Federal Register Vol. 80, No.121,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 121 (June 24, 2015)

Page Range36231-36463
FR Document

80_FR_121
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 36463 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Western BalkansPDF
80 FR 36461 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to North KoreaPDF
80 FR 36457 - Father's Day, 2015PDF
80 FR 36345 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 36346 - Designation of Nepal for Temporary Protected StatusPDF
80 FR 36306 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2PDF
80 FR 36395 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “The Wrath of the Gods: Masterpieces by Michelangelo, Titian and Rubens” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 36395 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Picasso Sculpture” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 36320 - Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 36319 - Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 36353 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Rent Reform Demonstration (Task Order 2)PDF
80 FR 36351 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Voucher Management System (VMS)PDF
80 FR 36352 - Notice of Emergency Approval Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB; Emergency Comment Request Pay for Success Demonstration ApplicationPDF
80 FR 36316 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 36321 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NIST SURF Program Student Applicant InformationPDF
80 FR 36336 - Registration Review; Dockets Opened for Review and CommentPDF
80 FR 36335 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen SuitPDF
80 FR 36323 - Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
80 FR 36399 - Denial of Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
80 FR 36397 - Hours of Service of Drivers: B.R. Kreider & Son, Inc.'s Application for ExemptionPDF
80 FR 36365 - Thomas Saporito on Behalf of Saprodani AssociatesPDF
80 FR 36341 - Submission to OMB for Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract AwardsPDF
80 FR 36356 - Minority Depository Institution Preservation ProgramPDF
80 FR 36401 - Applications for ExemptionPDF
80 FR 36340 - Commission To Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities; Announcement of MeetingPDF
80 FR 36395 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 36341 - Notice of the General Services Administration's Labor-Management Relations Council MeetingPDF
80 FR 36249 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Atlantic DolphinPDF
80 FR 36398 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 36343 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Authorized NegotiatorsPDF
80 FR 36250 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Atka Mackerel in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
80 FR 36305 - Per Diem Paid to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State Homes; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 36344 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 36364 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
80 FR 36251 - Petition To Amend the Reporting Requirements for Research Facilities Under the Animal Welfare Act RegulationsPDF
80 FR 36317 - In the Matter of: Armin Shir Mohammadi, 22505 Rio Aliso Drive, Lake Forest, CA 92630-5514; Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
80 FR 36339 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 36332 - Cameron LNG, LLC, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Cameron Lng Expansion Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 36329 - Pershing County Water Conservation District, Nevada; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 36334 - Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Compliance FilingPDF
80 FR 36328 - Soldier Canyon Filter Plant; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
80 FR 36328 - PacifiCorp Energy; Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft and Final Environmental Assessment and Revised Procedural SchedulePDF
80 FR 36333 - Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective DatePDF
80 FR 36331 - Florida Gas Transmission Company LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 36330 - Combined Notice Of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 36327 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 36401 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 36354 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 36247 - Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning PurposesPDF
80 FR 36247 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source CategoriesPDF
80 FR 36393 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed RequestPDF
80 FR 36252 - Regulatory Publication and Review Under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996PDF
80 FR 36264 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Newberry, MIPDF
80 FR 36355 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Welfare-to-Work Tax CreditPDF
80 FR 36363 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 36242 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 36306 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 36265 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, OHPDF
80 FR 36262 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Iron Mountain, MIPDF
80 FR 36239 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Revision to Allegheny County Regulations for Establishing Permit FeesPDF
80 FR 36385 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Amending Sections 312.03(b) and 312.04 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Exempt Early Stage Companies From Having To Obtain Shareholder Approval Before Issuing Shares for Cash to Related Parties, Affiliates of Related Parties or Entities In Which a Related Party has a Substantial InterestPDF
80 FR 36372 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of Newfleet Multi-Sector Unconstrained Bond ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
80 FR 36388 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Series 4 Examination ProgramPDF
80 FR 36386 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rules 6.74A and 6.74BPDF
80 FR 36380 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3 Thereto, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the ALPS Enhanced Put Write Strategy ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
80 FR 36391 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 36367 - Amplify Investments LLC and Amplify ETF Trust; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 36322 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 36323 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 36344 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 36346 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 36344 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 36402 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel GABRA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 36325 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; School Climate Surveys (SCLS) Benchmark Study 2016PDF
80 FR 36350 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Monthly Report on Naturalization Papers, Form N-4, Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 36236 - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Loan Guarantees Issued Under the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015-Standard Terms and ConditionsPDF
80 FR 36280 - Transmission Operations Reliability Standards and Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability StandardsPDF
80 FR 36293 - Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” and Related Reliability StandardsPDF
80 FR 36234 - Revised Exhibit Submission Requirements for Commission HearingsPDF
80 FR 36334 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 36326 - Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC (Complainant v. PacifiCorp (Respondent); Notice of Amended ComplaintPDF
80 FR 36331 - Western Area Power Administration; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 36326 - Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 36404 - Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 2008 Cadillac Escalade Multipurpose Vehicles Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
80 FR 36406 - Tireco, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
80 FR 36403 - Tesla Motors, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
80 FR 36231 - Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Procedures for Conduct of Sign-up PeriodPDF
80 FR 36363 - Committee Management; Notice of ReestablishmentPDF
80 FR 36355 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent DecreePDF
80 FR 36366 - Pendency of Request for Exemption From the Bond/Escrow Requirement Relating to the Sale of Assets by an Employer Who Contributes to a Multiemployer Plan; Harrington Air Systems, LLC and J.C. Cannistraro, LLCPDF
80 FR 36248 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Case 2006-G506; Environmental, Conservation, Occupational Safety and Drug-Free WorkplacePDF
80 FR 36301 - Issue Price Definition for Tax-Exempt BondsPDF
80 FR 36338 - Pesticides; Risk Management Approach To Identifying Options for Protecting the Monarch Butterfly; Notice of Availability and Public Comment OpportunityPDF
80 FR 36315 - Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD); Proposed Pesticide Tolerance; Technical CorrectionPDF
80 FR 36255 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 36318 - Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada and the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Canada and the People's Republic of China, and Continuation of the Countervailing Duty Order on the People's Republic of ChinaPDF
80 FR 36258 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 36407 - Treasury Public Engagement PagesPDF
80 FR 36231 - Removal of Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board RegulationsPDF
80 FR 36246 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New Mexico; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution Affecting VisibilityPDF
80 FR 36314 - Notification of Submission to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services; Pesticides; Revisions to Minimum Risk ExemptionPDF
80 FR 36261 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Stockton, CAPDF
80 FR 36409 - Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance ProgramPDF
80 FR 36267 - Amendment to the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley ActPDF

Issue

80 121 Wednesday, June 24, 2015 Contents Agency Agency for International Development RULES Loan Guarantees: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 36236-36239 2015-15435 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Procedures for Conduct of Sign-up Period, 36231-36234 2015-15423 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36316 2015-15434
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Petition to Amend the Reporting Requirements for Research Facilities under the Animal Welfare Act Regulations, 36251-36252 2015-15499 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36344 2015-15502 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36316-36317 2015-15532
Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Authorized Negotiators, 36343-36344 2015-15508 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards, 36341-36343 2015-15516 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: School Climate Surveys Benchmark Study 2016, 36325 2015-15438 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Connecticut; Ambient Air Quality Standards, 36242-36246 2015-15463 New Mexico; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, etc., 36246-36247 2015-15322 Pennsylvania; Revision to Allegheny County Regulations for Establishing Permit Fees, 36239-36242 2015-15458 Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; CFR Correction, 36247 2015-15482 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; CFR Correction, 36247 2015-15481 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Connecticut; Ambient Air Quality Standards, 36306 2015-15462 Michigan; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Michigan State Board Requirements, 36306-36314 2015-15556 Pesticide Tolerances: Banda de Lupinus albus doce; Technical Correction, 36315 2015-15403 Pesticides: Minimum Risk Exemption; Draft Regulatory Document Submitted to Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, 36314-36315 2015-15313 NOTICES Pesticides: Risk Management Approach to Identifying Options for Protecting the Monarch Butterfly, 36338-36339 2015-15405 Proposed Consent Decrees: Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 36335-36336 2015-15523 Registration Reviews, 36336-36338 2015-15526 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 36255-36261 2015-15398 2015-15400 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace: Ohio State University Airport, Columbus, OH; and Columbus, OH, 36265-36267 2015-15461 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Stockton, CA, 36261-36262 2015-15281 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Iron Mountain, MI, 36262-36264 2015-15459 Newberry, MI, 36264-36265 2015-15470 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36339-36340 2015-15496 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Revised Exhibit Submission Requirements for Commission Hearings, 36234-36236 2015-15431 PROPOSED RULES Reliability Standards: Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Definition of Remedial Action Scheme and Related Reliability Standards, 36293-36301 2015-15432 Transmission Operations Reliability Standards and Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards, 36280-36293 2015-15433 NOTICES Applications: Pershing County Water Conservation District, NV, 36329-36330 2015-15493 Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, 36326 2015-15427 Combined Filings, 36327-36328, 36330-36331, 36334-36335 2015-15430 2015-15486 2015-15487 Complaints: Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC v. PacifiCorp; Amendment, 36326-36327 2015-15429 Compliance Filings: Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 36334 2015-15492 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Cameron LNG Expansion Project; Cameron LNG, LLC, 36332-36333 2015-15494 PacifiCorp Energy, 36328 2015-15490 Filings: Western Area Power Administration, 36331-36332 2015-15428 Institution of Proceedings and Refund Effective Dates: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 36333-36334 2015-15489 Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facilities: Soldier Canyon Filter Plant, 36328-36329 2015-15491 Requests under Blanket Authorization: Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC, 36331 2015-15488 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: B.R. Kreider and Son, Inc., 36397-36398 2015-15519 Denial of Applications, 36401 2015-15514 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders; Denials, 36399-36400 2015-15520 Vision, 36395-36399 2015-15509 2015-15512 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule; Amendment, 36267-36279 2015-14328 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36401-36402 2015-15485 General Services General Services Administration RULES General Services Administration Acquisition Regulations: Environmental, Conservation, Occupational Safety and Drug-Free Workplace, 36248-36249 2015-15413 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Authorized Negotiators, 36343-36344 2015-15508 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards, 36341-36343 2015-15516 Meetings: Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, 36340-36341 2015-15513 Labor-Management Relations Council, 36341 2015-15511 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Pay for Success Demonstration Application, 36352 2015-15534 Rent Reform Demonstration (Task Order 2), 36353-36354 2015-15536 Voucher Management System, 36351-36352 2015-15535 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Denials of Export Privileges: Armin Shir Mohammadi, 36317-36318 2015-15497 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Issue Price Definition for Tax-Exempt Bonds, 36301-36305 2015-15411 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People's Republic of China, 36318-36319 2015-15399 Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 36319-36320 2015-15537 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 36320-36321 2015-15538 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees: United States v. Suellyn Rader Blymyer, et al., 36355 2015-15418 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit, 36355-36356 2015-15469 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee, 36354-36355 2015-15483 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel GABRA, 36402-36403 2015-15440 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulation; Authorized Negotiators, 36343-36344 2015-15508 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards, 36341-36343 2015-15516 National Credit National Credit Union Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Publication and Review under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, 36252-36255 2015-15472 NOTICES Minority Depository Institution Preservation Program, 36356-36363 2015-15515 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Import Eligibility: Nonconforming 2008 Cadillac Escalade Multipurpose Vehicles, 36404-36406 2015-15426 Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance: Tesla Motors, Inc., 36403-36404 2015-15424 Tireco, Inc., 36406-36407 2015-15425 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NIST Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program Student Applicant Information, 36321-36322 2015-15531 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 36345 2015-15604 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 36344 2015-15442 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 36344-36345 2015-15444 National Institute on Aging, 36346 2015-15443 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Atlantic Dolphin; Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure, 36249-36250 2015-15510 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Atka Mackerel in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 36250 2015-15504 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36322-36323 2015-15446 2015-15447 2015-15448 Permits: Applications for Exempted Fishing Permits, 36323-36325 2015-15522 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36363-36364 2015-15465 Permit Applications under the Antarctic Conservation Act, 36364-36365 2015-15501 Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering; Reestablishment, 36363 2015-15421 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Petitions: Thomas Saporito; Saprodani Associates; Decision, 36365-36366 2015-15518 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Requests for Exemptions: Harrington Air Systems, LLC and J.C. Cannistraro, LLC; Bond/Escrow Requirement Relating to Sale of Assets by Employers Who Contributes to Multiemployer Plans, 36366-36367 2015-15415 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Father's Day (Proc. 9296), 36457-36460 2015-15698 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS North Korea; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of June 22, 2015), 36461-36462 2015-15701 Western Balkans; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of June 22, 2015), 36463 2015-15707 Recovery Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board RULES Removal of Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board Regulations, 36231 2015-15359 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service RULES Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, 36410-36455 2015-14989 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service RULES Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, 36410-36455 2015-14989 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Amplify Investments, LLC and Amplify ETF Trust, 36367-36372 2015-15450 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 36391-36393 2015-15451 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 36386-36388 2015-15453 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 36388-36391 2015-15454 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 36385 2015-15456 NYSE Arca, Inc., 36372-36385 2015-15452 2015-15455 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36393-36395 2015-15480 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Picasso Sculpture, 36395 2015-15539 The Wrath of the Gods -- Masterpieces by Michelangelo, Titian and Rubens, 36395 2015-15540 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Treasury Public Engagement Pages, 36407-36408 2015-15372
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Monthly Report on Naturalization Papers, 36350-36351 2015-15436 Temporary Protected Status: Nepal; Designation, 36346-36350 2015-15576 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES Per Diem Paid to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State Homes; Correction, 36305-36306 2015-15503 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Agriculture Department, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 36410-36455 2015-14989 Agriculture Department, Rural Utilities Service, 36410-36455 2015-14989 Part III Presidential Documents, 36457-36463 2015-15698 2015-15701 2015-15707 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.

80 121 Wednesday, June 24, 2015 Rules and Regulations RECOVERY ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY BOARD 4 CFR Chapter II Removal of Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board Regulations AGENCY:

Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (Board) previously issued regulations pertaining to the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Information and Requests, and the Board's Official Seal. These are the only Board issued regulations codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. On September 30, 2015, the Board is required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended, to terminate. After that date, because the Board will cease to exist, there will be no need for the Board's regulations. Accordingly, this final rule removes the Board's regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations effective September 30, 2015.

DATES:

This rule is effective September 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Atticus J. Reaser, General Counsel, (202) 254-7900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Information

Chapter II of Title 4 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains all regulations previously issued by the Board, including: (1) Regulations pertaining to the Privacy Act of 1974 in Part 200; (2) regulations pertaining to Public Information and Requests in Part 201; and (3) regulations pertaining to the Board's Official Seal in Part 202. These are the only Board issued regulations codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 1530 of the Board's enabling legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5, as amended, requires that the Board terminate on September 30, 2015. After that date, because the Board will cease to exist, there will be no need for the Board's regulations or Chapter II of Title 4 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Through this final rule, the Board's regulations and Chapter II of Title 4 are removed from the Code of Federal Regulations effective September 30, 2015.

Administrative Procedure Act

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Board finds good cause exists for waiving the general notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment as to this rule. Notice and comment before the effective date are being waived because this rule and the resulting removal of the Board's regulations arise out of a matter regarding which the Board has no discretion—namely, the termination of the Board on September 30, 2015. As the Board has no discretion, public comment is unnecessary.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

The Board has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The Board has determined that this rule is non-significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this rule is not required to be and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

These proposed regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

These proposed regulations impose no additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget is not required.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

This rule does not have Federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. 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.

Congressional Review Act

The Board has determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804. The rule is being submitted to both Houses of Congress and the Comptroller General in accordance with the Congressional Review Act.

List of Subjects 4 CFR Part 200

Administrative practice and procedure, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

4 CFR Part 201

Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

4 CFR Part 202

Official seal.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble and pursuant to sec. 1530, Public Law. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (as amended) and general rulemaking authority, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board amends title 4 of the Code of Federal Regulations by removing Chapter II in its entirety, consisting of parts 200, 201, and 202.

