service, PWR Regional Contracting, San Francisco, CA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14441 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective date: July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Addition

    On 2/27/2015 (80 FR 10668), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractor, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to provide the service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

    Service: Service Type: Mail Service Service Mandatory For: U.S. Air Force, Official Mail Center & Postal Service Center, 740 Arnold Avenue, Suite 1B, Whiteman AFB, MO Mandatory Source of Supply: Anthony Wayne Rehabilitation Center for Handicapped and Blind, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4890 ACC AMIC, Newport News, VA Deletions

    On 5/1/2015 (80 FR 24905) and 5/8/2015 (80 FR 26548-26549), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and services are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 584—One Step Tub & Shower Cleaner Mandatory Source of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston- Salem, NC NSN(s)—Product Name(s) MR 917—Brush, Bowl, Hardwood Mandatory Source of Supply: Alabama Industries for the Blind, Talladega, AL Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-00-988-6517—Card, File Guide, 1/5 Cut, 1st/5th Positions Tabs, Letter, Light Green 7530-00-988-6520—Card, File Guide, 1/3 Cut, 1st/3rd Positions Tabs, Legal, Light Green Mandatory Source of Supply: Georgia Industries for the Blind, Bainbridge, GA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Services: Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Service Purchase For: Fort Ord, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W40M Northern Region Contract Office, Fort Belvoir, VA Service Type: Shelf Stocking & Custodial Service Service Purchase For: Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, HI Mandatory Source of Supply: Trace, Inc., Boise, ID Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Service Purchase For: U.S. Army Reserve Center #1, 295 Goucher Street, Johnstown, PA U.S. Army Reserve Center #2, 1300 St. Clair Road, Johnstown, PA Johnstown Aviation Support Facility, Airport Road #2, Johnstown, PA Mandatory Source of Supply: Goodwill Industries of the Conemaugh Valley, Johnstown, PA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM MICC Ctr-Ft Dix (RC), Fort Dix, NJ U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Center, 218 Aviation Drive, Johnstown, PA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W40M Northern Region Contract Ofc, Fort Belvoir, VA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14442 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0007, Regulation of Domestic Exchange-Traded Options AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“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 rules related to risk disclosure concerning exchange-traded commodity options.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Regulation of Domestic Exchange-Traded Options,” and Collection Number 3038-0007 by any of the following methods:

    The Agency's Web site, via its Comments Online process: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: 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 through the Portal.

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; Dana R. Brown, Division of Market Oversight, telephone: (202) 418-5093 and email: [email protected]; or Jacob Chachkin, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, telephone: (202) 418-5496 and email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, 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, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of 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.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is 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 Commission's regulations.1

    1 17 CFR 145.9, 74 FR 17395 (Apr. 15, 2009).

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://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 Information Collection Request 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.

    Title: Rules Relating to Regulation of Domestic Exchange-Traded Options, OMB Control Number 3038-0007—Extension.

    Abstract: The rules require futures commission merchants and introducing brokers: (1) To provide their customers with standard risk disclosure statements concerning the risk of trading commodity interests; and (2) to retain all promotional material and the source of authority for information contained therein. The purpose of these rules is to ensure that customers are advised of the risks of trading commodity interests and to avoid fraud and misrepresentation. This information collection contains the recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to ensure regulatory compliance with Commission rules relating to this issue.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the Commission's regulations were published on December 30, 1981.2

    2 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981).

    Burden Statement: The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Estimated Annual Reporting Burden Regulation Estimated number of respondents or recordkeepers
  • per year
  • Reports annually by each
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Estimated average number of hours per response Estimated total number of hours of annual burden in fiscal year
    Reporting: 38.3, 38.4, 40.2 and 40.3 (Procedure for designation or self-certification) 13.00 2.00 26.00 25.00 650.00 33.7—(Risk disclosure) 1,401.00 115.00 161,115.00 0.08 12,889.20 Subtotal (Reporting requirements) 1,414.00 20,151.00 13,539.20 Recordkeeping: 33.8—(Retention of promotional material) 1,401.00 1.00 1,401.00 25.00 35,025.00 Subtotal (Recordkeeping requirements) 1,401.00 1.00 1,401.00 25.00 35,025.00 Grand total (Reporting and Recordkeeping) 2,815.00 21,155.20 48,564.2

    There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14332 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“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, and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments on collections of information provided for by Part 40, Provisions Common To Registered Entities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control No. 3038-0093 by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: 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 through the Portal.

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lois J. Gregory, Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5092; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, 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 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 before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    Title: Part 40, Provisions Common To Registered Entities (OMB Control No. 3038-0093). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: This collection of information involves the collection and submission to the Commission of information from registered entities concerning new products, rules, and rule amendments pursuant to the procedures outlined in 17 CFR 40.2, 40.3, 40.5, 40.6, and 40.10.

    With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of 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.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is 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 Commission's regulations.1

    1 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 your submission from http://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 Information Collection Request 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.

    Burden Statement: Registered entities must comply with certification and approval requirements which include an explanation and analysis when seeking to implement new products, rules, and rule amendments, including changes to product terms and conditions. The Commission's regulations §§ 40.2, 40.3, 40.4, 40.5 and 40.6 provide procedures for the submission of rules and rule amendments by designated contract markets, swap execution facilities, derivatives clearing organizations, and swap data repositories. They establish the procedures for submitting the “written certification” required by Section 5c of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”). In connection with a product or rule certification, the registered entity must provide a concise explanation and analysis of the submission and its compliance with statutory provisions of the Act. Accordingly, new rules or rule amendments must be accompanied by concise explanations and analyses of the purposes, operations, and effects of the submissions. This information may be submitted as part of the same submission containing the required “written certification.” The Commission estimates the average burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Rules 40.2, 40.3, 40.5, and 40.6

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 70.

    Annual Responses by each Respondent: 100.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 2.

    Estimated Total Hours per Year: 14,000.

    Rule 40.10

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4.

    Annual Responses by each Respondent: 2.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 5.

    Estimated Total Hours per Year: 40.

    (Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14333 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Notice of Active Duty Service Determinations for Civilian or Contractual Groups AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    On May 22, 2015, the Secretary of the Air Force, acting as Executive Agent of the Secretary of Defense, determined that the service of the group known as: “U.S. and Foreign Employees of Air America, Inc., who operated fixed wing or helicopter aircraft in support of U.S. Army Special Forces in Laos as part of Operation Hot Foot and Operation White Star from 1959-1963; and the U.S. and Foreign Employees of Air America, Inc., who operated fixed wing and helicopter aircraft in direct support of the U.S. Air Force operating in Laos in the Steve Canyon Program (Ravens), SAR and direct support for the Site 85 Operation, High Altitude Relay Project (HARP), Photo Reconnaissance collaboration with 7th/13th Air Force and CIA, and with the Search And Rescue (SAR) Operations for U.S. Military flight crews from 1964 through 1974, who were necessary to support those missions and held supervisory positions” shall not be considered “active duty” for purposes of all laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Bruce T. Brown, Executive Secretary, DoD Civilian/Military Service Review Board, 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700, Joint Base Andrews, NAF Washington, MD 20762-7002, 240-612-5364, [email protected]

    Henry Williams Jr., Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14383 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-14] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-14 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: June 9, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN12JN15.105 Transmittal No. 15-14 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: United Arab Emirates

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $100 million Other  $ 30 million Total $130 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: 500 GBU-31B/B(V)1 (MK-84/BLU-117) bombs, 500 GBU-31B/B(V)3 (BLU-109) bombs, and 600 GBU-12 (MK-82/BLU-111) bombs, containers, fuzes, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor logistics and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

    (iv) Military Department: USAF (AAE)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    FMS case SAA-$114M-24Aug00

    FMS case YAB-$156M-31Aug02

    FMS case YAC-$874M-4Mar08

    FMS case AAC-$14M-8Jun11

    FMS case AAD-$12M-30Jan15

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services

    Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 29 MAY 2015

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION United Arab Emirates (UAE)—Guided Bomb Units (GBU-31s and GBU-12s)

    The Government of the United Arab Emirates has requested a possible sale of 500 GBU-31B/B(V)1 (MK-84/BLU-117) bombs, 500 GBU-31B/B(V)3 (BLU-109) bombs, and 600 GBU-12 (MK-82/BLU-111) bombs, containers, fuzes, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor logistics and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $130 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping a strategic partner which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

    The proposed sale will provide the UAE with additional precision guided munitions capability to meet the current threat represented by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, and Houthi aggression in Yemen. The UAE continues to provide host-nation support of vital U.S. forces stationed at Al Dhafra Air Base and plays a vital role in supporting U.S. regional interests. The UAE has proven to be a valued partner and an active participant in coalition operations. The UAE will have no difficulty absorbing these additional munitions into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of these munitions will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractors will be The Boeing Company in Chicago, Illinois; and Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this sale will not require any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives' in the UAE. However, periodic travel will be required on a temporary basis for program reviews and technical support.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-14 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The GBU-31 (2000 lb) Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is a guidance tail kit that converts unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, GPS guided adverse weather “smart” munitions. With the addition of a new tail section that contains an inertial navigational system and a global positioning system guidance control unit, JDAM improves the accuracy of unguided, general-purpose bombs in any weather condition. JDAM can be launched from very low to very high altitudes in a dive, toss and loft, or in straight and level flight with an on-axis or off-axis delivery. JDAM enables multiple weapons to be directed against single or multiple targets on a single pass. The GBU-31 V1 contains the standard BLU-117, Mk-84 bomb body. The GBU-31 V3 contains the BLU-109 penetrator bomb body. The highest classification for the JDAM, its components, and technical data is Secret. Weapon accuracy is dependent on target coordinates and present position as entered into the guidance control unit. After weapon release, movable tail fins guide the weapon to the target coordinates. In addition to the tail kit, other elements in the overall system that are essential for successful employment include:

    a. Access to accurate target coordinates

    b. INS/GPS capability

    c. Operational Test and Evaluation Plan.

    2. The Guided Bomb Unit (GBU-12) is a laser-guided ballistic bomb (LGB) based on the Mk 82 500-lb general purpose bomb. The LGB is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off of the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal general purpose warhead and the semi-active guidance corrects for many of the normal errors inherent in any delivery system. Laser designation for the weapon can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators. The laser seeker allows the user to select a unique code for use in the multi-laser environment and reduce the probability of interference among multiple weapons. The LGB consists of a laser guidance kit, a computer control group (CCG) and a warhead specific Air Foil Group (AFG) that attach to the nose and tail of the Mk 82. The overall classification of the weapon is Confidential.

    3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    4. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the United Arab Emirates.

    [FR Doc. 2015-14406 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0154; Docket 2015-0053; Sequence 4] Submission to OMB for Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Construction Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (Actual Method) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning the Construction Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (Actual Method). A notice published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 11205 on March 2, 2015. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0154, Construction Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (Actual Method), by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000-0154. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0154, Construction Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (Actual Method)”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0154, Construction Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (Actual Method)” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0154, Construction Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (Actual Method).