4 CFR Chapter II [Removed] Dated: June 16, 2015. Kathleen S. Tighe, Chair, Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-15359 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6821-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1205 [AMS-CN-12-0059] Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Procedures for Conduct of Sign-up Period AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the rules and regulations regarding the procedures for the conduct of a sign-up period for eligible cotton producers and importers to request a continuance referendum on the 1991 amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (Order) provided in the 1990 amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (Act). The amendments update various dates, name changes, addresses, and make other administrative changes.

DATES:

Effective Date: July 24, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shethir M. Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action has been designated as a “non-significant regulatory action” under § 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process.

Executive Order 13175

This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this rule would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant tribal implications.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) (Act) provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 12 of the Act, any person subject to an order may file with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the District Court of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling, provided a complaint is filed within 20 days from the date of the entry of ruling.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) [5 U.S.C. 601-612], the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has examined the economic impact of this rule on small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (importers) as having receipts of no more than $7,000,000. In 2014, an estimated 16,000 producers, and approximately 20,000 importers were subject to the order. The majority of these producers and importers are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration.

There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Only those eligible persons who are in favor of conducting a referendum would need to participate in the sign-up period. Of the 46,220 total valid ballots received in the 1991 referendum, 27,879, or 60 percent, favored the amendments to the Order, and 18,341, or 40 percent, opposed the amendments to the Order. This rule will provide those persons who are not in favor of the continuance of the Order amendments an opportunity to request a continuance referendum.

The eligibility and participation requirements for producers and importers are substantially the same as the rules that established the eligibility and participation requirements for the 1991 referendum, and for the 1997, 2001, and 2007 sign-up periods. The sign-ups in 1997, 2001, and 2007 sign-ups did not generate the required number of signatures to hold another referendum. The amendments in this action would update various dates, name changes, addresses, and make other miscellaneous changes.

The sign-up procedures would not impose a substantial burden or have a significant impact on persons subject to the Order, because participation is not mandatory, not all persons subject to the Order are expected to participate, and USDA will determine producer and importer eligibility. The information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act are minimal.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collections proposed by this rule will be carried out under the OMB Control Number 0581-0093. This rule will not add to the overall burden currently approved by OMB and assigned OMB Control Number 0581-0093 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This OMB Control Number is referenced in section 1205.541 of the regulations.

Background

The 1991 amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (7 CFR part 1205) were implemented following the July 1991 referendum. The amendments were provided for in the 1990 amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118). These amendments provided for: (1) Importer representation on the Cotton Board by an appropriate number of persons, to be determined by USDA, who import cotton or cotton products into the U.S., and whom USDA selects from nominations submitted by importer organizations certified by USDA; (2) assessments levied on imported cotton and cotton products at a rate determined in the same manner as for U.S. cotton; (3) increasing the amount USDA can be reimbursed for the conduct of a referendum from $200,000 to $300,000; (4) reimbursing government agencies that assist in administering the collection of assessments on imported cotton and cotton products; and (5) terminating the right of producers to demand a refund of assessments.

On May 29, 2013, USDA issued a determination based on its review (78 FR 32228), not to conduct a referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Order; however, the Act provides that USDA shall nevertheless conduct a referendum at the request of 10 percent or more of the total number of eligible producers and importers that voted in the most recent referendum. The Act provides for a sign-up period during which eligible cotton producers and importers may request that USDA conduct a referendum on continuation of the 1991 amendments to the Order. Accordingly, USDA will provide all eligible Upland cotton producers and importers an opportunity to request a continuance referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Order.

Pursuant to section 8(c) of the Act, the sign-up period will be provided for all eligible producers and importers. Eligible cotton producers will be provided the opportunity to sign-up to request a continuance referendum in person at the county Farm Service Agency (FSA) office where their farm is located. If a producer's land is in more than one county, the producer shall sign-up at the county office where FSA administratively maintains and processes the producer's farm records. Producers may alternatively request a sign-up form in the mail from the same office or through the USDA, AMS Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/Cotton and return it to their FSA office or return their signed request forms to USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Attention: Cotton Sign-Up, P.O. Box 23181, Washington, DC 20077-8249.

Eligible importers would be provided the opportunity to sign up to request a continuance referendum by downloading a form from the AMS Web site, or request a sign-up form by contacting [email protected] or (540) 361-2726 and return their signed request forms to USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Attention: Cotton Sign-Up, P.O. Box 23181, Washington, DC 20077-8249.

Such request must be accompanied by a copy of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection form 7501 showing payment of a cotton assessment for calendar year 2014. Requests and supporting documentation should be mailed to USDA, AMS, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Attention: Cotton Sign-Up, P.O. Box 23181, Washington, DC 20077-8249.

The sign-up period will be from August 3, 2015, through August 14, 2015. Producer and importer forms shall only be counted if received by USDA during the stated sign-up period.

Section 8(c)(2) of the Act provides that if USDA determines, based on the results of the sign-up, that 10 percent or more of the total number of eligible producers and importers that voted in the most recent 1991 referendum (i.e., 4,622) request a continuance referendum on the 1991 amendments, a referendum will be held within 12 months after the end of the sign-up period. In counting such requests, however, not more than 20 percent may be from producers from any one state or from importers of cotton. For example, when counting the requests, the AMS Cotton and Tobacco Program would determine the total number of valid requests from all cotton-producing states and from importers. Not more than 20 percent of the total requests will be counted from any one state or from importers toward reaching the 10 percent for 4,622 total signatures required to call for a referendum. If USDA determines that 10 percent or more of the number of producers and importers who voted in the most recent referendum favor a continuance referendum, a referendum will be held.

This rule amends the procedures for the conduct of the current sign-up period. The current rules and regulations provide for sections on definitions, supervision of the sign-up period, eligibility, participation in the sign-up period, counting requests, reporting results and instructions and forms.

In §§ 1205.20, 1205.26, and 1205.27 “calendar year 2006” changes to “calendar year 2014.” Also, in § 1205.26, eligible persons are further defined to ensure that all producers that planted cotton during 2014 will be eligible to participate in the sign-up period. In §§ 1205.27, 1205.28, and 1205.29 sign-up period conduct dates, FSA reporting dates, and mailing addresses are updated. Under § 1205.27(b), AMS will post information in its Web site rather than mailing a form to each known importer. Before the start of the sign-up period, AMS will post sign-up information, including sign-up forms, on its Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/Cotton.

A proposed rule with a request for comments was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2015, (80 FR 19567). In addition, AMS Cotton and Tobacco Program distributed and posted a Notice to the Trade on its Web site at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/cotton, under “Cotton Research and Promotion 5-Year Review & Sign-up.” No comments were received on the proposed rule. While AMS received no comments during the proposed rule comment period suggesting that the timeframe was insufficient, AMS identified a beneficial change and will amend the sign-up dates and FSA reporting dates to allow for a thirty-day effective date for this final rule.

This rule amends the subpart pertaining to established procedures for use during the sign-up period. Accordingly, AMS is amending the regulations as proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with additional changes to the sign-up dates and the FSA reporting dates to take into account the effective date of this final rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1205

Advertising, Agricultural research, Cotton, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

7 CFR part 1205, subpart 1205.10 through 1205.30

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1205 is amended as follows:

PART 1205—COTTON RESEARCH AND PROMOTION 1. The authority citation part 1205 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.

2. Section 1205.20 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1205.20 Representative period.

The term representative period means the 2014 calendar year.

3. In § 1205.26, paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) are revised to read as follows:
§ 1205.26 Eligibility.

(a) * * *

(1) any person who was engaged in the production of Upland cotton during calendar year 2014; and

(2) any person who was an importer of Upland cotton and imported Upland cotton in excess of the value of $2.00 per line item entry during calendar year 2014.

4. Section 1205.27 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1205.27 Participation in the sign-up period.

The sign-up period will be from August 3, 2015, until August 14, 2015. Those persons who favor the conduct of a continuance referendum and who wish to request that USDA conduct such a referendum may do so by submitting such request in accordance with this section. All requests must be received by the appropriate USDA office by August 14, 2015.

(a) Before the sign-up period begins, FSA shall establish a list of known, eligible, Upland cotton producers in the county that it serves during the representative period, and AMS shall also establish a list of known, eligible Upland cotton importers.

(b) Before the start of the sign-up period, AMS will post sign-up information, including sign-up forms, on its Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/Cotton. Importers who favor the conduct of a continuance referendum can download a form from the Web site, or request a sign-up form by contacting [email protected] or (540) 361-2726 and one will be provided to them. Importers may participate in the sign-up period by submitting a signed, written request for a continuance referendum, along with a copy of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection form 7501 showing payment of a cotton assessment for calendar year 2014. The USDA, AMS, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Attention: Cotton Sign-Up, P.O. Box 23181, Washington, DC 20077-8249 shall be considered the polling place for all cotton importers. All requests and supporting documents must be received by August 14, 2015.

(c) Each person on the county FSA office lists may participate in the sign-up period. Eligible producers must date and sign their name on the “County FSA Office Sign-up Sheet.” A person whose name does not appear on the county FSA office list may participate in the sign-up period. Such person must be identified on FSA-578 during the representative period or provide documentation that demonstrates that the person was a cotton producer during the representative period. Cotton producers not listed on the FSA-578 shall submit at least one sales receipt for cotton they planted during the representative period. Cotton producers must make requests to the county FSA office where the producer's farm is located. If the producer's land is in more than one county, the producer shall make request at the county office where FSA administratively maintains and processes the producer's farm records. It is the responsibility of the person to provide the information needed by the county FSA office to determine eligibility. It is not the responsibility of the county FSA office to obtain this information. If any person whose name does not appear on the county FSA office list fails to provide at least one sales receipt for the cotton they produced during the representative period, the county FSA office shall determine that such person is ineligible to participate in the sign-up period, and shall note “ineligible” in the remarks section next to the person's name on the county FSA office sign-up sheet. In lieu of personally appearing at a county FSA office, eligible producers may request a sign-up form from the county FSA office where the producer's farm is located. If the producer's land is in more than one county, the producer shall make the request for the sign-up form at the county office where FSA administratively maintains and processes the producer's farm records. Such request must be accompanied by a copy of at least one sales receipt for cotton they produced during the representative period. The appropriate FSA office must receive all completed forms and supporting documentation by August 14, 2015.

5. In § 1205.28, the first sentence is revised to read as follows:
§ 1205.28 Counting.

County FSA offices and FSA, Deputy Administrator for Field Operations (DAFO), shall begin counting requests no later than August 14, 2015. * * *

6. Section 1205.29 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1205.29 Reporting results.

(a) Each county FSA office shall prepare and transmit to the state FSA office, by August 21, 2015, a written report of the number of eligible producers who requested the conduct of a referendum, and the number of ineligible persons who made requests.

(b) DAFO shall prepare, by August 21, 2015, a written report of the number of eligible importers who requested the conduct of a referendum, and the number of ineligible persons who made requests.

(c) Each state FSA office shall, by August 21, 2015, forward all county reports to DAFO. By August 28, 2015, DAFO shall forward its report of the total number of eligible producers and importers that requested a continuance referendum, through the sign-up period, to the Deputy Administrator, Cotton and Tobacco Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406.

Authority:

7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.

Dated: June 18, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-15423 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 385 [Docket No. RM15-5-000; Order No. 811] Revised Exhibit Submission Requirements for Commission Hearings AGENCY:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending Rule 508 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure to eliminate the requirement that participants in Commission trial-type evidentiary hearings must provide paper copies of all exhibits introduced as evidence. The Final Rule will facilitate a shift toward electronic hearing procedures which should improve the efficiency and administrative convenience of the Commission hearing process, reduce the burden and expense associated with paper exhibits, and facilitate the compilation and transmittal of the hearing record to the Commission in electronic format.

DATES:

This rule will become effective July 24, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karin Herzfeld, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8459.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order No. 811 Final Rule Table of Contents Paragraph Nos. I. Background 2. II. Discussion 4. III. Information Collection Statement 7. IV. Environmental Analysis 8. V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 9. VI. Document Availability 11. VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 14.

1. In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending Rule 508 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 1 to eliminate the requirement that participants in Commission trial-type evidentiary hearings must provide paper copies of all exhibits introduced as evidence. The Commission is amending section 385.508 of the Commission's regulations by removing paragraph (a)(2) and redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(2). While still retaining the option to provide exhibits in paper form, the Final Rule will facilitate a shift toward electronic hearing procedures which should improve the efficiency and administrative convenience of the Commission hearing process, reduce the burden and expense associated with paper exhibits, and facilitate the compilation and transmittal of the hearing record to the Commission in electronic format.

1 18 CFR 385.508.

I. Background

2. The Federal government has set a goal to substitute electronic means of communication and information storage for paper. For example, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act directed agencies to provide for the optional use and acceptance of electronic documents and signatures, and electronic record-keeping, where practical.2 Similarly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130 required agencies to use electronic information collection techniques, where such means will reduce the burden on the public, increase efficiency, reduce costs, and help provide better service.

2 44 U.S.C. 3504.

3. On September 21, 2000, the Commission issued Order No. 619, which implemented the use of the Internet for submission of certain documents to the Commission for filing.3 The eFiling system plays an important role in the Commission's efforts to comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act's requirement that agencies provide the option to submit information electronically, when practicable, as a substitute for paper.4 Filing via the Internet is optional for eligible documents.5 Since issuing Order No. 619, the Commission has greatly expanded its ability to accept electronically filed material, including interventions, protests, rehearings, complaints, and applications for certificates and licenses.6 In 2008, the Commission further implemented a system for electronic tariff filing.7 Consistent with these prior efforts to provide electronic filing options, on March 19, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to eliminate the requirement that all exhibits introduced at Commission hearings must be provided in paper form. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received comments from the New York Transmission Owners,8 stating that they support the Commission's proposed elimination of the requirement to provide paper copies of exhibits introduced during evidentiary hearings, and that they agree with the Commission that this would improve the efficiency and administrative convenience of the Commission hearing process as well as reduce the substantial burden and expense associated with providing paper copies of exhibits.

3Electronic Filing of Documents, Order No. 619, 65 FR 57088 (Sept. 21, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,107 (2000).

4 44 U.S.C. 3504.

5 18 CFR 385.2001(a).

6See Electronic Registration, Order No. 891, 67 FR 52,406 (Aug. 12, 2002), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,132 (2002); Electronic Filing of FERC Form 1, and Elimination of Certain Designated Schedules in Form Nos. 1 and 1F, Order No. 626, 67 FR 36,093 (May 23, 2002), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,130 (2002); Electronic Service of Documents, 66 FR 50,591 (Oct. 4, 2001), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 35,539 (2001); Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001, 67 FR 31,043 (May 8, 2002), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,127 (2002); Filing Via the Internet, Order No. 703, 72 FR 65,659 (Nov. 23, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,259 (2007).

7Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,276 (2008).

8 The New York Transmission Owners consist of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York Power Authority, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Power Supply Long Island, and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.

II. Discussion

4. Section 385.508 of the Commission's regulations currently requires that “[a]ny participant who seeks to have an exhibit admitted into evidence must provide one copy of the exhibit to the presiding officer and two copies to the reporter, not later than the time that the exhibit is marked for identification.” 9 Under current practice, the court reporter assigns Exhibit Numbers to the paper copies and provides the paper copies to the Commission's Docket Branch to be scanned into the Commission's eLibrary system. Copies of all exhibits and motions that are not pre-filed must also be provided to all participants at the hearing.10

9 18 CFR 385.508(2).

10 18 CFR 385.510(d).

5. The administrative law judges recently adopted a revised practice for handling exhibits and creating the Exhibit List that removes the need for providing paper copies at the hearing. Under this policy, within seven days of the end of the hearing, participants must file (via eFiling) a “Joint Exhibit List” and each sponsoring party must file (via eFiling) the “Official Copies” of each exhibit that was offered into evidence and admitted or rejected.11 Thus, it is no longer necessary or efficient to require all participants to provide the presiding judge and court reporter with paper copies of each exhibit introduced at the hearing.