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0154, Construction Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (Actual Method), in all correspondence related to this collection. 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:

    Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202-501-0650, or via email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Government contracting officers may include FAR clause 52.222-32, Construction Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (Actual Method) in fixed-price solicitations and contracts, subject to the Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute under certain conditions. The conditions are that the solicitation or contract contains option provisions to extend the term of the contract and the contracting officer determines that the most appropriate method to adjust the contract price at option exercise is to use a computation method based on the actual increase or decrease from a new or revised Department of Labor Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute wage determination.

    The clause requires that a contractor submit at the exercise of each option to extend the term of the contract, a statement of the amount claimed for incorporation of the most current wage determination by the Department of Labor, and any relevant supporting data, including payroll records, that the contracting officer may reasonably require. The information is used by Government contracting officers to establish the contract price adjustment for the construction requirements of a contract, generally if the contract requirements are predominantly services subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 842.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 842.

    Hours per Response: 40.

    Total Burden Hours: 33,680.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0154, Construction Rate Requirements-Price Adjustment (Actual Method), in all correspondence.

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Edward Loeb, Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14438 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2014-OS-0112] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Department of Defense (DoD) Electronic Mall Web site (DoD EMALL); 0704-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New.

    Number of Respondents: 33,379.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 33,379.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 8345.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to register on the Web site. Each user of the DoD EMALL Web site must complete registration information in order to receive DOD EMALL access. Only authorized personnel of Federal, State, and Local Government are able to register and log into the DoD EMALL Web site to shop, search, order, and make purchases.

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; State, local, or Tribal governments.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

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

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

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

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14314 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0062; Docket 2015-0055; Sequence 2] Submission to OMB for Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Material and Workmanship AGENCIES:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning material and workmanship. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 8650 on February 18, 2015. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0062, Material and Workmanship, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB Control number 9000-0062. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0062, Material and Workmanship”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0062, Material and Workmanship” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0062, Material and Workmanship.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0062, Material and Workmanship, in all correspondence related to this collection. 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:

    Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, telephone 202-501-1448, or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Under Federal contracts requiring that equipment (e.g., pumps, fans, generators, chillers, etc.) be installed in a project, the Government must determine that the equipment meets the contract requirements. Therefore, the contractor must submit sufficient data on the particular equipment to allow the Government to analyze the item.

    The Government uses the submitted data to determine whether or not the equipment meets the contract requirements in the categories of performance, construction, and durability. This data is placed in the contract file and used during the inspection of the equipment when it arrives on the project and when it is made operable.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    The information collection requirement at FAR clause 52.236-5 has increased due to the rounding up of the responses annually from 1.5 to 2.0, as you cannot have .5 of a response per year.

    Respondents: 3,160.

    Responses Per Respondent: 2.0.

    Annual Responses: 6,320.

    Hours Per Response: .25.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,580.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0062, Material and Workmanship, in all correspondence.

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Edward Loeb, Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14432 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-35] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-35 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: June 9, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN12JN15.101 Transmittal No. 15-35 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Japan

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ .850 billion Other $ .850 billion Total $1.700 billion

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: four (4) E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft, ten (10) T56-A-427A engines (8 installed and 2 spares), eight (8) Multifunction Information Distribution System Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT), four (4) APY-9 Radars, modifications, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, ferry services, aerial refueling support, U.S. Government and contractor logistics, engineering, and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (SCJ)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 01 June 2015

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    Policy Justification Japan—E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft.

    The Government of Japan has requested a possible sale of four (4) E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft, ten (10) T56-A-427A engines (8 installed and 2 spares), eight (8) Multifunction Information Distribution System Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT), four (4) APY-9 Radars, modifications, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, ferry services, aerial refueling support, U.S. Government and contractor logistics, engineering, and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $1.7 billion.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States. Japan is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific and a key partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in that region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist Japan in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives and the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.

    The proposed sale of E-2D AHE aircraft will improve Japan's ability to effectively provide homeland defense utilizing an AEW&C capability. Japan will use the E-2D AHE aircraft to provide AEW&C situational awareness of air and naval activity in the Pacific region and to augment its existing E-2C Hawkeye AEW&C fleet. Japan will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of these aircraft and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor will be Northrop Grumman Corporation Aerospace Systems in Melbourne, Florida. The acquisition and integration of all systems will be managed by the U.S. Navy's Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require any additional U.S. Government or contractor personnel in Japan. However, U.S. Government or contractor personnel in-country visits will be required on a temporary basis in conjunction with program technical and management oversight and support requirements.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-35 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) is a state of the art aircraft. The E-2D AHE provides detection and surveillance of regional surface and aircraft platforms through the use of the APY-9 radar, APX-122A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF), and ALQ 217 Electronic Support Measures (ESM) systems. The E-2D AHE provides area surveillance and detection, air intercept control, air traffic control, search and rescue assistance, communication relay and automatic tactical data exchange. The E-2D AHE is classified Secret.

    2. The APY-9 radar is a mechanically rotated, electronically scanned array, which utilizes Space Time Adaptive Processing technology to provide 360-degree detection and surveillance in high clutter environments. It is able to provide simultaneous detection and surveillance of surface and air units. The APY-9 radar is classified Secret.

    3. The Multifunction Information Distribution System Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT) is a command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system incorporating high-capacity, jam-resistant, digital communication links for exchange of near real-time tactical information including both data and voice, among air, ground and sea elements. The MIDS-LVT incorporates the Link-16 military technical data exchange network which supports key theater functions such as surveillance, identification, air control, and direction for U.S. Services and those allied and partner nations for which there is a validated interoperability requirement. The system provides jam-resistant, wide-area communications on a Link-16 network. Link-16 provides a correlated, real-time picture of the battle space. These devices have embedded communications security (COMSEC) which contains sensitive encryption algorithms and keying material. The MIDS-LVT is classified Secret.

    4. The APX-122 Interrogator and APX-123 IFF Transponder are identification systems designed for command and control. They provide the ability to distinguish friendly aircraft, vehicles, or forces, and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. These devices have embedded COMSEC which contains sensitive encryption algorithms and keying material. The APX-122 Interrogator and APX-123 IFF Transponder are classified Secret.

    5. The ALQ-217 Electronic Support Measure system is used to detect, intercept, identify, locate, record, and/or analyze sources of radiated electromagnetic energy to support classification of unknown surface and airborne units. The ALQ-217 is classified Secret.

    6. If a technologically advanced adversary obtained knowledge of the specific hardware or software in the proposed sale, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapons system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    7. A determination has been made that the Government of Japan can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Japan.

    [FR Doc. 2015-14414 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Application for New Awards; Charter Schools Program (CSP); Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information:

    CSP Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools.

    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.282M.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: June 12, 2015.

    Date of Pre-Application Meeting: June 16, 2015, 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Washington, DC, time.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 15, 2015.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 25, 2015.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the CSP is to increase national understanding of the charter school model by expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the Nation; providing financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools; and evaluating the effects of charter schools, including their effects on students, student academic achievement, staff, and parents.

    The purpose of the CSP Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Replication and Expansion) competition (CFDA 84.282M) is to award grants to eligible applicants to enable them to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools with demonstrated records of success, including success in increasing student academic achievement. Eligible applicants may use their grant funds to expand the enrollment of one or more existing charter schools by substantially increasing the number of available seats per school or to open one or more new charter schools that are based on the charter school model for which the eligible applicant has presented evidence of success.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FY 2015 Replication and Expansion competition differs from the FY 2014 Replication and Expansion competition in several ways. First, for the FY 2015 competition, we are using the Low-Income Demographic priority from the final priorities, requirements, and selection criteria for this program, published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40898) (Final Priorities), as an absolute priority. The Department has added this as an absolute priority in order to ensure that projects are designed to meet the needs of educationally disadvantaged students.

    Second, for FY 2015, the Department has consolidated three competitive preference priorities into a single competitive preference priority for projects designed to support specific types of high-need students. Applicants addressing this priority may select and address only one of these elements.

    Element (a) of Competitive Preference Priority 1—High Need Students is for projects designed to support students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes. This priority is from the Secretary's final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425) (Final Supplemental Priorities). The Department understands that Native American communities confront unique educational challenges and have developed unique strategies to meet those challenges. This element is designed to encourage collaboration between charter school developers and Native American communities, as part of these communities' efforts to strengthen public education.

    Element (b) of Competitive Preference Priority 1—High Need Students is for projects designed to replicate and expand high-quality charter schools in order to support school improvement efforts by local educational agencies (LEAs). As one of the Department's top priorities is to help turn around the Nation's lowest-performing public schools, this element is designed to link LEAs with high-quality charter schools as effective partners in school intervention projects. This element comes from the Final Priorities for this program.

    Element (c) of Competitive Preference Priority 1—High Need Students is for projects designed to replicate and expand high-quality charter schools in federally designated Promise Zones, and is from the notice of final priority for promise zones, published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17035) (Final Promise Zones Priority). Promise zones are part of an initiative by the President to designate, over a period of four years, 20 high-poverty communities for the Federal government to partner with, and invest in, to create jobs, increase economic activity, improve educational opportunities, reduce violent crime, and leverage private investment. The Department is cooperating with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and nine other Federal agencies to support comprehensive revitalization efforts in these high-poverty urban, rural, and tribal communities across the country. The thirteen Promise Zones that have been designated thus far are located in Camden City NJ, the Chocktaw Nation of Oklahoma, East Indianapolis IN, Los Angeles CA, the Lowlands of South Carolina, Minneapolis MN, North Hartford CT, Philadelphia PA, Pine Ridge SD, Sacramento CA, San Antonio TX, Southeastern Kentucky, and St. Louis MO. Each of the lead entities for these Promise Zones has put forward a plan for how it will partner with local business and community leaders to make investments that reward hard work and expand opportunity.

    The Department also has added an invitational priority that encourages applicants to conduct rigorous evaluations of their proposed projects. If well-implemented, the evaluations will produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that meets What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards. The Department is particularly interested in rigorous evaluations of applicants' schools or specific practices within those schools.

    In addition, in January 2014, the Department updated Section E of the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance to clarify the circumstances in which charter schools receiving CSP funds may use weighted lotteries, including to give educationally disadvantaged students slightly better chances for admission. Applicants proposing to use weighted lotteries should review the information in the Note for Application Requirement (j) in section V of this notice and the updated CSP Nonregulatory Guidance. For information on the CSP lottery requirement, including permissible exemptions from the lottery and the circumstances under which charter schools receiving CSP funds may use weighted lotteries, see Section E of the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance atwww2.ed.gov/programs/charter/nonregulatory-guidance.html.

    Finally, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (FY 2015 Appropriations Act), Division G, Pub. L. 113-235, retains the authority from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (FY 2014 Appropriations Act), Division H, Public Law 113-76, for CSP grant recipients to use funds to support preschool education in charter schools. For information on the use of CSP funds to support preschool education in charter schools, see the “Guidance on the use of Funds to Support Preschool Education” at www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/csppreschoolfaqs.doc.