11See Notice to the Public, Procedures for Handling Exhibits and Developing the Electronic Hearing Record (issued December 12, 2014),http://www.ferc.gov/media/headlines/2014/2014-4/12-12-14-notice.pdf.

All electronically-filed exhibits must comply with eFiling file format requirements. See Filing Via the Internet, Order No. 703, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,259 at P 33.

For exhibits that have not previously been provided to the participants, such exhibits must still be provided to the participants at the hearing. See 18 CFR 385.510(d).

6. In this Final Rule, the Commission is therefore eliminating the requirement that participants provide one paper copy of each exhibit to the presiding officer and two paper copies to the court reporter.12 This Final Rule represents a continuation of the Commission's efforts to implement the goal of substituting electronic means of communication and information storage for paper means. The Final Rule should save resources because participants will no longer be required to make multiple paper copies of all exhibits that they intend to submit into evidence. The Final Rule also will facilitate the presiding judge's compilation and transmittal of the hearing record to the Commission in electronic format.

12 Most participants file pre-filed testimony and exhibits electronically via the eFiling system before the hearing. The presiding judge in each case will continue to determine how participants exchange exhibits brought to the hearing. See 18 CFR 385.504(b)(1), (4).

III. Information Collection Statement

7. Certain collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).13 OMB's regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.14 This Final Rule does not contain any information collection requirements, as defined under section 3502(3) of the PRA, and compliance with the OMB regulations is thus not required.

13 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

14 5 CFR 1320.12.

IV. Environmental Analysis

8. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.15 This action has been categorically excluded under section 380.4(a)(2)(ii), addressing procedural rules.16

15Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).

16 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

9. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 17 generally requires a description and analysis of rules that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This Final Rule concerns procedural matters and is expected to reduce the burden and expense associated with paper exhibits and improve the efficiency and administrative convenience of the Commission hearing process.

17 5 U.S.C. 601-12.

10. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. An analysis under the RFA is not required.

VI. Document Availability

11. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

12. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

13. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

14. This Final Rule is effective July 24, 2015. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.18 This Final Rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

18 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 385

Exhibits.

By the Commission.

Issued: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 385, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for Part 385 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 792-828c, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988).

2. Section 385.508 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 385.508 Exhibits (Rule 508).

(a) General rules. (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, any material offered in evidence, other than oral testimony, must be offered in the form of an exhibit.

(2) The presiding officer will cause each exhibit offered by a participant to be marked for identification.

[FR Doc. 2015-15431 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 22 CFR Part 238 Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Loan Guarantees Issued Under the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015—Standard Terms and Conditions AGENCY:

Agency for International Development (USAID).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation prescribes the procedures and standard terms and conditions applicable to loan guarantees to be issued for the benefit of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan pursuant to Section 7034(r) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015.

DATES:

Effective June 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

D. Bruce McPherson, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523-6601; tel. 202-712-1611, fax 202-216-3055.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to Section 7034(r) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015 (Div. J, Pub. L. 113-235), the United States of America, acting through the U.S. Agency for International Development, may issue certain loan guarantees applicable to sums borrowed by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the “Borrower”), not exceeding an aggregate total of U.S. $1.5 billion in principal amount. Upon issuance, the loan guarantees shall ensure the Borrower's repayment of 100% of principal and interest due under such loans, and the full faith and credit of the United States of America shall be pledged for the full payment and performance of such guarantee obligations.

This rulemaking document is not subject to rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or to regulatory review under Executive Order 12866 because it involves a foreign affairs function of the United States. The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) do not apply.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 238

Foreign aid, Foreign relations, Guaranteed loans, Loan programs—foreign relations.

Authority and Issuance

Accordingly, a new Part 238 is added to Title 22, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 238—HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN LOAN GUARANTEES ISSUED UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015—STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS Sec. 238.1 Purpose. 238.2 Definitions. 238.3 The Guarantee. 238.4 Guarantee eligibility. 238.5 Non-impairment of the Guarantee. 238.6 Transferability of Guarantee; Note Register. 238.7 Fiscal Agent obligations. 238.8 Event of Default; Application for Compensation; payment. 238.9 No acceleration of Eligible Notes. 238.10 Payment to USAID of excess amounts received by a Noteholder. 238.11 Subrogation of USAID. 238.12 Prosecution of claims. 238.13 Change in agreements. 238.14 Arbitration. 238.15 Notice. 238.16 Governing Law. Appendix A to Part 238—Application for Compensation Authority:

Sec. 7034(r) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015 (Div. J, Pub. L. 113-235).

§ 238.1 Purpose.

The purpose of the regulations in this part is to prescribe the procedures and standard terms and conditions applicable to loan guarantees issued for the benefit of the Borrower, pursuant to section 7034(r) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015 (Div. J, Pub. L. 113-235). The loan guarantees will be issued as provided herein pursuant to the Loan Guarantee Agreement, dated May 31, 2015, between the United States of America and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the “Loan Guarantee Agreement”). The loan guarantee will apply to sums borrowed during a period beginning on the date that the Loan Guarantee Agreement enters into force and ending thirty days after such date, not exceeding an aggregate total of one billion five hundred million United States Dollars ($1,500,000,000) in principal amount. The loan guarantees shall ensure the Borrower's repayment of 100% of principal and interest due under such loans. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is pledged for the full payment and performance of such guarantee obligations.

§ 238.2 Definitions.

Wherever used in the standard terms and conditions set out in this part:

Applicant means a Noteholder who files an Application for Compensation with USAID, either directly or through the Fiscal Agent acting on behalf of a Noteholder.

Application for Compensation means an executed application in the form of Appendix A to this part which a Noteholder, or the Fiscal Agent on behalf of a Noteholder, files with USAID pursuant to § 238.8.

Borrower means the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Business Day means any day other than a day on which banks in New York, NY are closed or authorized to be closed or a day which is observed as a federal holiday in Washington, DC, by the United States Government.

Date of Application means the date on which an Application for Compensation is actually received by USAID pursuant to § 238.15.

Defaulted Payment means, as of any date and in respect of any Eligible Note, any Interest Amount and/or Principal Amount not paid when due.

Eligible Note(s) means [a] Note[s] meeting the eligibility criteria set out in § 238.4 issued in one or more series.

Fiscal Agency Agreement means the agreement among USAID, the Borrower and the Fiscal Agent pursuant to which the Fiscal Agent agrees to provide fiscal agency services in respect of the Note[s], a copy of which Fiscal Agency Agreement shall be made available to Noteholders upon request to the Fiscal Agent.

Fiscal Agent means the bank or trust company or its duly appointed successor under the Fiscal Agency Agreement which has been appointed by the Borrower with the consent of USAID to perform certain fiscal agency services for specified Eligible Note[s] pursuant to the terms of the Fiscal Agency Agreement.

Further Guaranteed Payments means the amount of any loss suffered by a Noteholder by reason of the Borrower's failure to comply on a timely basis with any obligation it may have under an Eligible Note to indemnify and hold harmless a Noteholder from taxes or governmental charges or any expense arising out of taxes or any other governmental charges relating to the Eligible Note in the country of the Borrower.

Guarantee means the guarantee of USAID issued pursuant to this part and Section 7034(r) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015 (Div. J, Pub. L. 113-235).

Guarantee Payment Date means a Business Day not more than three (3) Business Days after the related Date of Application.

Interest Amount means for any Eligible Note the amount of interest accrued on the Principal Amount of such Eligible Note at the applicable Interest Rate.

Interest Rate means the interest rate borne by an Eligible Note.

Loss of Investment means, in respect of any Eligible Note, an amount in Dollars equal to the total of the:

(1) Defaulted Payment unpaid as of the Date of Application,

(2) Further Guaranteed Payments unpaid as of the Date of Application, and

(3) Interest accrued and unpaid at the Interest Rate(s) specified in the Eligible Note(s) on the Defaulted Payment and Further Guaranteed Payments, in each case from the date of default with respect to such payment to and including the date on which full payment thereof is made to the Noteholder.

Note[s] means any debt securities issued by the Borrower in one or more series.

Noteholder means the owner of an Eligible Note who is registered as such on the Note Register.

Note Register means the register of Eligible Notes required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent.

Person means any legal person, including any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, joint stock company, trust, unincorporated organization, or government or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

Principal Amount means the principal amount of the Eligible Notes issued by the Borrower. For purposes of determining the principal amount of the Eligible Notes issued by the Borrower, the principal amount of each Eligible Note shall be the stated principal amount thereof.

USAID means the United States Agency for International Development or its successor.

§ 238.3 The Guarantee.

Subject to the terms and conditions set out in this part, the United States of America, acting through USAID, guarantees to Noteholders the Borrower's repayment of 100 percent of principal and interest due on each series of Eligible Notes. Under the Guarantee, USAID agrees to pay to any Noteholder compensation in Dollars equal to such Noteholder's Loss of Investment under its Eligible Note; provided, however, that no such payment shall be made to any Noteholder for any such loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which such Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became such Noteholder. The Guarantee shall apply to each Eligible Note registered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent.

§ 238.4 Guarantee eligibility.

(a) Eligible Notes only are guaranteed hereunder. Notes, in order to achieve Eligible Note status:

(1) Must be signed on behalf of the Borrower, manually or in facsimile, by a duly authorized representative of the Borrower;

(2) Must contain a certificate of authentication manually executed by a Fiscal Agent whose appointment by the Borrower is consented to by USAID in the Fiscal Agency Agreement; and

(3) Shall be approved and authenticated by USAID by either:

(i) The affixing by USAID on the Notes of a guarantee legend incorporating these Standard Terms and Conditions signed on behalf of USAID by either a manual signature or a facsimile signature of an authorized representative of USAID or

(ii) The delivery by USAID to the Fiscal Agent of a guarantee certificate incorporating these Standard Terms and Conditions signed on behalf of USAID by either a manual signature or a facsimile signature of an authorized representative of USAID.

(b) The authorized USAID representatives for purposes of the regulations in this part whose signature(s) shall be binding on USAID shall include the USAID Chief and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Assistant Administrator and Deputy, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment, Director and Deputy Director, Office of Development Credit, and such other individual(s) designated in a certificate executed by an authorized USAID Representative and delivered to the Fiscal Agent. The certificate of authentication of the Fiscal Agent issued pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall, when manually executed by the Fiscal Agent, be conclusive evidence binding on USAID that an Eligible Note has been duly executed on behalf of the Borrower and delivered.

§ 238.5 Non-impairment of the Guarantee.

After issuance of the Guarantee, the Guarantee will be an unconditional, full faith and credit obligation of the United States of America and will not be affected or impaired by any subsequent condition or event. This non-impairment of the guarantee provision shall not, however, be operative with respect to any loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which the claiming Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became a Noteholder. In particular and without limitation, the Guarantee shall not be affected or impaired by:

(a) Any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by a Noteholder, USAID, the Fiscal Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guarantee or

(b) The suspension or termination of the program pursuant to which USAID is authorized to guarantee the Eligible Notes.

§ 238.6 Transferability of Guarantee; Note Register.

A Noteholder may assign, transfer or pledge an Eligible Note to any Person. Any such assignment, transfer or pledge shall be effective on the date that the name of the new Noteholder is entered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement. USAID shall be entitled to treat the Persons in whose names the Eligible Notes are registered as the owners thereof for all purposes of the Guarantee, and USAID shall not be affected by notice to the contrary.

§ 238.7 Fiscal Agent obligations.

Failure of the Fiscal Agent to perform any of its obligations pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall not impair any Noteholder's rights under the Guarantee but may be the subject of action for damages against the Fiscal Agent by USAID as a result of such failure or neglect. A Noteholder may appoint the Fiscal Agent to make demand for payment on its behalf under the Guarantee.

§ 238.8 Event of Default; Application for Compensation; payment.

At any time after an Event of Default, as this term is defined in an Eligible Note, any Noteholder hereunder, or the Fiscal Agent on behalf of a Noteholder hereunder, may file with USAID an Application for Compensation in the form provided in Appendix A to this part. USAID shall pay or cause to be paid to any such Applicant any compensation specified in such Application for Compensation that is due to the Applicant pursuant to the Guarantee as a Loss of Investment not later than the Guarantee Payment Date. In the event that USAID receives any other notice of an Event of Default, USAID may pay any compensation that is due to any Noteholder pursuant to the Guarantee, whether or not such Noteholder has filed with USAID an Application for Compensation in respect of such amount.

§ 238.9 No acceleration of Eligible Notes.

Eligible Notes shall not be subject to acceleration, in whole or in part, by USAID, the Noteholder or any other party. USAID shall not have the right to pay any amounts in respect of the Eligible Notes other than in accordance with the original payment terms of such Eligible Notes.

§ 238.10 Payment to USAID of excess amounts received by a Noteholder.

If a Noteholder shall, as a result of USAID paying compensation under the Guarantee, receive an excess payment, it shall refund the excess to USAID.

§ 238.11 Subrogation of USAID.

In the event of payment by USAID to a Noteholder under the Guarantee, USAID shall be subrogated to the extent of such payment to all of the rights of such Noteholder against the Borrower under the related Note.

§ 238.12 Prosecution of claims.

After payment by USAID to an Applicant hereunder, USAID shall have exclusive power to prosecute all claims related to rights to receive payments under the Eligible Notes to which it is thereby subrogated. If a Noteholder continues to have an interest in the outstanding Eligible Notes, such Noteholder and USAID shall consult with each other with respect to their respective interests in such Eligible Notes and the manner of and responsibility for prosecuting claims.

§ 238.13 Change in agreements.

No Noteholder will consent to any change or waiver of any provision of any document contemplated by the Guarantee without the prior written consent of USAID.

§ 238.14 Arbitration.

Any controversy or claim between USAID and a Noteholder arising out of the Guarantee shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Washington, DC in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.

§ 238.15 Notice.

Any communication to USAID pursuant to the Guarantee shall be in writing in the English language, shall refer to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Loan Guarantee Number inscribed on the Eligible Note and shall be complete on the day it shall be actually received by USAID at the Office of Development Credit, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523-0030. Other addresses may be substituted for the above upon the giving of notice of such substitution to each Noteholder by first class mail at the address set forth in the Note Register.

§ 238.16 Governing Law.

The Guarantee shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States of America governing contracts and commercial transactions of the United States Government.

Appendix A to Part 238—Application for Compensation United States Agency for International Development Washington, DC 20523 Ref: Guarantee dated as of __, 20 _:

Gentlemen: You are hereby advised that payment of $__ (consisting of $__ of principal, $__ of interest and $__ in Further Guaranteed Payments, as defined in § 238.2 of the Standard Terms and Conditions of the above-mentioned Guarantee) was due on __, 20 __, on $__ Principal Amount of Notes issued by Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the “Borrower”) held by the undersigned. Of such amount $__ was not received on such date and has not been received by the undersigned at the date hereof. In accordance with the terms and provisions of the above-mentioned Guarantee, the undersigned hereby applies, under § 238.8 of said Guarantee, for payment of $__, representing $__, the Principal Amount of the presently outstanding Note(s) of the Borrower held by the undersigned that was due and payable on __ and that remains unpaid, and $__, the Interest Amount on such Note(s) that was due and payable by the Borrower on __ and that remains unpaid, and $__ in Further Guaranteed Payments,1 plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon from the date of default with respect to such payments to and including the date payment in full is made by you pursuant to said Guarantee, at the rate of __% per annum, being the rate for such interest accrual specified in such Note. Such payment is to be made at [state payment instructions of Noteholder].

1 In the event the Application for Compensation relates to Further Guaranteed Payments, such Application must also contain a statement of the nature and circumstances of the related loss.

All capitalized terms herein that are not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Standard Terms and Conditions of the above-mentioned Guarantee.