    All charter schools receiving CSP funds, as outlined in section 5210(1)(G) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), must comply with various non-discrimination laws, including the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (specifies rights afforded to students with disabilities and their parents), and applicable State laws.

    Priorities: This notice includes two absolute priorities, three competitive preference priorities, and one invitational priority. The absolute priorities are from the Final Priorities for this program. The competitive preference priorities are from the Final Priorities for this program; the Final Promise Zones Priority; the Final Supplemental Priorities; and 34 CFR 75.225.

    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet both of the following priorities:

    Absolute Priority 1—Experience Operating or Managing High-Quality Charter Schools.

    This priority is for projects that will provide for the replication or expansion of high-quality charter schools by applicants that currently operate or manage more than one high-quality charter school (as defined in this notice).

    Absolute Priority 2—Low-Income Demographic.

    To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that at least 60 percent of all students in the charter schools it currently operates or manages are individuals from low-income families (as defined in this notice).

    Note 1:

    The Secretary encourages applicants to describe the extent to which the charter schools they currently operate or manage serve individuals from low-income families at rates that are comparable to the rates at which these individuals are served by public schools in the surrounding area.

    Note 2:

    For charter schools that serve students younger than five years old or older than 17 years old in accordance with their State's definition of “elementary education” or “secondary education,” at least 60 percent of all students in the schools who are between the ages of five and 17 must be individuals from low-income families to meet this priority.

    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards based on the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we will award an additional five points to an application that addresses element (a) of Competitive Preference Priority 1; an additional four points to an application that addresses element (b) of Competitive Preference Priority 1; or an additional one point to an application that addresses element (c) of Competitive Preference Priority 1. An applicant may receive points under Competitive Preference Priority 1 for only one of the three elements. We will award an additional three points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 2, and an additional two points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 3. The maximum total competitive preference priority points an application can receive for this competition is 10.

    Note:

    In order to receive points under these competitive preference priorities, the applicant must identify the priority or priorities that it is addressing and provide documentation that supports the identified competitive preference priority or priorities.

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority 1—Serving High-Need Students. (0, 1, 4, or 5 points).

    This priority is for projects that will serve high-need students through one of the methods described below. An application may receive priority points for only one element of Competitive Preference Priority 1. Therefore, an applicant should address only one element of Competitive Preference Priority 1 and must specify which element (i.e., (a), (b) or (c)) it is addressing. If an applicant addresses more than one element of Competitive Preference Priority 1 and does not specify whether it is addressing element (a), (b), or (c), the application will be awarded priority points only for the element addressed in the application that has the highest maximum point value, regardless of the number of priority points the application is awarded for that particular element of Competitive Preference Priority 1.

    This priority is for projects that will serve high-need students through element (a), (b) or (c) as described below:

    (a) Supporting Students Who are Members of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes. (79 FR 73425) (0 or 5 points).

    To meet this priority, an application must demonstrate that the proposed project is designed to improve academic outcomes or learning environments, or both, for students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Note:

    Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate how the proposed project is designed to serve students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes through a variety of means, such as creating or expanding charter schools in geographic areas with large numbers of students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes, conducting targeted outreach and recruitment, or including in the charters or performance contracts for the charter schools funded under the project specific performance goals for students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes.

    (b) School Improvement. (76 FR 40898) (0 or 4 points).

    To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that its proposed replication or expansion of one or more high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice) will occur in partnership with, and will be designed to assist, one or more LEAs in implementing academic or structural interventions to serve students attending schools that have been identified for improvement, corrective action, closure, or restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), and as described in the notice of final requirements for School Improvement Grants, published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2010 (75 FR 66363).1

    1 In March 2015, the Department issued nonregulatory guidance on School Improvement Grants (SIGs), entitled “Guidance on School Improvement Grants under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, at www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance032015.doc.

    Note:

    Applicants in States operating under ESEA Flexibility that have opted to waive the requirement in ESEA section 1116(b) for LEAs to identify for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, as appropriate, their Title I schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two or more consecutive years may partner with LEAs to serve students attending priority or focus schools (see the Department's June 7, 2012 guidance entitled, “ESEA Flexibility,” at www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility). The Secretary encourages such applicants to describe how their proposed projects would complement efforts to serve students attending priority or focus schools described in the State's approved request for waivers under ESEA Flexibility.

    (c) Promise Zones. (79 FR 17035) (0 or 1 point).

    This priority is for projects that are designed to serve and coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone.2

    2 For additional information on Promise Zones, see www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/08/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-promise-zones-initiative.

    Note:

    To view the list of designated Promise Zones and lead organizations please go to www.hud.gov/promisezones. The link to HUD Form 50153 (Certification of Consistency with Promise Zone Goals and Implementation), which has been cleared by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act, is http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=HUD_Form_50153.pdf.

    Competitive Preference Priority 2—Promoting Diversity. (76 FR 40898) (0 or 3 points).

    This priority is for applicants that demonstrate a record of (in the schools they currently operate or manage), as well as an intent to continue (in schools that they will be creating or substantially expanding under this grant), taking active measures to—

    (a) Promote student diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, or avoid racial isolation;

    (b) Serve students with disabilities at a rate that is at least comparable to the rate at which these students are served in public schools in the surrounding area; and

    (c) Serve English learners at a rate that is at least comparable to the rate at which these students are served in public schools in the surrounding area.

    In support of this priority, applicants must provide enrollment data as well as descriptions of existing policies and activities undertaken or planned to be undertaken.

    Note 1:

    An applicant addressing Competitive Preference Priority 2—Promoting Diversity is invited to discuss how the proposed design of its project will encourage approaches by charter schools that help bring together students of different backgrounds, including students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, to attain the benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The applicant should discuss in its application how it would ensure that those approaches are permissible under current law.

    Note 2:

    For information on permissible ways to meet this priority, please refer to the joint guidance issued by the Department's Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice entitled, “Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools” (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf) and “Schools' Civil Rights Obligations to English Learner Students and Limited English Proficient Parents” (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ellresources.html).

    Competitive Preference Priority 3—Novice Applicant. (34 CFR 75.225(c)(2)) (0 or 2 points).

    This priority is for applicants that qualify as novice applicants. For purposes of this competition, “novice applicant” means an applicant for a grant from the Department that (i) has never received a Replication and Expansion grant; (ii) has never been a member of a group application, submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, that received a Replication and Expansion grant; and (iii) has not had an active discretionary grant from the Federal government in the five years before the deadline date for applications for new awards under this Replication and Expansion grant competition.

    For purposes of clause (iii) in the preceding paragraph, a grant is active until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to obligate funds (34 CFR 75.225(b)).

    Invitational Priority: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards based on the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority any preference over other applications.

    This priority is:

    Invitational Priority—Rigorous Evaluation.

    The Secretary is particularly interested in funding applications that demonstrate that the applicant is currently conducting, or will conduct, a rigorous independent evaluation of the applicant's charter schools, or specific practices within those charter schools, such as professional development practices (e.g., teacher coaching or leadership training) through a quasi-experimental design study or randomized controlled trial that will, if well implemented, meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.

    Note 1:

    In accordance with 34 CFR 75.590, Replication and Expansion grant funds may be used to cover post-award costs associated with an evaluation under this invitational priority or an evaluation under selection criterion (e) in section V.2 of this notice, provided that such costs are reasonable and necessary to meet the objectives of the approved project.

    Note 2:

    We encourage applicants to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. In addition, we invite applicants to view two optional Webinar recordings that were hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The first Webinar discussed strategies for designing and executing well-designed quasi-experimental design studies. Applicants interested in viewing this Webinar may find more information at the following Web site: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/news.aspx?sid=23. We also encourage applicants to review a second Webinar recorded by the IES that focused on more rigorous evaluation designs.

    This Webinar discusses strategies for designing and executing studies that meet WWC standards without reservations. Applicants interested in reviewing this Webinar may find more information at the following Web site: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/News.aspx?sid=18.

    Definitions:

    The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 and the Final Priorities for this program.

    Ambitious means promoting continued, meaningful improvement for program participants or for other individuals or entities affected by the grant, or representing a significant advancement in the field of education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline for that measure. (34 CFR 77.1)

    Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set. (34 CFR 77.1)

    Charter management organization (CMO) is a nonprofit organization that operates or manages multiple charter schools by centralizing or sharing certain functions and resources among schools. (76 FR 40898)

    Educationally disadvantaged students includes, but is not necessarily limited to, individuals from low-income families (as defined in this notice), English learners, migratory children, children with disabilities, and neglected or delinquent children. (76 FR 40898)

    High-quality charter school is a school that shows evidence of strong academic results for the past three years (or over the life of the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years), based on the following factors:

    (1) Increasing student academic achievement and attainment for all students, including, as applicable, educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant.

    (2) Either (i) Demonstrated success in closing historic achievement gaps for the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant, or;

    (ii) No significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant and significant gains in student academic achievement with all populations of students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant.

    (3) Achieved results (including performance on statewide tests, annual student attendance and retention rates, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates where applicable and available) for low-income and other educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant that are above the average academic achievement results for such students in the State.

    (4) No significant compliance issues (as defined in this notice), particularly in the areas of student safety and financial management. (76 FR 40898)

    Individual from low-income family means an individual who is determined by a State educational agency (SEA) or LEA to be a child, age 5 through 17, from a low-income family on the basis of (a) data used by the Secretary to determine allocations under section 1124 of the ESEA, (b) data on children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, (c) data on children in families receiving assistance under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, (d) data on children eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, or (e) an alternate method that combines or extrapolates from the data in items (a) through (d) of this definition (see 20 U.S.C. 6537(3)). (76 FR 40898)

    Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program or project performance. (34 CFR 77.1)

    Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a project. (34 CFR 77.1)

    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards (as defined in this notice) with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations). (34 CFR 77.1)

    Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcome for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards (as defined in this notice) without reservations. (34 CFR 77.1)

    Replicate means to open one or more new charter schools that are based on the charter school model or models for which the applicant has presented evidence of success. (76 FR 40898)

    Significant compliance issue means a violation that did, will, or could lead to the revocation of a school's charter. (76 FR 40898)

    Substantially expand means to increase the student count of an existing charter school by more than 50 percent or to add at least two grades to an existing charter school over the course of the grant. (76 FR 40898)

    What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: //ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. (34 CFR 77.1)

    Program Authority: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (FY 2015 Appropriations Act), Division G, Pub. L. 113-235; and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7221-7221j).

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The Final Priorities for this program. (e) The Final Promise Zones Priority.(f) The Final Supplemental Priorities.

    Note 1:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Note 2:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply only to institutions of higher education.

    Note 3:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 99 apply only to an educational agency or institution.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $40,000,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 and future years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000 to $3,000,000 per year.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,600,000 per year.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 19-25.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. The estimated range, average size, and number of awards are based on a single 12-month budget period. However, the Department may choose to fund more than 12 months of a project using FY 2015 funds.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: Non-profit charter management organizations (as defined in this notice) and other entities that are not for-profit entities. Eligible applicants may also apply as a group or consortium.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

    3. Other:

    (a) Reasonable and Necessary Costs: The Secretary may elect to impose maximum limits on the amount of grant funds that may be awarded per charter school replicated, per charter school substantially expanded, or per new school seat created.

    For this competition the maximum limit of grant funds that may be awarded per new school seat is $3,000, including a maximum limit per new school created of $800,000. The maximum limit per new school seat in a charter school that is substantially expanding its enrollment is $1,500, including a maximum limit per substantially expanded school of $800,000.

    Note:

    Applicants must ensure that all costs included in the proposed budget are reasonable and necessary in light of the goals and objectives of the proposed project. Any costs determined by the Secretary to be unreasonable or unnecessary will be removed from the final approved budget.

    (b) Other CSP Grants: A charter school that receives funds under this competition is ineligible to receive funds for the same purpose under section 5202(c)(2) of the ESEA, including for planning and program design or the initial implementation of a charter school (i.e., CFDA 84.282A or 84.282B).

    A charter school that has received CSP funds for replication previously, or that has received funds for planning or initial implementation of a charter school (i.e., CFDA 84.282A or 84.282B), may not use funds under this grant for the same purpose. However, such charter schools may be eligible to receive funds under this competition to substantially expand the charter school beyond the existing grade levels or student count.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: Brian Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W224, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 205-9085 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.

    2.a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit the application narrative [Part III] to no more than 60 pages, using the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5” x 11”, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section [Part III].

    b. Submission of Proprietary Information:

    Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the Replication and Expansion competition, an application may include business information that the applicant considers proprietary. The Department's regulations define “business information” in 34 CFR 5.11.

    Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: June 12, 2015.

    Date of Pre-Application Meeting: The Department will hold a pre-application meeting via Webinar for prospective applicants on June 16, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Washington, DC, time. Individuals interested in attending this meeting are encouraged to pre-register by emailing their name, organization, and contact information with the subject heading “PRE-APPLICATION MEETING” to [email protected] There is no registration fee for attending this meeting.

    For further information about the pre-application meeting, contact Brian Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W224, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 205-9085 or by email: [email protected]

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 15, 2015.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 25, 2015.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    5. Funding Restrictions: Grantees under this program must use the grant funds to replicate or substantially expand the charter school model or models for which the applicant has presented evidence of success. Grant funds must be used to carry out allowable activities, as described in section 5204(f)(3) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c(f)(3)).

    Pursuant to section 5204(f)(3) of the ESEA, grantees under this program must use the grant funds for—

    (a) Post-award planning and design of the educational program, which may include: (i) Refinement of the desired educational results and of the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those results; and (ii) professional development of teachers and other staff who will work in the charter school; and

    (b) Initial implementation of the charter school, which may include: (i) Informing the community about the school; (ii) acquiring necessary equipment and educational materials and supplies; (iii) acquiring or developing curriculum materials; and (iv) other initial operational costs that cannot be met from State or local sources.

    Note 1:

    The FY 2015 Appropriations Act authorizes the use of CSP funds “for grants that support preschool education in charter schools.” Therefore, an application submitted under this competition may propose to use CSP funds to support preschool education in a charter school. For additional information and guidance regarding the use of CSP funds to support preschool education in charter schools, see “Guidance on the use of Funds to support Preschool Education,” released in November 2014 (www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/csppreschoolfaqs.doc).

    Note 2:

    In accordance with the Final Priorities for this program, a grantee may use up to 20 percent of grant funds for initial operational costs associated with the expansion or improvement of the grantee's oversight or management of its charter schools, provided that: (i) the specific charter schools being created or substantially expanded under the grant are the intended beneficiaries of such expansion or improvement, and (ii) such expansion or improvement is intended to improve the grantee's ability to manage or oversee the charter schools created or substantially expanded under the grant.

    We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/;sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements. Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the CSP Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools, CFDA number 84.282M, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for CSP Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.282, not 84.282M).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a .PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Specifically, do not upload an interactive or fillable .PDF file. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable .PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because--

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Brian Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W224, Washington, DC 20202-5970. FAX: (202) 205-5630.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:

    U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.282M, LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.282M, 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Application Requirements: Applications for CSP Replication and Expansion grant funds must address the following application requirements and the selection criteria described in this notice. An applicant may choose to respond to the application requirements in the context of its responses to the selection criteria.

    These application requirements are from the Final Priorities for this program.

    (a) Describe the objectives of the project for replicating or substantially expanding high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice) and the methods by which the applicant will determine its progress toward achieving those objectives.

    (b) Describe how the applicant currently operates or manages the charter schools for which it has presented evidence of success, and how the proposed new or substantially expanded charter schools will be operated or managed. Include a description of central office functions, governance, daily operations, financial management, human resources management, and instructional management. If applying as a group or consortium, describe the roles and responsibilities of each member of the group or consortium and how each member will contribute to this project.

    (c) Describe how the applicant will ensure that each proposed new or substantially expanded charter school receives its commensurate share of Federal education funds that are allocated by formula each year, including during the first year of operation of the school and any year in which the school's enrollment substantially expands.

    (d) Describe the educational program to be implemented in the proposed new or substantially expanded charter schools, including how the program will enable all students (including educationally disadvantaged students) to meet State student academic achievement standards, the grade levels or ages of students to be served, and the curriculum and instructional practices to be used.

    Note:

    An applicant proposing to create or substantially expand a single-sex charter school should include in its application, or as an addendum to the application, a detailed description of how it is complying with applicable nondiscrimination laws, including the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) and other cases) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) and its regulations, including 34 CFR 106.34(c). Specifically, the applicant should provide a written justification for each new or existing single-sex charter school that explains (1) how the single-sex charter school is based on an important governmental objective(s); and (2) how the single-sex nature of the charter school is substantially related to the stated objective(s). An applicant that operates or is proposing to operate a single-sex charter school that is part of an LEA and not a single-school LEA under State law, should also provide (1) information about whether there is a substantially equal single-sex school(s) for students of the excluded sex, and, if so, a detailed description of both the current or proposed single-sex charter school and the substantially equal single-sex school(s), based on the factors in 34 CFR 106.34(c)(3); and (2) information about whether there is a substantially equal coeducational school(s) for students of the excluded sex, and, if so, a detailed description of both the current or proposed single-sex charter school and the substantially equal coeducational school(s), based on the factors in 34 CFR 106.34(c)(3).

    An applicant that currently offers or is proposing to create or expand single-sex classes or extracurricular activities at a coeducational charter school should also include in its application, or as an addendum to its application, a detailed description of how it will comply with applicable nondiscrimination laws, including the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) and other cases) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) and its regulations, including 34 CFR 106.34(b) with respect to those single-sex offerings. The Title IX requirements are discussed in more detail in the Department's “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Single-Sex Elementary and Secondary Classes and Extracurricular Activities,” available at www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/faqs-title-ix-single-sex-201412.pdf.

    (e) Describe the administrative relationship between the charter school or schools to be replicated or substantially expanded by the applicant and the authorized public chartering agency.

    (f) Describe how the applicant will provide for continued operation of the proposed new or substantially expanded charter school or schools once the Federal grant has expired.

    (g) Describe how parents and other members of the community will be involved in the planning, program design, and implementation of the proposed new or substantially expanded charter school or schools.

    (h) Include a request and justification for waivers of any Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the applicant believes are necessary for the successful operation of the proposed new or substantially expanded charter schools.

    (i) Describe how the grant funds will be used, including how these funds will be used in conjunction with other Federal programs administered by the Secretary, and with any matching funds.

    (j) Describe how all students in the community, including students with disabilities, English learners, and other educationally disadvantaged students, will be informed about the proposed new or substantially expanded charter schools and given an equal opportunity to attend such schools.

    Note:

    The applicant should provide a detailed description of its recruitment and admissions policies and practices, including a description of the lottery it plans to employ at each charter school if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated. The applicant should also describe any current or planned use of a weighted lottery or exemptions of certain categories of students from the lottery and how the use of such weights or exemptions is consistent with State law and the CSP authorizing statute. For information on the CSP lottery requirement, including permissible exemptions from the lottery and the circumstances under which charter schools receiving CSP funds may use weighted lotteries, see Section E of the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance at www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/nonregulatory-guidance.html (revised January 2014).

    An application that proposes to use a weighted lottery should provide the following:

    (1) Information concerning the circumstances in which a weighted lottery would be used, including the specific categories of students the weighted lottery would favor;

    (2) Evidence that (a) the use of a weighted lottery is necessary to comply with Federal or State law; or (b) the State permits the use of a weighted lottery under the circumstances in which a weighted lottery is proposed to be used (e.g., in favor of educationally disadvantaged students). State permission to use a weighted lottery can be evidenced by the fact that weighted lotteries for such students are expressly permitted under the State charter school law, a State regulation, or a written State policy consistent with the State charter school law or regulation, or, in the absence of express authorization, confirmation from the State's Attorney General, in writing, that State law permits the use of weighted lotteries in favor of such students;

    (3) Information concerning the mechanisms that exist (if any) for an oversight entity (e.g., the SEA or an authorized public chartering agency) to review, approve, or monitor specific lottery practices, including the establishment of weight amounts if applicable;

    (4) Information concerning how the use of a weighted lottery for a permitted purpose is within the scope and objectives of the proposed project; and

    (5) Information concerning the amount or range of lottery weights that will be employed or permitted and the rationale for these weights.

    (k) Describe how the proposed new or substantially expanded charter schools that are considered to be LEAs under State law, or the LEAs in which the new or substantially expanded charter schools are located, will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (for additional information on IDEA, please see idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2CI%2CB%2C613%2C).

    (l) Provide information on any significant compliance issues identified within the past three years for each school managed by the applicant, including compliance issues in the areas of student safety, financial management, and statutory or regulatory compliance.

    (m) For each charter school currently operated or managed by the applicant, provide the following information: the year founded, the grades currently served, the number of students, the address, the percentage of students in each subgroup of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA, results on the State assessment for the past three years (if available) by subgroup, attendance rates, student attrition rates for the past three years, and (if the school operates a 12th grade) high school graduation rates and college attendance rates (maintaining standards to protect personally identifiable information).

    Note:

    The Secretary encourages applicants to also provide suspension and expulsion rates by each subgroup for the past three years (if available) for each charter school currently operated or managed by the applicant.

    (n) Provide objective data showing applicant quality. In particular, the Secretary requires the applicant to provide the following data:

    (1) Performance (school-wide and by subgroup) for the past three years (if available) on statewide tests of all charter schools operated or managed by the applicant as compared to all students in other schools in the State or States at the same grade level, and as compared with other schools serving similar demographics of students (maintaining standards to protect personally identifiable information);

    (2) Annual student attendance and retention rates (school-wide and by subgroup) for the past three years (or over the life of the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years), and comparisons with other similar schools (maintaining standards to protect personally identifiable information); and

    (3) Where applicable and available, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates (school-wide and by subgroup) for the past three years (if available) of students attending schools operated or managed by the applicant, and the methodology used to calculate these rates (maintaining standards to protect personally identifiable information). When reporting data for schools in States that may have particularly demanding or low standards of proficiency, applicants are invited to discuss how their academic success might be considered against applicants from across the country.