[Name of Applicant] By: Name: Title: Dated:
Dated: June 17, 2015. D. Bruce McPherson, Attorney Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Agency for International Development.
[FR Doc. 2015-15435 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0886; FRL-9929-40-Region-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Revision to Allegheny County Regulations for Establishing Permit Fees AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the Air Pollution Control portion of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) rules and regulations and consists of changes to the regulations establishing installation permit application and administration fees and open burning permit application fees. EPA is approving these revisions to Pennsylvania's SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This final rule is effective on July 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0886. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105; Allegheny County Health Department, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul T. Wentworth, P.E. at: (215) 814-2183, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On March 9, 2015 (80 FR 12374), EPA published a document in the Federal Register (NPR) proposing to approve the August 30, 2010 SIP revision submittal from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). The SIP revision pertains to the Air Pollution Control portion of ACHD's rules and regulations and consists of changes to the ACHD regulations establishing installation permit application and administration fees and open burning permit application fees. EPA received one comment on the NPR. A summary of the comment and EPA's response are provided in Section III of this document.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

The SIP revision consists of changes to ACHD regulations in Article XXI for installation permit fees and open burning permit fees, including revisions to section 2102.10, entitled “Installation Permit Application and Administration Fees,” and to section 2105.50, entitled “Open Burning and Administration Fees.” The changes replace provisions containing fixed monetary amounts for permit fees provided for installation and open burning permits in sections 2102.10 and 2105.5 with language that provides for the Allegheny County Council to establish the amount of the given fee based on consideration of the degree of technical and regulatory difficulty in processing each type of installation permit. The revisions to Article XXI sections 2102.10 and 2105.50 include new permit fee provisions for the following permit types: Permits required by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations; permits issued for new major sources and for major modifications to sources locating in or impacting a non-attainment area; permits required by existing standards, such as the New Source Performance Standards and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; permits in which ACHD establishes the Maximum Achievable Control Technology for a source; permits for any source requiring an installation permit but not subject to any of the previous requirements; and general installation permits. The specific revisions to requirements in Article XXI sections 2102.10 and 2105.50 pertaining to fees for installation and open burning permits in Allegheny County for proposed approval are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. See 80 FR at 12374.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

EPA received one anonymous comment on the proposed approval for the Pennsylvania SIP of revisions to ACHD's regulations. A summary of the comment and our response follows.

Comment: The commenter expresses support for the action proposed by the EPA to include the revised Allegheny County regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP; however, the commenter states that in section III of the NPR, EPA's statement that section 110(a)(2)(L)(i) and (ii) requires SIPs to include fees sufficient to cover the costs of reviewing and acting upon a permit application is incorrect. The commenter points out that CAA section 110(a)(2)(L)(i) and (ii) do not require SIPs to “include” fees; rather 110(a)(2)(L) states SIPs must require owners and operators to “pay” fees. According to the commenter, if the statement EPA made was correct, it would mean that the revisions EPA is acting upon do not satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L)(i) and (ii) because the proposed revisions remove the fixed monetary fee for certain permits and therefore the SIP would not include a fee and thus would not meet section 110(a)(2)(L)(i) and (ii). To further support the argument, the commenter cites the September 13, 2013 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Elements Under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Infrastructure SIP Guidance), in which EPA discusses section 110(a)(2)(L) and states that “the fee program is not required to be part of the EPA approved SIP.”

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support for the action approving this SIP revision. EPA also agrees with the commenter that fee programs included in SIPs to comply with section 110(a)(2)(L) do not have to require a specific dollar amount for a permit or other approval. The Agency also agrees that the ACHD fee program provisions that we approve into the SIP today are consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(L). We do not agree with the commenter's characterization of the Agency's interpretation of the statute as explained below.

CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) regarding permit fee requirements for SIPs provides in pertinent part that the SIP shall “require the owner and operator of each major stationary source to pay the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this chapter, a fee sufficient to cover” the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting on permit applications and the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permits. Section 110(a)(2)(L) further requires such provisions for SIPs until the major source fee requirements are superseded with respect to such sources by EPA's approval of a fee program under Title V of the CAA.1

1 EPA's Infrastructure SIP Guidance states that the EPA-approved title V fee program is not required to be included in the SIP and then refers state air agencies to EPA regional offices to address section 110(a)(2)(L) requirements for permit fee programs addressing permits required by Title I of the CAA, such as permits required upon construction or modification of certain sources.

In the NPR, EPA proposed to approve for the Pennsylvania SIP certain revisions to Allegheny County's regulations which deleted fixed fees for certain required installation permits and open burning permits from the ACHD regulations and replaced such fixed fees with provisions stating that installation and open burning permit fees required for owners and operators of certain pollutant emitting stationary sources would be set by Allegheny County factoring in the degree of technical and regulatory difficulty for categories of installation permits. EPA proposed to approve the revisions as meeting requirements for permit fees in CAA section 110(a)(2)(L). In the proposal, EPA inadvertently did not include the verbatim text of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) in providing the explanation for our proposed approval of Allegheny County's regulations. However, the revisions to sections 2102.10 and 2105.50 of Article XXI of Allegheny County's regulations satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) because the revised provisions in sections 2102.10 and 2015.50 clearly require the owner and operator of certain air pollutant-emitting sources to pay to Allegheny County, the local permitting authority, a fee sufficient to cover reasonable costs to review and act upon permit applications and reasonable costs for Allegheny County to implement and enforce permit terms and conditions. The revisions to sections 2102.10 and 2105.50 simply remove a fixed monetary fee that owners and operators of certain sources would need to pay for installation and open burning permits and replace the fixed fee with applicable criteria for Allegheny County to determine the value of the fee for owners or operators to obtain required installation and open burning permits. The provisions of Allegheny County's regulations still require the payment of a fee for certain installation and open burning permits which would meet requirements in section 110(a)(2)(L) for SIPs to include provisions for payment of such fees.

EPA is unsure of the relevance of the quote from EPA's Infrastructure SIP Guidance included in the comment. The Infrastructure SIP Guidance at pages 56-57 states: “Currently, every state has an EPA-approved fee program under CAA Title V. However, the fee program is not required to be part of the EPA approved SIP.” This language clearly refers to the EPA-approved fee program under CAA Title V for operating permits required by Title V of the CAA which may supersede certain requirements for SIPs to include fee requirements for permits required by the CAA. Pennsylvania has an EPA-approved Title V program and an EPA-approved Title V fee program, but the Allegheny County regulations we proposed to approve in the NPR are not part of the Pennsylvania Title V program. Sections 2102.10 and 2105.50 of Article XXI of Allegheny County's regulations relate to fees for certain installation and open burning permits which are required by Allegheny County prior to installation of certain pollutant emitting sources or open burning operations. Such permits are required by Allegheny County to implement requirements in Title I of the CAA, not Title V. These fees provide funds for Allegheny County to review, implement and enforce permits required by Title I of the CAA that are not funded under the state's Title V permit program. Thus, the language of the Infrastructure SIP Guidance included in the comment is not applicable to this action. EPA proposed in the NPR to approve the revisions to sections 2102.10 and 2105.50 of Article XXI because the regulations require owners or operators of certain stationary sources to pay permit fees as a precondition to receiving an installation or open burning permit. These regulations therefore satisfy requirements in section 110(a)(2)(L) that the SIP require owners and operators to pay the permitting authority a fee sufficient to cover reasonable costs of reviewing, acting on, implementing and enforcing permits required by the CAA, including installation or construction permits required by Title I of the CAA.

IV. Final Action

EPA is approving as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP the August 30, 2010 SIP submittal from PADEP consisting of changes to the ACHD regulations establishing installation permit application and administration fee requirements and open burning permit application fee requirements in Allegheny County.

V. Incorporation by Reference

In this, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Allegheny County Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et 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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 24, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action pertaining to the Air Pollution Control portion of the Allegheny County Rules and Regulations, which revises the regulations establishing installation permit application and administration fees, as well as open burning permit application fees 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: June 11, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(2) is amended by: a. Under Part B, revising the entry for “2102.10”; and b. Under Part E, subpart 5, revising the entry for “2105.50”.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

Article XX
  • or XXI citation
  • Title/Subject State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Additional
  • explanation/
  • § 52.2063 citation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part B—Permits Generally *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2102.10 Installation Permit Application And Administration Fees 7/26/2009 6/24/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part E—Source Emission and Operating Standards *         *         *         *         *         *         * Subpart 5—Open Burning and Abrasive Blasting Sources 2105.50 (except paragraph .50.d) Open Burning 7/26/2009 6/24/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-15458 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881; A-1-FRL-9925-88-Region 1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. The revision updates state regulations containing ambient air quality standards (AAQS) to be consistent with EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The intended effect of this action is to approve these regulations into the Connecticut SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective August 24, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 24, 2015. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected].

    3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.

    4. Mail: “Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881,” Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.

    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. 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 legal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881. 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.

    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 Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact 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 legal holidays.

    In addition, copies of the state's submittal are available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the state environmental agency: The Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone 617-918-1584, facsimile 617-918-0584, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

    I. What action is EPA taking? II. What is the background for this action? III. What is included in the submittal? IV. EPA's Evaluation of the submittal V. Final Action VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of Connecticut on April 22, 2014 concerning updates to Connecticut's AAQS. The Connecticut AAQS, set out in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-24, were amended to be consistent with the NAAQS set out in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 50. Connecticut also revised the definitions of “ambient air quality standard” and “PM 10” in RCSA subsections 22a-174-1(10) and 22a-174-1(88), respectively, and revised references to RCSA section 22a-174-24 in RCSA subsections 22a-174-3a(k)(5) and 22a-174-28(a)(5).

    II. What is the background for this action?

    Section 109 of the CAA directs EPA to establish NAAQS requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety (primary standard) and for the protection of public welfare (secondary standard). Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires EPA to complete a thorough review of the NAAQS at 5-year intervals and promulgate new standards when appropriate. Additionally, Section 107 of the CAA requires the establishment of air quality control regions for the purpose of implementing the NAAQS.

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) to 35 micrograms per cubic meter and retained the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS for coarse particulate matter (PM10) of 150 micrograms per cubic meter. This final rule became effective on December 18, 2006.

    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone, setting the level of the primary and secondary 8-hour standard to 0.075 parts per million. This final ozone standard rule became effective on May 27, 2008.

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the NAAQS for lead, setting the level of the primary and secondary standard to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter and revised the averaging time to a rolling 3-month period with a maximum (not-to-be-exceeded) form, evaluated over a 3-year period. The final lead standard rule became effective on January 12, 2009.

    On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA revised the NAAQS for oxides of nitrogen as measured by nitrogen dioxide (NO2). EPA established a 1-hour primary standard for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, to supplement the existing primary and secondary annual standard of 53 parts per billion (61 FR 52852, Oct 8, 1996). The final NO2 rule became effective on April 12, 2010.

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA revised the NAAQS for oxides of sulfur as measured by sulfur dioxide (SO2). EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 primary standard at a level of 75 parts per billion, based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. EPA also revoked both the previous 24-hour and annual primary SO2 standards. This final rule became effective on August 23, 2010.

    On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA revised the primary PM2.5 annual NAAQS, lowering the standard to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter. The final rule became effective on March 18, 2013.

    On April 22, 2014, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision to update its ambient air quality standards set out in RCSA section 22a-174-24, definitions in RCSA subsections 22a-174-1(10) and 22a-174-1(88), and references in RCSA subsections 22a-174-3a(k)(5) and 22a-174-28(a)(5).

    On December 14, 2014, Connecticut withdrew RCSA subsection 22a-174-24(m), ambient air quality standard for dioxin, from its April 22, 2014 SIP submittal.

    III. What is included in the submittal?

    Connecticut's April 22, 2014 SIP submittal includes revised RCSA section 22a-174-24, “Connecticut primary and secondary ambient air quality standards.” This regulation has been revised to explicitly incorporate the new NAAQS discussed above. Specifically, Connecticut adopted the following substantive changes:

    1. The sulfur dioxide primary 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion; and

    2. The PM10 primary and secondary annual standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter;

    3. The PM2.5 primary annual standard of 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter;

    4. The PM2.5 secondary annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter;

    5. The PM2.5 primary and secondary 24-hour standards of 35.0 micrograms per cubic meter;

    6. The ozone primary and secondary 8-hour standards of 0.075 parts per million;

    7. The nitrogen dioxide primary 1-hour standard of 100 parts per billion; and

    8. The lead primary and secondary rolling 3-month average standards of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter.

    Connecticut's April 22, 2014 SIP revision also includes Connecticut's revised definitions of the terms “ambient air quality standard” and “PM 10” in RCSA section 22a-174-1, “Definitions.” These definitions have been revised to reference 40 CFR part 50 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix J, respectively. In addition, Connecticut's SIP submittal includes minor edits to subsection (k)(5) of RCSA section 22a-174-3a, “Permit to Construct and Operate Stationary Sources.” Subsection (k)(5) has been updated to reference the defined term “AAQS.” Finally, in Connecticut's SIP submittal, the definition of “control period” in subsection (a)(5) of RCSA section 22a-174-28, “Oxygenated gasoline,” has been updated to reference 40 CFR part 50.

    IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Submittal

    Connecticut's air quality standards rule, RCSA section 22a-174-24, as well as amendments to this rule, have been previously approved into the Connecticut SIP, with the most recent approval occurring on December 13, 1985 (50 FR 50906). The other rules for which amendments were included in Connecticut's April 24, 2014 SIP revision have also been previously approved into the Connecticut SIP, with the most recent approvals occurring on May 10, 2011 (76 FR 26933) for RCSA sections 22a-174-1 and 22a-174-3a, and on September 28, 1999 (64 FR 67188) for RCSA section 22a-174-28. EPA has reviewed Connecticut's revisions to its ambient air quality standards, definitions, and references and has determined they are consistent with the federal NAAQS in 40 CFR part 50. Connecticut's revised RCSA section 22a-174-24 includes additional and more stringent air quality standards than the previous SIP-approved version of the rule. Thus, the revised RCSA section 22a-174-24 satisfies the anti-back sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of the CAA and we are approving Connecticut's revised rule into the Connecticut SIP.

    V. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Connecticut SIP, the following regulations submitted by Connecticut on April 22, 2014: In RCSA section 22a-174-1, entitled “Definitions,” the amendment of subdivisions (10) and (88); in RCSA section 22a-174-3a, entitled “Permit to Construct and Operate Stationary Sources,” the amendment of subdivision (k)(5); RCSA section 22a-174-24, entitled “Connecticut primary and secondary ambient air quality standards,” with the exception of subsection (m), “Connecticut primary ambient air quality standard for dioxin,” which Connecticut withdrew from its SIP submittal; and in RCSA section 22a-174-28, entitled, “Oxygenated Gasoline,” the amendment of subdivision (a)(5).

    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment 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 this SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 24, 2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by July 24, 2015.

    If the 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 public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on August 24, 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, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act; and

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 24, 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 this 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, National ambient air quality standards, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of 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 H—Connecticut 2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(106) to read as follows:
    § 52.370 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (106) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on April 22, 2014.

    (i) Incorporation by reference.

    (A) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Section 22a-174-1(10) and (88), as published in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 1, 2014, effective April 15, 2014.

    (B) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Section 22a-174-3a(k)(5), as published in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 1, 2014, effective April 15, 2014.

    (C) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Section 22a-174-24, “Connecticut primary and secondary ambient air quality standards,” with the exceptions of subsections (a), (c), (g), (j), and (m), as published in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 1, 2014, effective April 15, 2014.

    (D) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a-174-28 (a)(5), as published in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 1, 2014, effective April 15, 2014.