    (o) Provide such other information and assurances as the Secretary may require.

    2. Selection Criteria. The selection criteria for this program are from the Final Priorities for this program and 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum possible score for addressing all of the criteria in this section is 100 points. The maximum possible score for addressing each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion.

    In evaluating an application, the Secretary considers the following criteria:

    (a) Quality of the eligible applicant. (76 FR 40898) (50 points)

    In determining the quality of the applicant, the Secretary considers the following factors—

    (1) The degree, including the consistency over the past three years, to which the applicant has demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement and attainment for all students, including, as applicable, educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant (20 points).

    (2) Either—

    (i) The degree, including the consistency over the past three years, to which the applicant has demonstrated success in closing historic achievement gaps for the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant, or

    (ii) The degree, including the consistency over the past three years, to which there have not been significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant and to which significant gains in student academic achievement have been made with all populations of students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant (15 points).

    (3) The degree, including the consistency over the past three years, to which the applicant has achieved results (including performance on statewide tests, annual student attendance and retention rates, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates where applicable and available) for low-income and other educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant that are significantly above the average academic achievement results for such students in the State (15 points).

    (b) Contribution in assisting educationally disadvantaged students. (76 FR 40898) (10 points)

    The contribution the proposed project will make in assisting educationally disadvantaged students served by the applicant to meet or exceed State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards, and to graduate college- and career-ready. When responding to this selection criterion, applicants must discuss the proposed locations of schools to be created or substantially expanded and the student populations to be served.

    Note:

    The Secretary encourages applicants to describe their prior success in improving educational achievement and outcomes for educationally disadvantaged students, including students with disabilities and English learners. In addition, the Secretary encourages applicants to address how they will ensure that all eligible students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education and how the proposed project will assist educationally disadvantaged students, including students with disabilities and English learners, in mastering State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards.

    (c) Quality of the project design. (76 FR 40898 and 34 CFR 75.210(c)(2)(xxviii)) (10 points)

    The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and attainable. Applicants proposing to open schools serving substantially different populations than those currently served by the model for which they have demonstrated evidence of success must address the attainability of outcomes given this difference.

    (d) Quality of the management plan and personnel. (76 FR 40898) (20 points)

    The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan and personnel to replicate and substantially expand high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice). In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—

    (1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (4 points).

    (2) The business plan for improving, sustaining, and ensuring the quality and performance of charter schools created or substantially expanded under these grants beyond the initial period of Federal funding in areas including, but not limited to, facilities, financial management, central office, student academic achievement, governance, oversight, and human resources of the charter schools (4 points).

    (3) A multi-year financial and operating model for the organization, a demonstrated commitment of current and future partners, and evidence of broad support from stakeholders critical to the project's long-term success (4 points).

    (4) The plan for closing charter schools supported, overseen, or managed by the applicant that do not meet high standards of quality (2 points).

    (5) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director, chief executive officer or organization leader, and key project personnel, especially in managing projects of the size and scope of the proposed project (6 points).

    (e) Quality of the evaluation plan. (34 CFR 75.210(h)(2)(iv)) (10 points)

    The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data.

    3. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    4. Special Conditions: Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures:

    (a) Program Performance Measures. The goal of the CSP is to support the creation and development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students. The Secretary has two performance indicators to measure progress towards this goal: (1) the number of charter schools in operation around the Nation, and (2) the percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics and reading/language arts. Additionally, the Secretary has established the following measure to examine the efficiency of the CSP: Federal cost per student in implementing a successful school (defined as a school in operation for three or more consecutive years).

    (b) Project-Specific Performance Measures. Applicants must propose project-specific performance measures and performance targets consistent with the objectives of the proposed project. Applications must provide the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):

    (1) Performance measures. How each proposed performance measure (as defined in this notice) would accurately measure the performance of the project and how the proposed performance measure would be consistent with the performance measures established for the program funding the competition.

    (2) Baseline data. (i) Why each proposed baseline (as defined in this notice) is valid; or (ii) If the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.

    (3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target (as defined in this notice) is ambitious (as defined in this notice) yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).

    Note:

    The Secretary encourages applicants to consider measures and targets tied to their grant activities (for instance, if grant funds will support professional development for teachers and other staff, applicants should include measures related to the outcomes for the professional development), as well as to student academic achievement during the grant period. The measures should be sufficient to gauge the progress throughout the grant period, and show results by the end of the grant period.

    For technical assistance in developing effective performance measures, applicants are encouraged to review information provided by the Department's Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs). The RELs seek to build the capacity of States and school districts to incorporate data and research into education decision-making. Each REL provides research support and technical assistance to its region but makes learning opportunities available to educators everywhere. For example, the REL Northeast and Islands has created the following resource on logic models: relpacific.mcrel.org/resources/elm-app.

    (4) The applicant must also describe in the application: (i) the data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, and (ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

    Note:

    If the applicant does not have experience with collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for their proposed project.

    All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application. In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contact

    For Further Information Contact: Brian Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4W224, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 205-9085 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice.

    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.

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Nadya Chinoy Dabby, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14386 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. PP-400] Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Announcement of Public Hearings for the Proposed New England Clean Power Link (NECPL) Transmission Line AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability and public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the New England Clean Power Link Transmission Line Project” (DOE/EIS-0503) for public review and comment. DOE is also announcing two public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of DOE's proposed Federal action of issuing a Presidential permit to the Applicant: Champlain VT, LLC, doing business as TDI New England (“TDI-NE”), to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a new electric transmission line across the U.S./Canada border in northern Vermont.

    DATES:

    DOE invites interested Members of Congress, state and local governments, other Federal agencies, American Indian tribal governments, organizations, and members of the public to provide comments on the Draft EIS during the 60-day public comment period. The public comment period starts on June 12, 2015, with the publication in the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of its Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS, and will continue until August 11, 2015. Written and oral comments will be given equal weight and all comments received or postmarked by that date will be considered by DOE in preparing the Final EIS. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    Locations, dates, and start time for the public hearings are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this NOA.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests to provide oral comments at the public hearings may be made at the time of the hearing(s).

    Written comments on the Draft EIS may be provided on the NECPL EIS Web site at http://necplinkeis.com/ (preferred) or addressed to Mr. Brian Mills, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; by electronic mail to [email protected]; or by facsimile to 202-318-7761.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Brian Mills at the addresses above, or at 202-586-8267.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The public hearings will consist of the formal taking of comments with transcription by a court stenographer. The hearings will provide interested parties the opportunity to make comments for consideration in the preparation of the Final EIS.

    The locations, dates, and starting times of the public hearings are listed in the table below:

    Location Date and time Address Sheraton, Burlington, Vermont July 15, 2015, 6:00 p.m 870 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Holiday Inn, Rutland, Vermont July 16, 2015, 6:00 p.m 476 Holiday Drive, Rutland, Vermont 05701. Availability of the Draft EIS

    Copies of the Draft EIS have been distributed to appropriate members of Congress, state and local government officials, American Indian tribal governments, and other Federal agencies, groups, and interested parties. Printed copies of the document may be obtained by contacting Mr. Mills at the above address. Copies of the Draft EIS and supporting documents are also available for inspection at the following locations:

    • South Hero Free Library—76 South Street, South Hero, Vermont • Fletcher Free Library—235 College Street, Burlington, Vermont • Winooski Public Library—32 Malletts Bay Avenue, Winooski, Vermont • Middlebury Library—75 Main Street, Middlebury, Vermont • Rutland Free Library—10 Court Street, Rutland, Vermont • West Rutland Library—595 Main Street, West Rutland, Vermont • Shrewsbury Library—98 Town Hill Road, Cuttingsville, Vermont • Gilbert Hart Library—14 S. Main Street, Wallingford, Vermont • Fair Haven Public Library—107 North Main Street, Fair Haven, Vermont • Mount Holly Town Library—26 Maple Hill Road, Belmont, Vermont • Bailey Memorial Library—111 Moulton Avenue, North Clarendon, Vermont

    The Draft EIS is also available on the EIS Web site at http://necplinkeis.com/ and on the DOE NEPA Web site at http://nepa.energy.gov/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 4, 2015. Patricia A. Hoffman, Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14335 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-96-000.

    Applicants: Osprey Energy Center, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

    Description: Osprey Energy Center, LLC and Duke Energy Florida, Inc submit additional information concerning the 3/13/15 application.

    Filed Date: 6/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150608-0019.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-154-000.

    Applicants: 67RK 8me LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of 67RK 8me LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-92-000.

    Applicants: Panda Liberty LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Panda Liberty LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-93-000.

    Applicants: Panda Patriot LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Panda Patriot LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-94-000.

    Applicants: Panda Stonewall LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Panda Stonewall LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2249-004.

    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.

    Description: Supplement to February 13, 2015 Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Portland General Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15

    Accession Number: 20150605-5237

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-80-006.

    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: OATT Order No. 1000 Amendment of 2014-2015 Compliance Filings to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150608-5080.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-86-006.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: FRCC Fourth Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150608-5076.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1210-001

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-06-08_Hoosier-SIPC RTO Adder Compliance to be effective 5/10/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150608-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1386-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): Service Agreement No. 343 Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1877-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-06-05_Consumers Schedules 7, 8, 9 & 26, Att WW to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1878-000

    Applicants: Champion Energy Marketing LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Seller Category Change to be effective 6/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1879-000.

    Applicants: Champion Energy Services, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Seller Category Change to be effective 6/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1880-000.

    Applicants: Champion Energy, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Seller Category Change to be effective 6/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1881-000.

    Applicants: Talen Energy Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Notice of Succession to Reactive Power Tariff to be effective 6/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1882-000.

    Applicants: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(ii): Revised Reactive Tariff to be effective 6/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5178.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1883-000.

    Applicants: Adelanto Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: Adelanto Solar, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 8/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1884-000.

    Applicants: EDF Energy Services, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): normal filing 2015 to be effective 6/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1885-000.

    Applicants: EDF Trading North America, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): normal filing 2015 to be effective 6/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150608-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1886-000.

    Applicants: EDF Industrial Power Services (CA), LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): normal filing 2015 to be effective 6/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150608-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1887-000.

    Applicants: EDF Industrial Power Services (IL), LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): normal filing 2015 to be effective 6/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150608-5003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1888-000.

    Applicants: EDF Industrial Power Services (NY), LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): normal filing 2015 to be effective 6/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150608-5004.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1889-000.

    Applicants: EDF Industrial Power Services (OH), LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): normal filing 2015 to be effective 6/8/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/8/15.

    Accession Number: 20150608-5005.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1890-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-06-05_MISO-PJM JOA 35% Filing to be effective 8/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5242.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1891-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 1067R4 East Texas Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5243.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    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: June 8, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14390 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR15-34-001.

    Applicants: Bridgeline Holdings, L.P.

    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e), (g): Rate Petition Filing 5-28-15 to be effective 4/1/2015; Filing Type: 1270.

    Filed Date: 5/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20150528-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/18/15.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1026-000.

    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.312: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. Section 4 Rate Case Filing to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5464.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-147-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Cost and Revenue Study of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150601-5438.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1042-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: June 5—30 2015 Auction to be effective 6/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150602-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1043-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2015-06-02 Encana to be effective 6/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150602-5104.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1044-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: GT&C Points of Receipt and Delivery to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150602-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/15.

    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 date(s). 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: June 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14388 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1011-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Non-Conforming Agreement_NESL_MSCG to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1012-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Update List of Non-Conforming Service Agreements (NESL_MSCG) to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5005.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1013-000.

    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): FL&U to be effective July 1, 2015 to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5007.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1014-000.

    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Annual Penalty Revenue Crediting Report 2015 to be effective 6/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1015-000.

    Applicants: MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): Quarterly FRP Filing to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1016-000.

    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.403: Periodic Rate Adjustment to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1017-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Non-Conforming Agreements Filing (PNM) to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5233.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1018-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: DTI—May 29, 2015 Nonconforming Service Agreement to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5238.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1019-000.

    Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): FL&U to be effective July 1, 2015 to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5247.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1020-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Penalty Charge Reconciliation Filing of Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5269.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1021-000.

    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Rate Schedule HSP to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5272.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1022-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: New Services Offering to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5277.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1023-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2015-05-29 Yates, ConocoPhillips to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5278.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1024-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2015-05-29 ITs Sequent, BP, Mieco, Tenaska, Exelon to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5307.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1025-000.

    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, L.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2015/5/29 Cross Timbers to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5365.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1027-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 05/29/15 Negotiated Rates—Cargill Incorporated (RTS) 3085-23 to be effective 5/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5467.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1028-000.

    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to RP15-904-000 to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5469.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1045-000.

    Applicants: American Midstream (AlaTenn), LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Off-System Capacity Filing to be effective 7/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150603-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1046-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Capacity Release Agreement- 6/03/2015 to be effective 6/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150603-5138.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1047-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: June 9—19 2015 Auction to be effective 6/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150603-5161.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/15.

    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: June 4, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14389 Filed 6-11-15; 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: ER15-1067-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2015-06-05_MMTG RTO Adder Compliance Supplement to be effective 6/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1410-002.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance Filing Appendix X Formula of TO Tariff to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150604-5154.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1496-001.

    Applicants: 2014 ESA Project Company, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2014 ESA Project Company, LLC—Supplemental MBR Filing to be effective 6/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150604-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1858-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Cert of Concurrence ANPP IA APS, LADWP, El Paso, PSC Nex Mexico, SRP, SCPPA, SCE to be effective 5/21/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5007.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1859-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2900R3 KMEA NITSA NOA to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1860-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Transmission Service Agreement Nos. 218 and 267 to be effective 9/16/2010.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1861-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): OATT Service Agreements to be effective 9/16/2010.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5080.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1862-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): OATT Service Agreements to be effective 8/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5081.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1863-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of SA No. 3237; Queue No. W4-093 to be effective 7/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1864-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Infigen Energy US Development LGIA Filing to be effective 5/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1865-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Cancelled Service Agreements to be effective 8/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1866-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: ISO New England Inc. Resource Termination Filing—Efficiency Maine Trust.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1867-000

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: ISO New England Inc. Resource Termination—Direct Energy Business Marketing, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1868-000.

    Applicants: Montour, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Succession Notice & Certification of Concurrance—Conemaugh to be effective 6/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1869-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA No. 3204; Queue W3-149 to be effective 7/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1870-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 1065R4 Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas NITSA and NOA to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1871-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service Agreement Nos. 344 and 345, Agreements with CSE and S&R to be effective 5/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1872-000.

    Applicants: Montour, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Succession Notice & Certification of Concurrance—Keystone to be effective 6/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1873-000.

    Applicants: Buckeye Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 8/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5141.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1873-001.

    Applicants: Buckeye Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Supplement to Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 8/5/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5148.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1874-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revisions to PJM-MISO JOA Attachment 3 re 35% Flowgates to be effective 8/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1875-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corp.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-06-05 Commitment Cost Enhancements Phase 2 to be effective 9/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1876-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-06-05_SA 6507 White Pine 1 SSR Agr Unanticipated Repairs to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-32-000

    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company

    Description: Application of Duquesne Light Company Pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for an Order Authorizing the Issuance of Short-Term Indebtedness.

    Filed Date: 6/5/15.

    Accession Number: 20150605-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH15-15-000.

    Applicants: Starwood Energy Group Global, L.L.C.

    Description: Starwood Energy Group Global, L.L.C. submits FERC 65-B Material Change in Facts of Waiver Notification.

    Filed Date: 6/4/15.

    Accession Number: 20150604-5211.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/25/15.

    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: June 5, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14387 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341; FRL-9929-15-OAR] Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Update of Two Chapters in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of data availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that two chapters of the current EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (“Control Cost Manual”) have been revised and updated. The EPA is requesting comment on the update of these two chapters, both of which deal with oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions control measures, and the supporting data and methods applied.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 11, 2015. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on submitting comments on the provided data.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341.

    Mail: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of 2 copies.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341. Such 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-OAR-2015-0341. 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/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 Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual update and on how to submit comments, contact Larry Sorrels, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Environmental Protection Agency, C439-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919) 541-5041; fax number: (919) 541-0839; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EPA is requesting comment on the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual update; in particular, on the specific Control Cost Manual chapters included in this notice.

    I. Additional Information on Submitting Comments A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA docket office specified in the Instructions, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    a. Identify the notification by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    b. Explain your comments, why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute data that reflects your requested changes.

    c. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    d. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    e. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    f. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. Information Available for Public Comment

    The EPA is requesting comment on two revised chapters of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. The Control Cost Manual contains individual chapters on control measures, with data and equations available to aid users to estimate the capital costs for installation and annual costs for operation and maintenance of these measures. The Control Cost Manual is used by the EPA for estimating the impacts of rulemakings, and serves as a basis for sources to estimate costs of controls that are best available control technology (BACT) under the New Source Review (NSR), and best available retrofit technology (BART) under the Regional Haze Program, and for other programs.

    The two revised Control Cost Manual chapters are the selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) chapters (Section 4, Chapters 1 and 2, respectively). The current Cost Manual version (sixth edition) is available at http://epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinfo, and was last updated in 2003. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 requested that the EPA begin development of a seventh edition of the Cost Manual. The EPA has met with state, local, and tribal officials to discuss plans for the Control Cost Manual update as called for under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. The EPA has met with other groups as well at their request.

    To help focus review of the SNCR and SCR chapters, we offer the following list of questions that the agency is particularly interested in addressing through this notice, although commenters are welcome to address any aspects of these chapters. Please provide supporting data for responses to these questions, and other aspects of the chapters, as mentioned above.

    For the SNCR chapter:

    (1) What is a reasonable estimate of equipment life (defined as design or operational life) for this control measure?

    (2) How do the costs of SNCR installation and operation differ between the electric power sector and industrial sources?

    (3) What is a reasonable estimate of contingency, whether it be for one or more types, for this control measure?

    For the SCR chapter:

    (1) What is a reasonable estimate of equipment life (defined as design or operational life) for this control measure?

    (2) How do the costs of SCR installation and operation differ between the electric power sector and industrial sources?

    (3) What are typical SCR costs for catalyst replacement? In particular, please comment on the two different approaches for estimating catalyst replacement costs in this chapter. What are typical SCR costs for catalyst regeneration?

    (4) What is a reasonable estimate of contingency, whether it be for one or more types, for this control measure?

    Dated: June 5, 2015. Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14470 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0233; FRL-9925-36] Chemical Safety Advisory Committee; Establishment of a Federal Advisory Committee; Request for Nominations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), we are giving notice that EPA recently established the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC). The purpose of the CSAC is to provide expert scientific advice, information, and recommendations to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). The major objective is to provide advice and recommendations on: The scientific basis for risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches. EPA has determined that this federal advisory committee is necessary and in the public interest and will assist the EPA in performing its duties and responsibilities. Copies of the CSAC charter will be filed with the appropriate congressional committees and the Library of Congress. EPA invites the public to nominate experts to be considered for the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your nominations, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0233, 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: OPPT Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura Bailey, (7201M), Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, email address: [email protected], telephone number: (202) 564-8450.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, disposal, and/or interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. What is EPA's authority?

    This committee is being established under FACA, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    II. Purpose and Function of the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee

    The CSAC was established under FACA section 9(a) to provide advice and recommendations on the scientific basis for risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches.

    OPPT manages programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. Under these laws, EPA evaluates new and existing chemical substances and their risks, and finds ways to prevent or reduce pollution before it is released into the environment. OPPT also manages a variety of environmental stewardship programs that encourage companies to reduce and prevent pollution.

    The CSAC will be composed of approximately ten members who will serve as Regular Government Employees (RGEs) or Special Government Employees (SGEs). The CSAC expects to meet in person or by electronic means (e.g., telephone, videoconference, webcast, etc.) approximately 3 to 4 times a year, or as needed and approved by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Meetings will be held in the Washington, DC or Virginia area. The CSAC will be examined annually and will exist until the EPA determines that the CSAC is no longer needed. The charter will be in effect for 2 years from the date it is filed with Congress. After the initial 2-year period, the charter may be renewed as authorized in accordance with section 14 of FACA (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, Section 14). A copy of the charter will be available on the EPA Web site and in the docket.

    III. Nominations Sought

    Nominations for membership are being solicited through publication of this document in the Federal Register and through other sources. Any interested person or organization may nominate him or herself or any qualified individual to be considered for the CSAC.

    Nominations should include candidates who have demonstrated high levels of competence, knowledge, and expertise in scientific/technical fields relevant to chemical risk assessment and pollution prevention. To the extent feasible, the members will include representation of the following disciplines, including, but not limited to: toxicology, pathology, environmental toxicology and chemistry, exposure assessment, and related sciences, e.g., synthetic biology, pharmacology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, biochemistry, biostatistics, pharmacologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, computational toxicology, epidemiology, environmental fate, and environmental engineering and sustainability. EPA values and welcomes diversity and encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.

    IV. Selection Criteria

    In selecting members, EPA will also consider the differing perspectives and breadth of collective experience needed to address EPA's charge to the CSAC, as well as the following:

    Demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively in a committee setting;

    Absence of financial conflicts of interest or the appearance of lack of impartiality;

    Skills and experience working on committees and advisory panels;

    Background and experiences that would contribute to the diversity of viewpoints on the committee, e.g., workforce sector; geographical location; social, cultural, and educational backgrounds; and professional affiliations;

    Willingness to commit adequate time for the thorough review of materials provided to the committee; and

    Availability to participate in committee meetings.