    3. In § 52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by adding new entries for existing state citations “22a-174-1”, “22a-174-3a”, “22a-174-24”, and “22a-174-28” to read as follows:

    § 52.385—EPA-approved Connecticut regulations. Table 52.385—EPA-Approved Regulations Connecticut State
  • citation
  • Title/Subject Dates Date adopted by State Date approved by EPA Federal Register
  • citation
  • Section 52.370 Comments/Description
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 22a-174-1 Definitions 04/07/14 06/24/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] (c)(106) Amendment of subdivisions (10) ambient air quality standard and (88) PM 10. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 22a-174-3a Permit to Construct and Operate Stationary Sources 04/07/14 06/24/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] (c)(106) Amendment of subsection (k)(5) Ambient Monitoring. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 22a-174-24 Connecticut primary and secondary ambient air quality standards 04/07/14 06/24/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] (c)(106) All of 22a-174-24 is approved, with the exception of subsection (m) Dioxin, which Connecticut withdrew from its SIP submittal. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 22a-174-28 SIP revision concerning Oxygenated Gasoline 04/07/14 06/24/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] (c)(106) Amendment of subdivision (a)(5) Control period. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-15463 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0270; FRL-9929-38-Region-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New Mexico; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution Affecting Visibility AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the State of New Mexico pertaining to the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) for Ozone (O3) and the 2010 NAAQS for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). EPA is also approving the finding that the State of New Mexico meets the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS requirement pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution and visibility protection.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0270. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sherry Fuerst, (214) 665-6454, [email protected] (O3 and NO2 SIPs); or, (214) 665-6645, [email protected] (fine particulate matter).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background

    The background for today's action is discussed in detail in our March 26, 2015, proposal (80 FR 15963). In that rulemaking action, we proposed to approve (1) an August 27, 2013, SIP submittal from the State of New Mexico pertaining to the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, (2) a March 12, 2014, SIP submittal pertaining to the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the 2008 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, and; (3) that the November 27, 2012 and October 9, 2014 final SIP actions pertaining to the interstate transport requirement for visibility protection meet the requirement for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The public comment period for the March 26, 2015, proposal (80 FR 15963) expired on April 27, 2015, and we did not receive any comments concerning our proposal. Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed action.

    II. Final Action

    We are approving the (1) August 27, 2013, SIP submittal from the State of New Mexico pertaining to the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, (2) March 12, 2014, SIP submittal pertaining to the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the 2008 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, and; (3) the November 27, 2012 and October 9, 2014 final SIP actions pertaining to the interstate transport requirement for visibility protection as meeting the requirement for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act; and

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 24, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purpose of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 11, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    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 GG—New Mexico 2. The second table in § 52.1620(e) entitled “EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP” is amended by revising the entry for “Infrastructure for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS” and adding new entries at the end for “Infrastructure for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS” and “Infrastructure for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS”.

    The revision and additions reads as follows:

    § 52.1620 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State
  • submittal/
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Infrastructure for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide, except for Bernalillo County and Indian country 6/12/2009 1/22/2013, (78
  • FR 4337)
  • Additional approvals on 7/9/2013, 78 FR 40966 (110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) and 6/24/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] (110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), visibility portion).
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Infrastructure for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Statewide, except for Bernalillo County and Indian country 8/27/2013 6/24/2015
  • [Insert Federal Register citation]
  • Infrastructure for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS Statewide, except for Bernalillo County and Indian country 3/12/2014 6/24/2015
  • [Insert Federal Register citation]
  • [FR Doc. 2015-15322 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 63 (§ 63.8980 to end of part 63), revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 244, in § 63.10686, paragraph (e) is reinstated to read as follows:

    § 63.10686 What are the requirements for electric arc furnaces and argon-oxygen decarburization vessels?

    (e) You must monitor the capture system and PM control device required by this subpart, maintain records, and submit reports according to the compliance assurance monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 64. The exemption in 40 CFR 64.2(b)(1)(i) for emissions limitations or standards proposed after November 15, 1990 under section 111 or 112 of the CAA does not apply. In lieu of the deadlines for submittal in 40 CFR 64.5, you must submit the monitoring information required by 40 CFR 64.4 to the applicable permitting authority for approval by no later than the compliance date for your affected source for this subpart and operate according to the approved plan by no later than 180 days after the date of approval by the permitting authority.

    [FR Doc. 2015-15481 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 81 to 84, revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 150, in § 81.305, in the table entitled “California—NO2 (2010 1-Hour Standard)”, for the entry “Sacramento County”, the date in the second column is removed and the entry in the third column is corrected to read “Unclassifiable/Attainment”.

    [FR Doc. 2015-15482 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1501-05-D
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 523 and 552 [GSAR Change 64; GSAR Case 2006-G506; Docket No. 2009-0005; Sequence No. 1] RIN 3090-A182 General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Case 2006-G506; Environmental, Conservation, Occupational Safety and Drug-Free Workplace AGENCY:

    Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The General Services Administration (GSA) is issuing a final rule to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to update the text and clauses regarding Hazardous Materials Identification and Material Safety Data.

    DATES:

    Effective: June 24, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Kevin Funk, Procurement Analyst, at 215-446-4860, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2006-G506.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    GSA published a proposed rule in 2009 to update the text and clauses regarding Hazardous Materials Identification and Material Safety Data. A second proposed rule was issued in the Federal Register at 80 FR 8278, on February 17, 2015, due to the length of time since the original proposed rule was published in 2009 and updates to the regulations referenced in GSAM Subpart 523.3. No public comments were received on the proposed rule. One change was made for this final rule, which clarifies that the new GSAR clause 552.223-73 is only required in solicitations and contracts for packaged items containing hazardous materials.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    The final rule changes the title of Part 523 to “Environment, Energy and Water Efficiency, Renewable Energy Technologies, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace,” to correspond to the title in FAR Part 23. The title for Subpart 523.3 is changed to “Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data” to be consistent with the corresponding FAR subpart.

    In addition, this final rule adds a new hazardous materials clause, GSAR clause 552.223-73. GSAR clause 552.223-73 Preservation, Packaging, Packing, Marking and Labeling of Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) For Shipments is added to require compliance by contractors regarding preservation, packaging, packing, marking, and labeling of hazardous materials. This clause is also added to the Provision and Clause Matrixes.

    The GSAR provision at 552.212-72, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to GSA Acquisition of Commercial Items, is updated to include the new hazardous material clause 552.223-73.

    III. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

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

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The General Services Administration certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because these changes will not substantively change the reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements for contractors.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 523 and 552

    Government procurement.

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Jeffrey A. Koses, Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

    Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR parts 523 and 552 as set forth below:

    PART 523—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE 1. Revise the authority citation for 48 CFR part 523 to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c).

    2. Revise the part heading to read as set forth above. 3. Revise subpart heading 523.3 to read as set forth below. Subpart 523.3—Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data 4. Amend section 523.303 by revising the section heading; and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

    523.303 Contract clauses.

    (c) Insert 552.223-73, Preservation, Packaging, Packing, Marking and Labeling of Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) for Shipments, in solicitations and contracts for packaged items containing hazardous materials.

    PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 5. The authority citation for part 552 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c).

    6. Amend section 552.212-72 by revising the date of the clause and paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    552.212-72 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to GSA Acquisition of Commercial Items. Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable to GSA Acquisition of Commercial Items [JUN 2015]

    (b) Clauses.

    __552.223-70 Hazardous Substances. __552.223-71 Nonconforming Hazardous Material. __552.223-73 Preservation, Packaging, Packing, Marking and Labeling of Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) for Shipments. __552.238-70 Identification of Electronic Office Equipment Providing Accessibility for the Handicapped. __552.238-72 Identification of Products That Have Environmental Attributes.
    (End of clause)
    7. Add section 552.223-73 to read as follows:
    552.223-73 Preservation, Packaging, Packing, Marking and Labeling of Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) For Shipments.

    As prescribed in 523.303(c), insert the following clause:

    Preservation, Packaging, Packing, Marking and Labeling of Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) For Shipments [JUN 2015]

    (a) Definition. United States, as used in this clause, means the 48 adjoining U.S. States, Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. territories and possessions, such as Puerto Rico.

    (b) Preservation, packaging, packing, marking and labeling of hazardous materials for export shipment outside the United States in all transport modes shall comply with the following, as applicable:

    (1) International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code as established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

    (2) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Material Regulation (HMR) 49 CFR parts 171 through 180. (Note: Classifications permitted by the HMR, but not permitted by the IMDG code, such as Consumer Commodities classed as ORM-D, shall be packaged in accordance with the IMDG Code and dual-marked with both Consumer Commodity and IMDG marking and labeling.)

    (3) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulation 29 CFR part 1910.1200.

    (4) International Air Transport Association (IATA), Dangerous Goods Regulation and/or International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Technical Instructions.

    (5) AFMAN 24-204, Air Force Inter-Service Manual, Preparing Hazardous Materials For Military Air Shipments.

    (6) Any preservation, packaging, packing, marking and labeling requirements contained elsewhere in this solicitation and contract.

    (c) Preservation, packaging, packing, marking and labeling of hazardous materials for domestic shipments within the United States in all transport modes shall comply with the following; as applicable:

    (1) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Material Regulation (HMR) 49 CFR parts 171 through 180.

    (2) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulation 29 CFR part 1910.1200.

    (3) Any preservation, packaging, packing, marking and labeling requirements contained elsewhere in this solicitation and contract.

    (d) Hazardous Material Packages designated for outside the United States destinations through Forwarding Points, Distribution Centers, or Container Consolidation Points (CCPs) shall comply with the IMDG, IATA, ICAO or AFMAN 24-204 codes, as applicable.

    (e) The test certification data showing compliance with performance-oriented packaging or UN-approved packaging requirements shall be made available to GSA contract administration/management representatives or regulatory inspectors upon request.

    (End of clause)
    [FR Doc. 2015-15413 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 130403322-4454-02] RIN 0648-XE002 Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Atlantic Dolphin AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the commercial sector for Atlantic dolphin (dolphin) in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Atlantic states (Maine through the east coast of Florida) for the 2015 fishing year through this temporary rule. Commercial landings for dolphin, as estimated by the Science and Research Director, are projected to reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) by June 24, 2015. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for dolphin on June 24, 2015, through the remainder of the fishing year in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Atlantic. This closure is necessary to protect the dolphin resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 24, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine Hayslip, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The dolphin and wahoo fishery off the Atlantic states is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, in cooperation with the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The commercial ACL for dolphin is 1,157,001 lb (524,807 kg), round weight. Under 50 CFR 622.280(a)(l)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for dolphin when the commercial ACL has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL has been reached and that the commercial sector for dolphin should close on June 24, 2015. Therefore, this temporary rule implements an AM to close the commercial sector for dolphin in the EEZ off the Atlantic states (Maine through the east coast of Florida), effective 12:01 a.m., local time June 24, 2015.

    The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for dolphin on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such species prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, June 24, 2015. During the closure, the bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.277(a)(1) apply to all harvest or possession of dolphin in or from the Atlantic EEZ. Additionally, these bag and possession limits apply in the Atlantic EEZ (Maine through the east coast of Florida) on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for dolphin and wahoo has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters. During the closure, the sale or purchase of dolphin taken from the EEZ is prohibited.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of dolphin off the Atlantic states and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.280(a)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for dolphin constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect dolphin since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 19, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15510 Filed 6-19-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 141021887-5172-02] RIN 0648-XD996 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Atka Mackerel in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the Central Aleutian district (CAI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2015 total allowable catch (TAC) of Atka mackerel in this area allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 20, 2015, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The 2015 TAC of Atka mackerel, in the CAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 1,511 metric tons by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015).

    In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the CAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.

    After the effective dates of this closure, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the Atka mackerel directed fishery in the CAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 18, 2015. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 19, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15504 Filed 6-19-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 121 Wednesday, June 24, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 2 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0033] Petition To Amend the Reporting Requirements for Research Facilities Under the Animal Welfare Act Regulations AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    We are notifying the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has received a petition requesting that we amend the regulations to require that research facilities include information about the uses of animals in the annual report they submit to APHIS. We are making this petition available to the public and soliciting comments regarding any issues raised by the petition that we should consider.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0033.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0033, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    The petition and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0033 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Carol Clarke, Research Program Manager, USDA, APHIS, Animal Care, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 851-3724.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Animal Welfare Act (AWA, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards and other requirements governing research facilities. The Secretary has delegated the responsibility for enforcing the AWA to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the responsibility for administering the AWA has been delegated to the Deputy Administrator for Animal Care.

    Regulations and standards promulgated under the AWA are contained in title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to collectively below as the AWA regulations). Part 1 contains definitions of terms used within parts 2 and 3. Part 2 contains licensing and registration regulations, regulations specific to research facilities, and regulations governing veterinary care, animal identification, recordkeeping, access for inspection, confiscation of animals, and handling, among other requirements. Within part 2, subpart C contains the regulations specific to research facilities.

    The regulations in paragraph (a) of § 2.36 require that the reporting facility be the segment of the research facility, or that department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, that uses or intends to use live animals in research, tests, experiments, or for teaching. Each reporting facility is required to submit an annual report1 to the Animal Care Regional Director for the State where the facility is located on or before December 1 of each calendar year. The annual report has to be signed and certified by the chief executive officer or institutional official and cover the previous Federal fiscal year.

    1 Annual reports for the years they were issued can be viewed at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/!ut/p/a1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOK9_D2MDJ0MjDzd3V2dDDz93HwCzL29jAyCzYAKIvEo8DYlTr-zu6OHibmPgYGBiYWRgaeLk4eLuaWvgYGnGXH6DXAARwNC-sP1o_AqAfkArACfE8EK8LihIDc0NMIg0xMAwhVB1g!!/?1dmy&urile=wcm%3apath%3a%2FAPHIS_Content_Library%2FSA_Our_Focus%2FSA_Animal_Welfare%2FSA_Obtain_Research_Facility_Annual_Report%2F.

    Under § 2.36, the annual report is required to assure that professionally acceptable standards governing the care, treatment, and use of animals, including appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic, and tranquilizing drugs, were used prior to, during, and following actual procedures, and that each principal investigator has considered alternatives to painful procedures. The annual report is also required to assure that the facility is adhering to the standards and regulations under the AWA. Exceptions to the standards and regulations are required to be attached to the annual report as a summary that includes a brief explanation as well as the species and number of animals affected.

    In addition, the regulations require the annual report to state the location of all facilities where animals were housed or used in actual research, testing, teaching, or experimentation, or held for these purposes.

    The regulations also require the annual report to include the common names and numbers of animals involved in procedures for which: (1) No pain, distress, or use of pain-relieving drugs was involved; (2) appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were provided where there was accompanying pain or distress to the animals; or (3) pain and distress was involved and the use of appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs for relief would have adversely affected the procedures, results, or interpretation of the teaching, research, experiments, surgery, or tests. An explanation of the procedures producing pain or distress in these animals and the reasons such drugs were not used is required to be attached to the annual report.

    Lastly, the annual report is required under the regulations to include the common names and numbers of animals being bred, conditioned, or held for use in teaching, testing, research, experiments, or surgery, but not yet used for such purposes.

    APHIS received a petition from the National Anti-Vivisection Society (referred to below as NAVS) dated December 15, 2014. In the petition, NAVS stated that the online Animal Care Information System 2 and the APHIS annual report provide an insufficient level of detail about animals used for research. NAVS requested that we amend the AWA reporting regulations to require research facilities to provide us with information about how animals are being used for research and experimentation and that we publish this information in the annual report of research facilities. NAVS also requested that APHIS replace the current reporting form 3 used by research facilities with a template 4 comparable to that used by Member States of the European Union (EU), which provides an accounting of the numbers and types of animals, and for what specific research, testing, and educational purposes the animals are being used.

    2 Animal Care Information System (ACIS), accessible at: https://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/Warning.jspx.

    3 Form 7023, Annual Report of Research Facility: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/library/forms/pdf/APHIS_7023.pdf.

    4 The EU reporting template cited by NAVS can be viewed at http://www.navs.org/file/APHIS-Modified-Template_121214.xls.

    We are making this petition available to the public and soliciting comments to help determine what action, if any, to take in response to this request. The petition and any comments submitted are available for review as indicated under ADDRESSES above. We welcome all comments on the issues outlined in the petition. In particular, we invite responses to the following questions:

    1. Should APHIS amend the regulations to require research facilities that use animals for teaching, testing, and experimentation to provide specific information about how regulated animals are used (for example, for safety testing, teaching purposes, or disease research)? Would reporting this information improve animal welfare? If so, how?

    2. If research facilities were required to report the purposes of their animal research activities, what types of information should be provided, and why?

    3. What might be the effects, if any, on research facilities if they are required to collect and report this additional information?

    4. Does the annual reporting form currently required to be used by research facilities capture sufficient information? If not, what information is missing?

    We encourage the submission of scientific data, studies, or research to support your comments and position. We also invite data on the costs and benefits associated with any recommendations. We will consider all comments we receive.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of June 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15499 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Chapter VII Regulatory Publication and Review Under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of regulatory review; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The NCUA Board (Board) is continuing its comprehensive review of its regulations to identify outdated, unnecessary, or burdensome regulatory requirements imposed on federally insured credit unions, as contemplated by section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA). This second decennial review of regulations began when the Board issued its first EGRPRA notice on May 22, 2014, covering the two categories of “Applications and Reporting” and “Powers and Activities.” The second notice followed, covering the three categories of “Agency Programs,” “Capital,” and “Consumer Protection,” which was published on December 19, 2014. The Board continues the review process with the publication of this third notice, covering the next three categories of rules: “Corporate Credit Unions,” “Directors, Officers and Employees,” and “Money Laundering.” This review presents a significant opportunity to consider the possibilities for burden reduction in groups of similar regulations. The Board welcomes comment on the categories, the order of review, and all other aspects of this initiative in order to maximize the review's effectiveness.

    DATES:

    Comment must be received on or before September 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):

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

    NCUA Web site: http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/proposed_regs/proposed_regs.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Address to [email protected] Include “[Your name] Comments on Regulatory Review pursuant to EGRPRA” in the email subject line.

    Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.

    Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.

    Public Inspection: All public comments are available on the agency's Web site at http://www.ncua.gov/Legal/Regs/Pages/PropRegs.aspx as submitted, except as may not be possible for technical reasons. Public comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Paper copies of comments may be inspected in NCUA's law library at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, by appointment weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. To make an appointment, call (703) 518-6546 or send an email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ross P. Kendall, Special Counsel to the General Counsel, at the above address, or telephone: (703) 518-6562.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This second decennial review of regulations began when the Board issued its first EGRPRA notice on May 22, 2014, covering the two categories of “Applications and Reporting” and “Powers and Activities.” 1 The second notice followed, covering the three categories of “Agency Programs,” “Capital,” and “Consumer Protection,” which was published on December 19, 2014.2

    1 79 FR 32121 (June 4, 2014)

    2 79 FR 79763 (December 19, 2014)

    I. Introduction

    Congress enacted EGRPRA 3 as part of an effort to minimize unnecessary government regulation of financial institutions consistent with safety and soundness, consumer protection, and other public policy goals. Under EGRPRA, the appropriate federal banking agencies (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; herein Agencies 4 ) and the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) must review their regulations to identify outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome requirements imposed on insured depository institutions. The Agencies are required, jointly or individually, to categorize regulations by type, such as “consumer regulations” or “safety and soundness” regulations. Once the categories have been established, the Agencies must provide notice and ask for public comment on one or more of these regulatory categories.

    3 Pub. L. 104-208, Div. A, Title II, section 2222, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996); codified at 12 U.S.C. 3311.

    4 The Office of Thrift Supervision was still in existence at the time EGRPRA was enacted and was included in the listing of Agencies. Since that time, the OTS has been eliminated and its responsibilities have passed to the Agencies and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    NCUA is not technically required to participate in the EGRPRA review process, since NCUA is not an “appropriate Federal banking agency” as specified in EGRPRA. In keeping with the spirit of the law, however, the Board has once again elected to participate in the review process. Thus, NCUA has participated along with the Agencies in the planning process, but has developed its own regulatory categories that are comparable with those developed by the Agencies. Because of the unique circumstances of federally insured credit unions and their members, the Board is issuing a separate notice from the Agencies. NCUA's notice is consistent and comparable with the Agencies' notice, except on issues that are unique to credit unions. One such unique issue, corporate credit unions, is included in this third notice.

    In accordance with the objectives of EGRPRA, the Board asks the public to identify areas of its regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. In addition to this third notice, the Board will issue one more notice for comment later on during 2015. The EGRPRA review supplements and complements the reviews of regulations that NCUA conducts under other laws and its internal policies.5

    5 Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 87-2, 52 FR 35231 (Sept. 8, 1987) as amended by IRPS 03-2, 68 FR 32127 (May 29, 2003.) (Reflecting NCUA's commitment to “periodically update, clarify and simplify existing regulations and eliminate redundant and unnecessary provisions.”)

    As the Board noted in its initial EGRPRA notice, the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) resulted in the transfer to it of responsibility for certain consumer protection rules that had previously been the responsibility of the Agencies and/or NCUA, such as Regulation Z and rules governing consumer privacy. Because the CFPB is not covered by EGRPRA or required to participate in this regulatory review process, the Agencies and NCUA excluded certain consumer protection regulations from the scope of the current review.6

    6 In addition to rules that have been transferred to the CFPB, insured credit unions are also subject to certain other regulations that are not required to be reviewed under the EGRPRA process, such as regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Any comment received during the EGRPRA process that pertains to such a rule will be forwarded to the appropriate agency.

    EGRPRA contemplates a two-part regulatory response. First, NCUA will publish in the Federal Register a summary of the comments received, identifying and discussing the significant issues raised. Second, the law directs the Agencies to “eliminate unnecessary regulations to the extent that such action is appropriate.” As was done during the initial decennial review process, the Board anticipates that it will prepare its response separately from the Agencies, but at around the same time.

    EGRPRA further requires the FFIEC to submit a report to the Congress within 30 days after NCUA and the Agencies publish the comment summary and analysis in the Federal Register. This report must summarize any significant issues raised by the public comments and the relative merits of those issues. The report also must analyze whether the appropriate federal financial regulator involved is able to address the regulatory burdens associated with the issues by regulation, or whether the burdens must be addressed by legislation. The FFIEC report submitted to Congress following the initial decennial EGRPRA review included an Agency section discussing banking sector issues and a separate section devoted to NCUA and credit union issues. It is likely that the FFIEC will follow a similar approach in this second decennial EGRPRA review and report process.

    II. The EGRPRA Review's Special Focus

    The regulatory review contemplated by EGRPRA provides a significant opportunity for the public and the Board to consider groups of related regulations and identify possibilities for streamlining. The EGRPRA review's overall focus on the totality of regulations will offer a new perspective in identifying opportunities to reduce regulatory burden. For example, the EGRPRA review may facilitate the identification of regulatory requirements that are no longer consistent with the way business is conducted and that therefore might be eliminated. Of course, reducing regulatory burden must be consistent with ensuring the continued safety and soundness of federally insured credit unions and appropriate consumer protections.

    EGRPRA also recognizes that burden reduction must be consistent with NCUA's statutory mandates, many of which currently require certain regulations. One of the significant aspects of the EGRPRA review program is the recognition that effective burden reduction in certain areas may require legislative change. The Board will be soliciting comment on, and reviewing the comments and regulations carefully for, the relationship among burden reduction, regulatory requirements, and statutory mandates. This will be a key aspect of the report to Congress.

    The Board views the approach of considering the relationship of regulatory and statutory change on regulatory burden, in concert with EGRPRA's provisions calling for grouping regulations by type, to provide the potential for particularly effective burden reduction. The Board believes the EGRPRA review can also significantly contribute to its on-going efforts to reduce regulatory burden. Since 1987, a formally adopted NCUA policy has required the Board to review each of its regulations at least once every three years with a view toward eliminating, simplifying, or otherwise easing the burden of each regulation.7 Further, the Board addresses the issue of regulatory burden every time it proposes and adopts a rule. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,8 the Regulatory Flexibility Act,9 and internal agency policies, NCUA examines each rulemaking to minimize the burdens it might impose on the industry and considers various alternatives.

    7 IRPS 87-2, 52 FR 35231 (Sept. 8, 1987) as amended by IRPS 03-2, 68 FR 32127 (May 29, 2003).

    8 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    9 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    The Board is particularly sensitive to the impact of agency rules on small institutions. In 2013, the Board formally increased the threshold for meeting the “small” classification to having assets of $50 million or less.10 The Board is cognizant that each new or amended regulation has the potential for requiring significant expenditures of time, effort, and money to achieve compliance, and also that this burden can be particularly difficult for institutions of smaller asset size, with fewer resources available.

    10 In February 2015, the Board proposed raising the threshold again, this time to $100 million. 80 FR 11954 (Mar. 5, 2015). The Board has not yet taken final action with respect to the proposal.

    III. The Board's Proposed Plan

    EGRPRA contemplates the categorization of regulations by “type.” During the initial decennial review, the Board developed and published for comment ten categories for NCUA's rules, including some that had been issued jointly with the Agencies. The Board believes these initial categories worked well for the purpose of presenting a framework for the review and so has retained them for this second review.11 The categories, in alphabetical order, are: Agency Programs; Applications and Reporting; Capital; Consumer Protection; Corporate Credit Unions; Directors, Officers and Employees; Money Laundering; Powers and Activities; Rules of Procedure; and Safety and Soundness. As noted above, some of the rules in the consumer protection category are now under CFPB's jurisdiction and administration, and those affected rules have been eliminated. Any rules adopted for the first time since 2006 have been included in the appropriate category.12 Rules still in proposed form are not included in this review; commenters may be sure that comments submitted directly in response to proposed rules will be given due consideration within that process.

    11 Consistent with EGRPRA's focus on reducing burden on insured credit unions, the Board has not included internal, organizational or operational regulations in this review. These regulations impose minimal, if any, burden on insured credit unions.

    12 Commenters should note, in this respect, that for new regulations that have only recently gone into effect, some passage of time may be necessary before the burden associated with the regulatory requirements can be fully and properly understood.

    As the Board noted during the initial decennial review, although there are other possible ways of categorizing its rules, these ten categories “are logical groupings that are not so broad such that the number of regulations presented in any one category would overwhelm potential commenters. The categories also reflect recognized areas of industry interest and specialization or are particularly critical to the health of the credit union system.” As was also noted during the initial review, some regulations, such as lending, pertain to more than one category and are included in all applicable categories.

    The Board remains convinced that publishing its rules for public comment separately from the Agencies is the most effective method for achieving EGRPRA's burden reduction goals for federally insured credit unions. Owing to differences in the credit union system as compared to the banking system, there is not a direct, category by category, correlation between NCUA's rules and those of the Agencies. For example, credit unions deal with issues such as membership, credit union service organizations, and corporate credit unions, all of which are unique to credit union operations. Similarly, certain categories identified by the Agencies have limited or no applicability in the credit union sector, such as community reinvestment, international operations, and securities. The categories developed by the Board and the Agencies reflect these differences. The Board intends to maintain comparability with the Agencies' notices to the extent there is overlap or similarity in the issues and the categories.

    After the conclusion of the comment period for each EGRPRA notice published in the Federal Register, the Board will review the comments it has received and decide whether further action is appropriate with respect to the categories of regulations included in that notice.

    The Board has prepared two charts to assist public understanding of the organization of its review. The first chart, set forth at Section V.A. below, presents the three categories of regulations on which NCUA is requesting burden reduction recommendations in this notice. The three categories are shown in the left column. In the middle column are the subject matters that fall within the categories and in the far right column are the regulatory citations. The second chart, set forth at Section V.B. below, presents the remaining two categories in alphabetical order in a similar format.

    IV. Request for Burden Reduction Recommendations About the Categories of Regulations: “Corporate Credit Unions,” “Directors, Officers, and Employees,” and “Money Laundering”

    The Board seeks public comment on regulations within the following three categories—“Corporate Credit Unions,” “Directors, Officers, and Employees,” and “Money Laundering”— that may impose outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulatory requirements on federally insured credit unions. Comments that cite particular provisions or language, and provide reasons why such provisions should be changed, would be most helpful to NCUA's review efforts. Suggested alternative provisions or language, where appropriate, would also be helpful. If the implementation of a comment would require modifying a statute that underlies the regulation, the comment should, if possible, identify the needed statutory change.

    Specific issues for commenters to consider. While all comments related to any aspect of the EGRPRA review are welcome, the Board specifically invites comment on the following issues:

    • Need and purpose of the regulations. Do the regulations in these categories fulfill current needs? Has industry or other circumstances changed since a regulation was written such that the regulation is no longer necessary? Have there been shifts within the industry or consumer actions that suggest a re-focus of the underlying regulations? Do any of the regulations in these categories impose burdens not required by their authorizing statutes?

    • Need for statutory change. Do the statutes impose unnecessary requirements? Are any of the statutory requirements underlying these categories redundant, conflicting or otherwise unduly burdensome? If so, how should the statutes be amended?

    • Overarching approaches/flexibility of the regulatory standards. Generally, is there a different approach to regulating that the Board could use that would achieve statutory goals while imposing less burden? Do any of the regulations in these categories or the statutes underlying them impose unnecessarily inflexible requirements?

    • Effect of the regulations on competition. Do any of the regulations in these categories or the statutes underlying them create competitive disadvantages for credit unions compared to another part of the financial services industry? If so, how should these regulations be amended?

    • Reporting, recordkeeping and disclosure requirements. Do any of the regulations in these categories or the statutes underlying them impose particularly burdensome reporting, recordkeeping or disclosure requirements? Are any of these requirements similar enough in purpose and use so that they could be consolidated? What, if any, of these requirements could be fulfilled electronically to reduce their burden? Please provide specific recommendations.

    • Consistency and redundancy. Do any of the regulations in these categories impose inconsistent or redundant regulatory requirements that are not warranted by the circumstances?

    • Clarity. Are the regulations in these categories and the underlying statutes drafted in clear and easily understood language? Are there specific regulations or underlying statutes that need clarification?

    • Scope of rules. Is the scope of each rule in these categories consistent with the intent of the underlying statute(s)? Could we amend the scope of a rule to clarify its applicability or to reduce the burden, while remaining faithful to statutory intent? If so, specify which regulation(s) should be clarified.

    • Burden on small insured institutions. The Board has a particular interest in minimizing burden on small insured credit unions (those with less than $50 million in assets). NCUA solicits comment on whether any regulations within these categories should be continued without change, amended or rescinded in order to minimize any significant economic impact the regulations may have on a substantial number of small federally insured credit unions.

    V.A.—Regulations About Which Burden Reduction Recommendations Are Requested Currently Corporate Credit Unions Corporate credit unions 12 CFR 704. Directors, Officers, and Employees Loans and lines of credit to officials 12 CFR 701.21(d). Reimbursement, insurance, and indemnification of officials and employees 12 CFR 701.33. Retirement benefits for employees 12 CFR 701.19. Management officials interlock 12 CFR 711. Fidelity bond and insurance coverage 12 CFR 713. General authorities and duties of federal credit union directors 12 CFR 701.4. Golden parachutes and indemnification payments 12 CFR 750. Money Laundering Report of crimes or suspected crimes 12 CFR 748.1. Bank Secrecy Act 12 CFR 748.2. V.B.—Categories and Regulations About Which NCUA Will Seek Comment Later Rules of Procedure Liquidation (involuntary and voluntary) 12 CFR 709 and 710. Uniform rules of practice and procedure 12 CFR 747, subpart A. Local rules of practice and procedure 12 CFR 747, subpart B. Safety and Soundness Lending 12 CFR 701.21. Investments 12 CFR 703. Supervisory committee audit 12 CFR 715. Security programs 12 CFR 748.0. Guidelines for safeguarding member information and responding to unauthorized access to member information 12 CFR 748, Appendices A and B. Records preservation program and record retention appendix 12 CFR 749. Appraisals 12 CFR 722. Examination 12 CFR 741.1. Liquidity and contingency funding plans 12 CFR 741.12. Regulations codified elsewhere in NCUA's regulations as applying to federal credit unions that also apply to federally insured state-chartered credit unions 12 CFR 741, subpart B. By the National Credit Union Administration Board on June 18, 2015. Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15472 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1984; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-022-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-01-09, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2005-01-09 requires a one-time detailed inspection for discrepancies of the frame web and inner chords on the forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door cutout, and corrective action if necessary. Since we issued AD 2005-01-09, additional cracking was found in the same area after completion of the one-time detailed inspection. This proposed AD would add repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the frame inner chords (forward and aft), and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the frame web and inner chords, which could result in cracking, subsequent severing of the frame, and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1984.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1984; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-1984; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-022-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On December 27, 2004, we issued AD 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005), for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2005-01-09 requires a one-time inspection for discrepancies of the frame web and inner chords on the forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door cutout, and corrective action if necessary. AD 2005-01-09 resulted from a report of cracking of the frame web and inner chords on the forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door. We issued AD 2005-01-09 to find and fix discrepancies of the frame web and inner chords, which could result in cracking, subsequent severing of the frame, and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005), Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005), additional cracking was found in the same area after completion of the one-time detailed inspection required by AD 2005-01-09.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a one-time detailed inspection and repetitive surface high frequency eddy current inspections of the Station 2231 frame inner chords (forward and aft), and repair of discrepancies. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    Related AD

    On August 16, 2013, we issued AD 2013-17-08, Amendment 39-17572 (78 FR 57053, September 17, 2013), for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2013-17-08 requires repetitive inspections to find cracking of the web, strap, inner chords, inner chord angle of the forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door cutouts; the frame segment between stringers 16 and 31; repair if necessary; and repetitive inspections for cracking of repairs. AD 2013-17-08 resulted from multiple reports of cracking outside of the previous inspection areas and a report of a crack that initiated at the aft edge of the inner chord rather than initiating at a fastener location. We issued AD 2013-17-08 to detect and correct such cracks, which could cause damage to the adjacent body structure and could result in depressurization of the airplane in flight.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005), this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements. Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between this Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times.