    Names, affiliations and a brief biographical sketch of the nominees selected to serve on the CSAC will be available on the EPA Web site.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    Dated: June 4, 2015. James Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14331 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0052; FRL-9929-14-OSWER] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Risk Management Program; Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances Under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).” (EPA ICR No. 1656.15, OMB Control No. 2050-0144) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2015. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0052, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Belke, Office of Emergency Management, mail code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8023; fax number: (202) 564-2625; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: The 1990 CAA Amendments added section 112(r) to provide for the prevention and mitigation of accidental releases. Section 112(r) mandates that EPA promulgate a list of “regulated substances” with threshold quantities and establish procedures for the addition and deletion of substances from the list of regulated substances. Processes at stationary sources that contain more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance are subject to accidental release prevention regulations promulgated under CAA section 112(r)(7). These two rules are codified as 40 CFR part 68.

    Part 68 requires that sources with more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process develop and implement a risk management program and submit a risk management plan to EPA. EPA uses risk management plans to conduct oversight of regulated sources, and to communicate information concerning them to federal, state, and local agencies and the public, as appropriate.

    The compliance schedule for the part 68 requirements was established by rule on June 20, 1996. The burden to sources that are currently covered by part 68, for initial rule compliance, including rule familiarization and program implementation was accounted for in previous ICRs. Sources submitted their first RMPs by June 21, 1999. For most sources, the next compliance deadlines occurred thereafter at five year intervals—in 2004, 2009, and 2014. A source submitting an RMP update to comply with their five-year compliance deadline will often submit their updated RMP several days or weeks early to ensure it is received by EPA before their deadline—these sources are assigned a new five-year deadline based off of the actual date of their most recent submission. Therefore, resubmissions tend to occur in “waves” peaking each fifth year. Some sources revised and resubmitted their RMPs between the five-year deadlines, because of changes occurring at the source that triggered an earlier resubmission. These sources were then assigned a new five-year compliance deadline based on the date of their most recent revised plan submission. However, since most sources are not required to resubmit earlier than their five-year compliance deadline, the next RMP submission deadline for most sources occurs in 2019. The remaining sources have been assigned a different deadline in 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2020 based on the date of their most recent submission. Only the first three years are within the period covered by this ICR.

    In this ICR, EPA has accounted for burden for new sources that may become subject to the regulations, currently covered sources with compliance deadlines in this ICR period (2016 to 2018), sources that are out of compliance since the last regulatory deadline but are expected to comply during this ICR period, and sources that have deadlines beyond this ICR period but are required to comply with certain prevention program documentation requirements during this ICR period.

    Form numbers: Risk Management Plan Form: EPA Form 8700-25; CBI Substantiation Form: EPA Form 8700-27; CBI Unsanitized Data Element Form: EPA Form 8700-28.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are chemical manufacturers, petroleum refineries, water treatment systems, agricultural chemical distributors, refrigerated warehouses, chemical distributors, non-chemical manufacturers, wholesale fuel distributors, energy generation facilities, etc.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 68).

    Estimated number of respondents: 12,600 (total).

    Frequency of response: Sources must resubmit RMPs at least every five years and update certain on-site documentation more frequently.

    Total estimated burden: 80,546 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $6,736,212 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: The above burden estimates are based on the current approved ICR. In the final notice for the renewed ICR, EPA will publish revised burden estimates based on updates to respondent data and unit costs. The revised burden estimates may decrease slightly from the current ICR, as the total universe of respondents has decreased slightly, and also because the new ICR period will not include a major (five-year) reporting cycle year. The most recent five-year reporting cycle year was 2014, which is covered by the current approved ICR. The next major five-year reporting cycle year is 2019, which is after the period covered by the new ICR. However, wage inflation may offset this decrease or even result in a marginal increase in burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    Dated: June 1, 2015. Reggie Cheatham, Acting Director, Office of Emergency Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14445 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9021-4] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 06/01/2015 Through 06/05/2015 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20150160, Draft, USFWS, HI, Na Pua Makani Wind Project and Habitat Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 08/11/2015, Contact: Jodi Charrier 808-792-9400. EIS No. 20150161, Draft, DOE, VT, New England Clean Power Link Transmission Line Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/11/2015, Contact: Brian Mills 202-586-8267. EIS No. 20150162, Draft Supplement, FTA, CA, Regional Connector Transit Corridor, Comment Period Ends: 07/27/2015, Contact: Mary Nguyen 213-202-3960. EIS No. 20150163, Final, BLM, CA, Soda Mountain Solar Project Proposed Plan Amendment, Review Period Ends: 07/13/2015, Contact: Jeff Childers 760-252-6000. EIS No. 20150164, Draft Supplement, BLM, UT, Alton Coal Tract Lease by Application, Comment Period Ends: 08/11/2015, Contact: Keith Rigtrup 435-865-3063. EIS No. 20150165, Final, APHIS, National, Feral Swine Damage Management—A National Approach, Review Period Ends: 07/13/2015, Contact: Kimberly Wagner 608-837-2727. EIS No. 20150166, Final, USFS, CO, Invasive Plant Management for the Medicine Bow- Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grasslands, Review Period Ends: 07/27/2015, Contact: Misty Hays 307-358-7102. EIS No. 20150167, Final, USFS, MT, Como Forest Health Project (FHP), Review Period Ends: 07/13/2015, Contact: Sara Grove 406-821-3269. Dated: June 9, 2015. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14435 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, to consider the following matters:

    Summary Agenda: No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.

    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.

    Memorandum and resolution re: Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Revisions Applicable to Banking Organizations Subject to the Advanced Approaches Risk-Based Capital Rule.

    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule to Implement Requirements of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act and the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.

    Summary reports, status reports, reports of the Office of Inspector General, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.

    Discussion Agenda

    Memorandum and resolution re: Deposit Insurance Assessments for Small Banks.

    The meeting will be held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC

    This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the event. Visit https://fdic.primetime.mediaplatform.com/#!/channel/1232003497484/Board+Meetings to view the event. If you need any technical assistance, please visit our Video Help page at: http://www.fdic.gov/video.html.

    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call 703-562-2404 (Voice) or 703-649-4354 (Video Phone) to make necessary arrangements.

    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-7043.

    Dated: June 9, 2015.

    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.

    Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14500 Filed 6-10-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 9, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:

    1. CF Mutual Holding Company and CF Bancorp, Inc., both in Cincinnati, Ohio, to become savings and loan holding companies, by acquiring Cincinnati Federal Savings Loan Association, Cincinnati, Ohio.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 9, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14407 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-0221; Docket 2015-0001; Sequence 3] Submission to OMB for Review; Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure (GSA Form 9534 Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Subpoena; Form 4 Government Certificate of Finality; Form 5 Appellant/Applicant Certificate of Finality) AGENCY:

    Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, GSA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments regarding a reinstatement to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) Rules of Procedure. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 13002, on March 12, 2015. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before: July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection IC 3090-0221, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure, by any of the following methods:

    • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB Control number 3090-0221. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection IC 3090-0221, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0221, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure” on your attached document.

    • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC, 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-0221, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-0221, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure, in all correspondence related to this collection. 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:

    J. Gregory Parks, Chief Counsel, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-606-8800 or via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    The CBCA requires the information collected in order to conduct proceedings in contract appeals and petitions, and cost applications. Parties include those persons or entities filing appeals, petitions, cost applications, and government agencies.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 85.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Hours per Response: .1.

    Total Burden Hours: 9.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0221, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure, in all correspondence.

    Dated: June 4, 2015. David A. Shive, Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14446 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-AL-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Agency Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements Under Emergency Review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

    Title: Immediate Disaster Case Management Intake Assessment.

    OMB No.: 0970-New.

    Description

    Section 426 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5189d authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Department of Health Services' Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to provide Immediate Disaster Case Management (IDCM) services under the federal Disaster Case Management Program (DCMP).

    The use of the Electronic Case Management Record System (ECMRS) is aligned with Executive Order of the President 13589 and the memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies M-12-12 from the Office of Management and Budget to “Promote Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations.”

    The primary purpose of the information collection pertains to ACF/OHSEPR's initiative to improve the intake process and delivery of case management services to individuals and households impacted by a disaster. Further, the information collection will be used to support ACF/OHSEPR's goal to quickly identify critical gaps, resources, needs, and services to support State, local and non-profit capacity for disaster case management and to augment and build capacity where none exists.

    There are two versions of this Paper Reduction Act request: (1) paper intake assessment that will be used until ECMRS is implemented and operational and (2) Electronic Case Record platform. The ECMRS will greatly reduce respondent burden through built-in algorithms that will streamline response options and patterns. All information gathered will be exclusively used to inform the delivery of disaster case management services and programmatic strategies and improvements.

    Respondents: Individuals impacted by a major disaster.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    IDCM Intake Assessment 3,500 1 40 minutes 140,000 minutes Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 140,000 minutes.
    Additional Information

    ACF is requesting that OMB grant a 180 day approval for this information collection under procedures for emergency processing by June 19, 2015. A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Administration for Children and Families, Reports Clearance Officer, Robert Sargis at (202) 690-7275.

    Comments and questions about the information collection described above should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACF, Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; FAX: (202) 395-7285; email:[email protected]

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14400 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0543] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Waivers of Invivo Demonstration of Bioequivalence of Animal Drugs in Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form and Type A Medicated Articles AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled, “Waivers of Invivo Demonstration of Bioequivalence of Animal Drugs in Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form and Type A Medicated Articles” 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 April 24, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled, “Waivers of Invivo Demonstration of Bioequivalence of Animal Drugs in Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form and Type A Medicated Articles” 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 0910-0575. 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: June 9, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy<E T="03">.</E>
    [FR Doc. 2015-14436 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0634] Cell-Based Products for Animal Use; Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry #218 (GFI #218) entitled “Cell-Based Products for Animal Use.” FDA is aware that many potential veterinary therapies may be produced using cell-based products. GFI #218 describes FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine's current thinking on cell-based products for animal use that meet the definition of a new animal drug. This guidance is for persons developing, manufacturing, or marketing cell-based products, including “animal stem cell-based products”.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynne Boxer, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-114), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0611, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44803), FDA published the notice of availability for a draft guidance for industry #218 entitled “Cell-Based Products for Animal Use” giving interested persons until September 30, 2014, to comment on the draft guidance. FDA received several comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. Editorial changes were made to improve clarity. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated August 1, 2014.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on Cell-Based Products for Animal Use. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 and 21 CFR 511.1 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0032 and 0910-0117, respectively.

    IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14360 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1030] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Food Allergen Labeling and Reporting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Food Allergen Labeling and Reporting” 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 30, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Food Allergen Labeling and Reporting” 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 0910-0792. 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: June 9, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14437 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0793] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Device Recall Authority AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0432. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Medical Device Recall Authority—21 CFR 810 (OMB Control Number 0910-0432)—Extension

    This collection of information implements section 518(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360h(e)) and part 810 (21 CFR part 810), medical device recall authority provisions. Section 518(e) of the FD&C Act provides FDA with the authority to issue an order requiring an appropriate person, including manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers of a device, if FDA finds that there is reasonable probability that the device intended for human use would cause serious adverse health consequences or death, to: (1) Immediately cease distribution of such device; (2) immediately notify health professionals and device-user facilities of the order; and (3) instruct such professionals and facilities to cease use of such device.

    Further, the provisions under section 518(e) of the FD&C Act set out the following three-step procedure for issuance of a mandatory device recall order:

    • If there is a reasonable probability that a device intended for human use would cause serious, adverse health consequences or death, FDA may issue a cease distribution and notification order requiring the appropriate person to immediately:

    ○ Cease distribution of the device,

    ○ notify health professionals and device user facilities of the order, and

    ○ instruct those professionals and facilities to cease use of the device;

    • FDA will provide the person named in the cease distribution and notification order with the opportunity for an informal hearing on whether the order should be modified, vacated, or amended to require a mandatory recall of the device; and

    • After providing the opportunity for an informal hearing, FDA may issue a mandatory recall order if the Agency determines that such an order is necessary.

    The information collected under the recall authority provisions will be used by FDA to do the following: (1) Ensure that all devices entering the market are safe and effective; (2) accurately and immediately detect serious problems with medical devices; and (3) remove dangerous and defective devices from the market.

    In the Federal Register of March 11, 2015 (80 FR 13586), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Collection activity—21 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Collections Specified in the Order—810.10(d) 2 1 2 8 16 Request for Regulatory Hearing—810.11(a) 1 1 1 8 8 Written Request for Review—810.12(a-b) 1 1 1 8 8 Mandatory Recall Strategy—810.14 2 1 2 16 32 Periodic Status Reports—810.16(a-b) 2 12 24 40 960 Termination Request—810.17(a) 2 1 2 8 16 Total Hours 1,040 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 Collection activity—21 CFR Section Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    Documentation of Notifications to Recipients—810.15(b) 2 1 1 8 8 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 3—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 Collection Activity—21 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures
  • per respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours
    Notification to Recipients—810.15(a)-(c) 2 1 2 12 24 Notification to Recipients; Followup—810.15(d) 2 1 2 4 8 Notification of Consignees by Recipients—810.15(e) 10 1 10 1 10 Total 42 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: June 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14359 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0776] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Reclassification Petitions for Medical Devices AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0138. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Reclassification Petitions for Medical Devices (OMB Control Number 0910-0138)—Extension

    Under sections 513(e) and (f), 514(b), 515(b), and 520(l) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(e) and (f), 360d(b), 360e(b), and 360j(l)) and part 860 (21 CFR part 860), subpart C, FDA has responsibility to collect data and information contained in reclassification petitions. The reclassification provisions of the FD&C Act allow any person to petition for reclassification of a device from any of the three classes, i.e., I, II, and III, to another class. The reclassification content regulation (§ 860.123) requires the submission of valid scientific evidence demonstrating that the proposed reclassification will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device type for its indications for use.

    The reclassification procedure regulation requires the submission of specific data when a manufacturer is petitioning for reclassification. This includes a “Supplemental Data Sheet,” Form FDA 3427, and a “General Device Classification Questionnaire,” Form FDA 3429. Both forms contain a series of questions concerning the safety and effectiveness of the device type.

    In the Federal Register of March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16252), FDA issued a proposed rule that would eliminate the need for Forms FDA 3427 and FDA 3429. However, because the proposed rule has not been finalized, we continue to include the forms in the burden estimate for this information collection.

    The reclassification provisions of the FD&C Act serve primarily as a vehicle for manufacturers to seek reclassification from a higher to a lower class, thereby reducing the regulatory requirements applicable to a particular device type, or to seek reclassification from a lower to a higher class, thereby increasing the regulatory requirements applicable to that device type. If approved, petitions requesting classification from class III to class II or class I provide an alternative route to market in lieu of premarket approval for class III devices. If approved, petitions requesting reclassification from class I or II, to a different class, may increase requirements.

    In the Federal Register of March 10, 2015 (80 FR 12642), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. One comment was received.

    The comment refers to changes to the form FDA 3429 as proposed by the commenter in a citizen petition (FDA-2014-P-0283-0001), which was subsequently denied by FDA in a final response letter to the petitioner (FDA-2014-P-0283-0003). Because the proposed changes have already been denied through the citizen petition process, we have not made changes to this information collection based on the comment.

    The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) has continually maintained contact with industry. Informal communications concerning the importance and effect of reclassification are provided primarily through trade organizations, and via CDRH's Web site. The consensus from the Agency's most recent contact with these trade organizations is that they are in favor of the program. The trade organizations involved are AdvaMed, the Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI), and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA):

    AdvaMed, Tara Federici, 1030 15th Street NW., suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005, 202-452-8240;

    Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI), 1000 Vermont Ave. NW., suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, 202-371-1420; and National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), 1300 North 17th Street, suite 1847, Rosslyn, VA 22209, 703-841-3200.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity FDA Form Nos. Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Supporting data for reclassification petition 6 1 6 497 2,982 Supplemental Data Sheet 3427 6 1 6 1.5 9 General Device Classification Questionnaire 3429 6 1 6 1.5 9 Total 3,000 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on reclassification petitions received in the last 3 years, FDA anticipates that six petitions will be submitted each year. The time required to prepare and submit a reclassification petition, including the time needed to assemble supporting data, averages 500 hours per petition. This average is based upon estimates by FDA administrative and technical staff who: (1) Are familiar with the requirements for submission of a reclassification petition, (2) have consulted and advised manufacturers on these requirements, and (3) have reviewed the documentation submitted.

    This document refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120 and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231.

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14358 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-P-1197] Medical Devices; Exemption From Premarket Notification: Electric Positioning Chair AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that it has received a petition requesting exemption from the premarket notification requirements for an electric positioning chair with a motorized positioning control that is intended for medical purposes and that can be adjusted to various positions. The device is used to provide stability for patients with athetosis (involuntary spasms) and to alter postural positions. FDA is publishing this notice to obtain comments in accordance with procedures established by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments by July 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2015-P-1197, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

    Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following way:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jismi Johnson, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1524, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6424, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory Background

    Under section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c), FDA must classify devices into one of three regulatory classes: Class I, class II, or class III. FDA classification of a device is determined by the amount of regulation necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94-295), as amended by the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), devices are to be classified into class I (general controls) if there is information showing that the general controls of the FD&C Act are sufficient to assure safety and effectiveness; into class II (special controls) if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance; and into class III (premarket approval) if there is insufficient information to support classifying a device into class I or class II and the device is a life sustaining or life supporting device, or is for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health or presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.

    Most generic types of devices that were on the market before the date of the 1976 amendments (May 28, 1976) (generally referred to as preamendments devices) have been classified by FDA under the procedures set forth in section 513(c) and (d) of the FD&C Act through the issuance of classification regulations into one of these three regulatory classes. Devices introduced into interstate commerce for the first time on or after May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices), are classified through the premarket notification process under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k). Section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and the implementing regulations, 21 CFR part 807, require persons who intend to market a new device to submit a premarket notification (510(k)) containing information that allows FDA to determine whether the new device is “substantially equivalent” within the meaning of section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a legally marketed device that does not require premarket approval.

    On November 21, 1997, the President signed into law FDAMA (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 206 of FDAMA, in part, added a new section, 510(m), to the FD&C Act. Section 510(m)(1) of the FD&C Act requires FDA, within 60 days after enactment of FDAMA, to publish in the Federal Register a list of each type of class II device that does not require a report under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act further provides that a 510(k) will no longer be required for these devices upon the date of publication of the list in the Federal Register. FDA published that list in the Federal Register of January 21, 1998 (63 FR 3142).

    Section 510(m)(2) of the FD&C Act provides that 1 day after date of publication of the list under section 510(m)(1), FDA may exempt a device on its own initiative or upon petition of an interested person if FDA determines that a 510(k) is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. This section requires FDA to publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to exempt a device, or of the petition, and to provide a 30-day comment period. Within 120 days of publication of this document, FDA must publish in the Federal Register its final determination regarding the exemption of the device that was the subject of the notice. If FDA fails to respond to a petition under this section within 180 days of receiving it, the petition shall be deemed granted.

    II. Criteria for Exemption

    There are a number of factors FDA may consider to determine whether a 510(k) is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of a class II device. These factors are discussed in the guidance the Agency issued on February 19, 1998, entitled “Procedures for Class II Device Exemptions from Premarket Notification, Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff.” That guidance is available through the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM080199.pdf. Send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document or send a fax request to 301-847-8149 to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number 159 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    III. Proposed Class II Device Exemptions

    FDA has received the following petition requesting an exemption from premarket notification for a class II device: Brian Orwat, Stryker Medical, 3800 East Centre Ave., Portage, MI 49002 for its electric positioning chair classified under 21 CFR 890.3110.

    IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 9, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14434 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-2001] Assessment of Male-Mediated Developmental Risk for Pharmaceuticals; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Assessment of Male-Mediated Developmental Risk for Pharmaceuticals.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to sponsors for assessing risks to embryo/fetal development resulting from administration of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) to males either through an effect on the male germ cell or from fetal exposure following seminal transfer of a potentially developmental toxicant to pregnant females. The need for measures to mitigate the risk to embryo/fetal development posed by males participating in clinical trials is also addressed.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynnda Reid, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5388, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Assessment of Male-Mediated Developmental Risk for Pharmaceuticals.” This guidance presents an overview of FDA's current approach to assessing potential risks associated with pharmaceutical use in male patients. Current regulatory guidance exists regarding the need to assess the genotoxic and embryo/fetal developmental toxicity potential of pharmaceuticals before their administration to pregnant women and females of reproductive potential. However, there is a lack of consistency in clinical trial protocol designs and labeling documents regarding pregnancy risk for sexual partners of men being administered an API. The conceptus of a female sexual partner may be subject to developmental risk associated with pre- or post-conception exposure of a male to an API. Such male-mediated developmental toxicity may result from an effect of the API on the male germ cell before conception or occur as a result of direct exposure of the conceptus to the pharmaceutical following seminal transfer and vaginal uptake in a pregnant partner.

    This draft guidance provides recommendations for addressing the potential for male-mediated adverse effects on pregnancy outcome for sponsors developing an investigational drug. Topics covered include: (1) Factors that investigators should consider when testing a new API in males, (2) nonclinical studies relevant to the assessment of male-mediated developmental risks, and (3) measures to prevent pregnancy or seminal transfer to a pregnant sexual partner when risk is either unknown or anticipated.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the assessment of male-mediated developmental risk for pharmaceuticals. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014.

    III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14363 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-E-1656] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; XELJANZ AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for XELJANZ and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Campus, Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-7900.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product XELJANZ (tofacitinib citrate). XELJANZ is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for XELJANZ (U.S. Patent No. RE41,783) from Pfizer Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 26, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of XELJANZ represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for XELJANZ is 3,947 days. Of this time, 3,564 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 383 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: January 18, 2002. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on January 18, 2002.

    2. The dat