    Difference Between This Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin

    Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 174 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Detailed inspection 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 $29,580. HFEC inspections 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 0 $340 per inspection cycle $59,160 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-1984; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-022AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 10, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of additional cracking found in the same area after completion of the one-time detailed inspection. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the frame web and inner chords, which could result in cracking, subsequent severing of the frame, and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections

    Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, do a detailed inspection for nicks, scratches, or gouges of the Station 2231 frame inner chords, forward and aft, at stringer 26 at the edge and side of the inner chords.

    (2) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracks of the frame inner chords, forward and aft.

    (3) Based on the findings from the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, do all applicable corrective actions, before further flight.

    (4) Repeat the HFEC inspection specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015.

    (h) Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the release of Revision 1 of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those inspections were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2494, dated September 18, 2003, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005).

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, if those inspections were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 7, dated November 2, 2011, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-17-08, Amendment 39-17572 (78 FR 57053, September 17, 2013).

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2005-01-09, Amendment 39-13933 (70 FR 1340, January 7, 2005), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 12, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15400 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1983; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-020-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a crack of the forward leg of the left front spar lower chord and cracks on the lower wing skin at three fastener holes common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracks on the front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and wing skin, and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the forward leg of the front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and wing skin common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the wing.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA 2015-1983.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1983; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-1983; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-020-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We received a report of a crack on the forward leg of the left front spar lower chord at wing buttock line (WBL) 177. The front spar lower chord was removed, repaired, and reinstalled. Upon additional inspection of the repaired spar chord installation, cracks were also discovered on the lower wing skin at three fastener holes common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting at WBL 198.6. These cracks were identified on an airplane that had accumulated 57,617 total flight cycles. Metallurgical analysis of the chord determined that cracks initiated at fastener holes and were propagated by operating load fatigue. The analysis found no anomalies that could have contributed to the cracking. Fatigue cracking of the forward leg of the left front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and lower wing skin common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting, if not corrected, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the wing.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracks on the left and right wing front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and wing skin and corrective action if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” Refer to this service information for details on the procedures and compliance times.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    For Group 2 and 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, paragraph (h) of this proposed AD specifies repeating the detailed inspection for cracks on the left and right wing front spar lower chord and inspar skin inspection, except in areas repaired in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    Explanation of Required for Compliance (RC) Steps in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as RC (required for compliance) in any service information identified previously have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.

    For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the following provisions apply: (1) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD, and an AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures; and (2) steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 331 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection (28 Group 2 airplanes) 7 work-hours × $85 per hour = $595 per inspection cycle $0 $595 per inspection cycle $16,660 per inspection cycle. Inspection and fastener installation (302 Group 3 airplanes) Up to 94 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,990 per inspection cycle 0 Up to $7,990 per inspection cycle Up to $2,412,980 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the actions specified for the Group 1 airplane in this proposed AD.

    We also have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-1983; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-020-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 10, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack in the forward leg of the left front spar lower chord and cracks on the lower wing skin at three fastener holes common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the forward leg of the front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and wing skin common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the wing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections and Corrective Actions for Group 1 Airplanes

    For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, do inspections of the left and right wing front spar lower chord and inspar skin, and the left and right wing nacelle outboard side load fitting fastener holes common to the front spar lower chord and skin, and do all applicable corrective actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (h) Repetitive Detailed Inspections and Corrective Actions

    For Group 2 and 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014: Except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, do a detailed inspection for cracks on the left and right wing front spar lower chord and inspar skin, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, except in areas repaired in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (i) Repetitive High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    For Group 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014: Except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in Table 2 or Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Table 2 or Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014.

    (1) Do an HFEC open hole probe inspection for cracks of the left and right wing nacelle outboard side load fitting fastener holes common to the front spar lower chord and skin, and perform all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Part 2, Option 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (2) Do an HFEC surface probe inspection for cracks in the wing inspar skin, and perform all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Part 2, Option 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (j) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time “after the effective date of this AD.”

    (2) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) apply.

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

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 12, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15398 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1622; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-9] Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Stockton, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Stockton Metropolitan Airport, Stockton, CA. After a biennial review, and the decommissioning of the Manteca VHF omnidirectional radio range and distance measuring equipment (VOR/DME), the FAA found it necessary to amend the airspace areas for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-1622; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/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 Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rob Riedl, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4534.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for 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 the 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 would amend controlled airspace at Stockton Metropolitan Airport, Stockton, CA.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-1622/Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Stockton Metropolitan Airport, Stockton, CA. Decommissioning of the Manteca VOR/DME and subsequent review of the airspace revealed that airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations for standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. The Class D and Class E surface areas would be expanded to within a 4.5-mile radius of Stockton Metropolitan Airport. The Class D extension to the southeast would be removed as it is no longer required for aircraft arriving and departing under IFR operations. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to within a 7-mile radius of Stockton Metropolitan Airport.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, 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 D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 14 CFR 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 5000: Class D Airspace AWP CA D Stockton, CA (Modified) Stockton Metropolitan Airport, CA

    (lat. 37°53′39″ N., long. 121°14′18″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2500 MSL within a 4.5 mile radius of Stockton Metropolitan Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002: Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

    AWP CA E2 Stockton, CA (Modified) Stockton Metropolitan Airport, CA

    (lat. 37°53′39″ N., long. 121°14′18″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.5 mile radius of Stockton Metropolitan Airport.

    Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth.

    AWP CA E5 Stockton, CA (Modified) Stockton Metropolitan Airport, CA

    (lat. 37°53′39″ N., long. 121°14′18″ W.)

    Stockton Metropolitan Airport, point in space coordinates

    (lat. 37°53′04″ N., long. 121°13′18″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the Stockton Metropolitan Airport point in space coordinates at lat. 37°53′04″ N., long. 121°13′18″ W. That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded on the east by long. 120°04′04″ W., on the southeast by a line extending from lat. 37°52′00″ N., long. 120°04′04″ W.; to lat. 37°38′00″ N., long. 121°00′04″ W., on the south by lat. 37°38′00″ N., on the west by long. 121°37′04″ W., and on the north by lat. 38°07′00″ N.; excluding that airspace within Restricted Area R-2531 when active.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 11, 2015. Christopher Ramirez, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15281 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No.FAA-2015-1871; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-10] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Iron Mountain, MI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at the Iron Mountain VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME), Iron Mountain, MI, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2015-1871/Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/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 Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-222-4075.

    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 would establish Class E airspace at the Iron Mountain VOR/DME navigation aid, Iron Mountain, MI.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-1871/Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at the Iron Mountain VOR/DME navigation aid, Iron Mountain, MI. This action would contain aircraft while in IFR conditions under control of Minneapolis ARTCC by safely vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas.

    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6006 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 6006: En Route Domestic Airspace Areas AGL MI E6 Iron Mountain, MI [New] Iron Mountain VOR/DME, MI Lat. 45°48′58″ N., long. 088°06′44″ W.

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by lat. 47°50′56″ N., long. 089°40′18″ W.; to lat. 46°51′42″ N., long. 090°20′18″ W.; to IWD VORTAC, to IMT VOR/DME, to lat. 46°53′22″ N., long. 088°21′39″ W.; to lat. 47°01′28″ N., long. 086°59′15″ W.; to lat. 47°05′20″ N., long. 087°00′05″ W.; to lat. 47°54′59″ N., long. 088°46′22″ W., thence to the point of beginning clockwise via a 27-mile DME arc south of the YQT VOR/DME, excluding that airspace within Federal airways and within Canadian airspace.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 12, 2015 Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15459 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1869; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-9] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Newberry, MI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at the Newberry VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME), Newberry, MI, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2015-1869/Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/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 Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-222-4075.

    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 would establish controlled airspace at the Newberry VOR/DME navigation aid, Newberry, MI.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-1869/Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at the Newberry VOR/DME navigation aid, Newberry, MI. This action would contain aircraft while in IFR conditions under control of Minneapolis ARTCC by safely vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas.

    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6006 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 6006: En Route Domestic Airspace Areas AGL MI E6 Newberry, MI [New] Newberry VOR/DME, MI Lat. 46°18′45″ N., long. 085°27′49″ W.

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by lat. 46°56′52″ N., long. 086°25′28″ W.; to lat. 45°44′17″ N., long. 086°27′14″ W.; to lat. 45°43′49″ N., long. 085°20′28″ W.; to lat. 46°29′29″ N., long. 084°50′40″ W.; to lat. 46°45′16″ N., long. 085°39′13″ W., thence to the point of beginning, excluding that airspace within Federal airways and within Canadian airspace.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 12, 2015. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15470 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1649; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-6] Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, OH AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class D and Class E airspace and remove Class E airspace in the Columbus, OH, area. Decommissioning of the non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and/or cancellation of NDB approaches at Ohio State University Airport, Columbus, OH, has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport, as well as the Port Columbus International Airport, will be updated.

    DATES:

    0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2015-1649/Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/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 Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roger Waite, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-7652.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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 would amend controlled airspace at Ohio State University Airport, Columbus, OH.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-1649/Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class D and E airspace in the Columbus, OH, area. Decommissioning of the Dan Scott NDB navigation aid and cancellation of the NDB approach at Ohio State University Airport has made this action necessary. Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D would be removed as it is no longer required. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Port Columbus International Airport would be reconfigured due to the Dan Scott NDB decommissioning. The geographic coordinates of Ohio State University Airport and Port Columbus International Airport would be updated to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, 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 D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 5000 Class D Airspace. AGL OH D Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH [Amended] Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH (Lat. 40°04′47″ N., long. 83°04′23″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,400 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Ohio State University Airport, excluding that airspace within the Port Columbus International Airport, OH, Class C airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area. AGL OH E4 Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL OH E5 Columbus, OH [Amended] Columbus, Port Columbus International Airport, OH (Lat. 39°59′49″ N., long. 82°53′32″ W.) Columbus, Rickenbacker International Airport, OH (Lat. 39°48′50″ N., long. 82°55′40″ W.) Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH (Lat. 40°04′47″ N., long. 83°04′23″ W.) Columbus, Bolton Field Airport, OH (Lat. 39°54′04″ N., long. 83°08′13″ W.) Columbus, Darby Dan Airport, OH (Lat. 39°56′31″ N., long. 83°12′18″ W.) Lancaster, Fairfield County Airport, OH (Lat. 39°45′20″ N., long. 82°39′26″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Port Columbus International Airport, and within 3.3 miles either side of the 094° bearing from Port Columbus International Airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.1 miles east of the airport, and within a 7-mile radius of Rickenbacker International Airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 045° bearing from Rickenbacker International Airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.5 miles northeast of the airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Ohio State University Airport, and within a 7.4-mile radius of Bolton Field Airport, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Fairfield County Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Darby Dan Airport, excluding that airspace within the London, OH, Class E airspace area.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 8, 2015. Robert W. Beck, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15461 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 313 RIN 3084-AB42 Amendment to the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; Request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FTC proposes to amend the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule (Privacy Rule or Rule), which among other things requires that certain motor vehicle dealers provide an annual disclosure of their privacy policies to their customers by hand delivery, mail, electronic delivery, or, alternatively through a Web site, but only with the consent of the consumer. The amendment would allow motor vehicle dealers instead to notify their customers that a privacy policy is available on their Web site, under certain circumstances. The amendment would also revise the scope and definitions in this rule in light of the transfer of part of the Commission's rulemaking authority to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or the Bureau) in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, but retains certain examples for purposes of the FTC's Safeguards Rule.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Amendment to the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule, 16 CFR part 313, Project No. R411016” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/GLBPrivacyamendment, by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Amendment to the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule, 16 CFR part 313, Project No. R411016” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Toporoff, (202) 326-3135, Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) 1 mandates that financial institutions provide their customers with initial and annual notices regarding their privacy policies. If financial institutions share certain customer information with particular types of third parties, the institutions are also required to provide an opportunity to opt out of the sharing. The Commission issued its rule implementing these provisions in 2000.2 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act transferred GLBA privacy notice rulemaking authority, in part, to the Bureau; however, the Commission retains rulemaking authority over any financial institution that is a motor vehicle dealer predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both, as described in Section 1029 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5519 (hereafter, motor vehicle dealers).

    1 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.

    2 65 FR 33646 (May 24, 2000).

    The Commission proposes to revise its Privacy Rule, 16 CFR part 313, in two ways. First, in light of the transfer of rulemaking authority for certain financial institutions to the Bureau, the Commission proposes to revise the explanation of the scope of the Rule and to tailor the examples provided in the Rule's Definitions section describing entities over which the Commission has retained rulemaking authority. The Commission believes that revising these provisions will eliminate extraneous information, clarify the Rule's applicability, and reduce confusion as to entities covered by the Rule. The Rule also retains several examples explaining the types of entities covered by the Safeguards Rule, 16 CFR part 314. Second, the Commission proposes to provide an alternative means for covered motor vehicle dealers to fulfill their obligation under the Privacy Rule to provide notice of their privacy policies. Under the proposal, motor vehicle dealers that do not engage in certain types of information-sharing activities would no longer be required to mail an annual privacy notice if they clearly and conspicuously convey, as part of another mandated or legally permissible notice or disclosure, that their privacy notice is available on their publicly accessible Web site. This proposed revision is consistent with changes made in an October 28, 2014, rulemaking by the Bureau, which has rulemaking authority over depository institutions and many non-depository institutions.3

    3 79 FR 64057 (Oct. 28, 2014).

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes are consistent with those issued by the Bureau, and will help avoid consumer confusion and ensure that the requirements for motor vehicle dealers covered by the Rule are consistent with the GLBA's privacy provisions for other financial institutions. Such changes may also streamline the flow of information to consumers, while easing the burden on motor vehicle dealers of providing annual notices. The Commission invites comment on the proposed rule revisions generally and on the specific issues outlined throughout Section IV. In addition, the Commission requests comment on whether, and the extent to which, the FTC's Privacy Rule applicable to motor vehicle dealers should be consistent with the rule adopted by the Bureau, or if there are elements that should differ.

    The Commission seeks comment on the proposal through August 17, 2015.

    II. Background A. The Statute and Regulation

    The GLBA was enacted in 1999.4 The GLBA, among other things, provides a framework for regulating the privacy practices of a broad range of entities. The GLBA requires that financial institutions provide their customers with initial and annual notices regarding their privacy policies, and allow their customers to opt out of sharing their information with certain nonaffiliated third parties. Covered entities include, for example, payday lenders, mortgage brokers, check cashers, debt collectors, real estate appraisers, certain motor vehicle dealers and remittance transfer providers.

    4 Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (1999).

    Rulemaking authority to implement the GLBA's privacy provisions was initially spread among many agencies. The Federal Reserve Board (Board), the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) jointly adopted final rules to implement the notice requirements of the GLBA in 2000.5 The Commission, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) were part of the same interagency process, but issued their rules separately.6 In 2009, all these agencies issued a joint final rule with a model form that financial institutions could use, at their option, to provide the required initial and annual privacy disclosures.7

    5 65 FR 35162 (June 1, 2000).

    6 65 FR 33646 (May 24, 2000) (FTC final rule); 65 FR 31722 (May 18, 2000) (NCUA final rule); 65 FR 40334 (June 29, 2000) (SEC final rule); 66 FR 21252 (Apr. 27, 2001) (CFTC final rule).

    7 74 FR 62890 (Dec. 1, 2009).

    In 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act 8 transferred the GLBA's privacy notice rulemaking authority from the Board, NCUA, OCC, OTS, the FDIC, and the Commission (in part) to the Bureau. The Bureau then restated the implementing regulations in Regulation P, 12 CFR part 1016, in late 2011 (Regulation P).9 However, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission retained rulemaking authority for motor vehicle dealers described in section 1029 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5519. Thus, in 2012, the Commission issued a notice that it was retaining the implementing regulations governing privacy notices for motor vehicles dealers, at 16 CFR part 313.10

    8 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

    9 76 FR 79025 (Dec. 21, 2011).

    10 77 FR 22200, 22201 (April 13, 2012) (also rescinding those regulations for which rulemaking authority was transferred to the Bureau under the Dodd-Frank Act).

    Despite the transfer of general rulemaking authority for the Privacy Rule to the CFPB, the Commission and other agencies retained their existing enforcement authority under the GLBA.11 In addition, the SEC and CFTC retained rulemaking authority with respect to securities and futures-related companies, respectively.12 Accordingly, as part of this rulemaking process, the Commission has consulted and coordinated, or offered to consult, with those agencies who have rulemaking and/or enforcement authority under the GLBA, including the Bureau, SEC, CFTC and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).13

    11 15 U.S.C. 6805(a).

    12 15 U.S.C. 6804, 6809; 12 U.S.C. 1843(k)(4); 12 CFR 1016.1(b).

    13See 15 U.S.C. 6804(a)(2).

    B. The Privacy Notice Requirements

    As noted, the GLBA and the FTC Privacy Rule require that certain covered motor vehicle dealers provide consumers with notices describing their privacy policies. Section 503 of the GLBA and 16 CFR 313.4 require covered entities to provide an initial notice of these policies, and then “provide a clear and conspicuous notice to customers that accurately reflects [their] privacy policies and practices not less than annually during the continuation of the customer relationship.” 14

    14 16 CFR 313.5(a)(1) (emphasis added).

    Section 502 of the GLBA and 16 CFR 313.6(a)(6) require that initial and annual notices inform customers of their right to opt out of the sharing of nonpublic personal information with some types of nonaffiliated third parties. For example, a customer has the right to opt out of allowing a motor vehicle dealer to sell her name and address to a nonaffiliated auto insurance company. On the other hand, a motor vehicle dealer is not required to allow consumers to opt out of the dealer's sharing involving third-party service providers, joint marketing arrangements, maintenance and servicing of accounts, securitization, law enforcement and compliance, reporting to consumer reporting agencies, and certain other activities that are specified in the statute and regulation.15 If a motor vehicle dealer limits its sharing to uses that do not trigger opt-out rights, it may provide an annual privacy notice to its customers that does not include information regarding opt-out rights.

    15 15 U.S.C. 6802(b)(2), 6802(e); 16 CFR 313.13, 313.14, 313.15.

    Motor vehicle dealers also may include in the annual privacy notice information about certain consumer opt-out rights related to affiliate sharing under the FCRA. First, section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the FCRA allows the sharing of a consumer's information among affiliates, but only if the consumer is notified of such sharing and is given an opportunity to opt out.16 Section 503(c)(4) of the GLBA and the Privacy Rule generally require motor vehicle dealers to incorporate any notifications and opt-out disclosures provided pursuant to section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the FCRA into their initial and annual privacy notices.17

    16 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(2)(A)(iii).

    17 15 U.S.C. 6803(c)(4); 16 CFR 313.6(a)(7).

    Second, section 624 of the FCRA and 16 CFR 680 (the Affiliate Marketing Rule) provide that an affiliate of a motor vehicle dealer that receives certain information 18 about a consumer from the dealer may not use that information for marketing purposes, unless the consumer is provided with an opportunity to opt out of that use.19 This requirement governs the use of information by an affiliate, not the sharing of information among affiliates, and thus is distinct from the affiliate sharing opt-out discussed above. The Affiliate Marketing Rule permits (but does not require) motor vehicle dealers to incorporate any opt-out disclosures provided under section 624 of the FCRA and the Affiliate Marketing Rule into the initial and annual privacy notices required by the GLBA.20

    18 The type of information to which section 624 applies is information that would be a consumer report but for the exclusions provided by section 603(d)(2)(A)(i), (ii), or (iii) of the FCRA.

    19 15 U.S.C. 1681s-3. The FTC's Affiliate Marketing Rule applies to motor vehicle dealers. See 77 FR 22200. The FTC also enforces the Bureau's Regulation V's Affiliate Marketing Rule, 12 CFR part 1022, subpart C, for other entities over which it has enforcement authority under the FCRA.

    20 16 CFR 680.23(b).

    Finally, § 313.6(a)(8) of the Privacy Rule requires that the notices also briefly describe how motor vehicle dealers protect the nonpublic personal information they collect and maintain.

    C. The Bureau Rulemaking

    In December 2011, the Bureau issued a Request for Information seeking specific suggestions for streamlining regulations that were transferred to the Bureau from other Federal agencies (Streamlining RFI), including the annual privacy notice requirement.21

    21 76 FR 75825, 75828 (Dec. 5, 2011).

    The Bureau received numerous comments from industry urging the Bureau to eliminate or reduce the annual notice requirement.22 Industry argued that most customers ignore annual privacy notices; the content of the disclosures provides little benefit when customers have no right to opt out of information sharing; current distribution of the notices imposes significant costs; and other methods of delivery could effectively convey the information to customers at a lower cost. Industry commenters suggested that the Bureau eliminate or ease the annual notice requirement if businesses' privacy policies have not changed and they do not share nonpublic personal information beyond the exceptions allowed by the GLBA.23 Consumer advocacy groups highlighted the benefit customers receive from printed annual privacy notices, which may remind customers of privacy rights that they may not have exercised previously.24

    22 79 FR 27214 at 27217 (May 14, 2014) (Bureau Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).

    23Id.

    24Id.

    In November of 2013, the Bureau published a study assessing the effects of certain deposit regulations on financial institutions' operations.25 This study provided operational insights from seven banks about their annual privacy notices. All seven participants provided the annual notice as a separate mailing, which resulted in higher costs for postage, materials, and labor than if the notice were mailed with other material. Some of these participants separately mailed their notices to ensure that their disclosures are “clear and conspicuous,” 26 even though 2009 guidance from the eight agencies promulgating the model privacy form explained that a separate mailing is not required.27 As a result of its Streamlining RFI, study, and its outreach to industry and consumer groups, in May 2014, the Bureau issued a proposed rule to amend its Regulation P to allow financial institutions to notify consumers that a privacy notice was available online, in certain enumerated circumstances. The comment period closed on July 14, 2014. As noted above, the Bureau finalized its rulemaking in October 2014.28

    25 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Understanding the Effects of Certain Deposit Regulations on Financial Institutions' Operations: Findings on Relative Costs for Systems, Personnel, and Processes at Seven Institutions” (Nov. 2013), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201311_cfpb_report_findings-relative-costs.pdf. Information collected for the study may be used to assist the Bureau in its investigations of “the effects of a potential or existing regulation on the business decisions of providers.” OMB Information Request—Control Number: 3170-0032.

    26 15 U.S.C. 6803 (In its initial and annual privacy notices “a financial institution shall provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure . . . .”); 12 CFR 1016.3(b)(1) and 16 CFR 313.3(b)(1) (both defining “clear and conspicuous” as “reasonably understandable and designed to call attention to the nature and significance of the information in the notice.”).

    27See 74 FR 62890, 62897-62898.

    28 79 FR 64057 (Oct. 28, 2014).

    III. The Commission's Proposed Rule Changes A. Technical Changes To Correspond to Statutory Changes

    The Commission adopted the scope and definitions in the existing Privacy Rule at a time when it had rulemaking authority for the Privacy Rule over a broader group of non-bank “financial institutions” as defined by the GLBA. While the Dodd-Frank Act did not change the Commission's enforcement authority for the privacy notice obligations of the GLBA, the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Commission's rulemaking authority under the GLBA such that its Privacy Rule only applies to motor vehicle dealers. For other types of financial institutions over which the Commission has enforcement authority under the GLBA, the Commission now enforces the Bureau's Regulation P. The amendments in the Dodd-Frank Act necessitate certain technical revisions to the Privacy Rule to ensure that the regulation is consistent with the text of the amended GLBA.29 Specifically, the Commission proposes to modify the Scope and Definitions section of the Privacy Rule to provide clearer guidance to financial institutions that are covered motor vehicle dealers.

    29 15 U.S.C. 6804(1)(C).

    Although the Dodd-Frank Act altered the Commission's rulemaking authority with respect to the Privacy Rule, it did not alter the Commission's rulemaking authority for the GLBA's Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, at 16 CFR part 314 (the Safeguards Rule). For the Safeguards Rule, the Commission continues to have rulemaking authority over a broad range of non-bank financial institutions. The Safeguards Rule, however, incorporates by reference the definitions contained in the Privacy Rule, including all of the examples of financial institutions listed in the existing Privacy Rule.30 Accordingly, the Commission proposes to change the Privacy Rule definitions to make clear that, for the purpose of the Privacy Rule, the only examples applicable in the definitions are those related to motor vehicle dealers; for the purpose of the Safeguards Rule, however, all existing examples in the Privacy Rule continue to apply.

    30 16 CFR 314.2(a).

    B. Changes to the Annual Privacy Notice

    The Commission also proposes changes to the Privacy Rule provisions governing how motor vehicle dealers should deliver annual privacy notices. These changes are consistent with changes adopted by the Bureau for those financial institutions subject to the Bureau's rulemaking authority. Under certain limited circumstances, these changes to the Privacy Rule would allow motor vehicle dealers to convey clearly and conspicuously—through another mandated or legally permissible notice or disclosure—that their privacy notice is available on their Web site (hereafter, the alternative delivery method).31 If, however, a motor vehicle dealer has made changes to its privacy practices or shares its customers' nonpublic personal information with nonaffiliated third parties, the dealer generally could not avail itself of this alternative delivery method.32

    31 Because this disclosure must be provided annually, the proposal satisfies the statutory requirement that motor vehicle dealers provide annual notices about their privacy practices. Beyond the requirement to provide the notice annually, the GBLA allows agencies to prescribe the method of delivery. See 15 U.S.C. 6803(a) (The GLBA allows annual notice to be delivered “in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations . . .”).

    32 A motor vehicle dealer may use the alternative delivery method if such sharing does not trigger GLBA opt-out rights as set forth in Parts 313.13, 313.14, and 313.15.

    The Commission anticipates that use of the alternative delivery method that meets the requirements discussed below could inform customers of their motor vehicle dealer's privacy policies effectively and at a lower cost than the current widespread method of mailing annual privacy notices. The cost savings could benefit both consumers and businesses.33

    33See 79 FR at 27218; 79 FR at 64061.

    The Commission has also considered the potential impact of its proposed rule change on consumer privacy. The proposal would not affect the actual collection or use of consumers' nonpublic personal information by motor vehicle dealers, and consumers would continue to get the information and opt-out rights they are entitled to under the statute. Moreover, the proposal would enable consumers to review a motor vehicle dealer's policy at her own convenience any time during the year. For example, a motor vehicle dealer choosing to use the alternative method would have to post the privacy notice continuously on its Web site, thus enabling consumers to access the privacy notice throughout the year rather than having to wait for an annual mailing.

    IV. Section-by-Section Analysis Section 313.1(b)—Scope

    Section 313.1(b) outlines the scope of the Privacy Rule. The existing Rule describes the types of entities to which the Privacy Rule was applicable prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act. Those entities included—but were not limited to—financial institutions such as “payday” lenders, mortgage brokers, check cashers, and tax preparation firms, but did not include entities that were subject to the rulemaking authority of another agency.34 With the exception of motor vehicle dealers, the entities formerly subject to 16 CFR part 313 are now subject to the Bureau's Regulation P.35

    34See 15 U.S.C. 6804 (2010).

    35 The Commission retains enforcement authority over such entities for violations of the Bureau's Regulation P. 15 U.S.C. 6805(a)(7).

    The Commission seeks to revise the Privacy Rule to make clear that it applies only to motor vehicle dealers. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to revise § 313.1(b) to remove examples of entities to which the FTC's Privacy Rule no longer applies. The Commission also proposes to remove the reference in the Privacy Rule's scope to “other persons.” Although the Commission continues to have enforcement authority over “other persons” covered by the CFPB's rule, the Commission no longer has rulemaking authority for the Privacy Rule over “other persons.” In addition, the Commission proposes to eliminate from § 313.1(b) the note indicating that: (1) The Privacy Rule does not modify, limit, or supersede the standards under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and (2) if a financial institution that is an institution of higher education is in compliance with the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and its implementing regulations, such institution shall be deemed in compliance with 16 CFR part 313. The Commission believes it unlikely that this note is applicable to motor vehicle dealers but requests comment as to whether motor vehicle dealers ever engage in practices that require them to comply with HIPAA or FERPA. In addition, the Commission invites general comment on the proposed changes to the description of the scope of the Privacy Rule.

    Section 313.3—Definitions

    The Definitions section of the Privacy Rule includes a number of examples designed to provide guidance regarding the scope of terms used in the Privacy Rule. The Commission proposes to revise these definitions so that they provide accurate guidance regarding the Rule's scope. Specifically, the Commission proposes to revise § 313.3 to make clear that certain examples in five definitions are not applicable to motor vehicle dealers for purposes of the Privacy Rule but continue to apply for purposes of the Safeguards Rule. Similarly, the Commission proposes to revise the definition of “you,” which currently includes entities to which the Privacy Rule no longer applies.

    First, for purposes of the Privacy Rule, proposed § 313.3(e)(2) no longer includes, as examples of “consumers,” those consumers seeking financial advisory services 36 or consumers with which the financial institution has a relationship related to a trust.37 The examples are retained for purposes of the Safeguards Rule, 16 CFR part 314.

    36 16 CFR 313.3(e)(2)(iii).

    37 16 CFR 313.3(e)(2)(vi) and (vii).

    Second, for purposes of the Privacy Rule, proposed § 313.3(i)(2) no longer includes, as examples of a “continuing relationship” with a customer, a relationship in which the financial institution holds an investment product for the consumer; 38 enters into an agreement to arrange or broker a home mortgage loan; 39 provides financial, investment, or economic advisory services to a consumer; 40 provides tax preparation or credit counseling services; 41 provides career counseling for seeking employment with a financial institution or a financial, accounting or audit department of a company; 42 purchases an account, on which the consumer has an obligation, from another financial institution; 43 or provides real estate settlement services.44 The examples are retained for purposes of the Safeguards Rule.

    38 16 CFR 313.3(i)(2)(i)(D). The Privacy Rule requires motor vehicle dealers to provide an annual notice while there is a continuing relationship between the dealer and the customer.

    39 16 CFR 313.3(i)(2)(i)(E). This subsection has been revised to remove the portion of the example relating to home mortgage loans but retains the portion relating to credit to purchase a vehicle.

    40 16 CFR 313.3(i)(2)(i)(G).

    41 16 CFR 313.3(i)(2)(i)(H).

    42 16 CFR 313.3(i)(2)(i)(I).

    43 16 CFR 313.3(i)(2)(i)(J).

    44 16 CFR 313.3(i)(2)(i)(K).

    Third, for purposes of the Privacy Rule, proposed § 313.3(i)(2) no longer includes, as examples of “no continuing relationship” with a customer, a relationship in which the financial institution sells airline tickets 45 or sells checks for a personal checking account.46 The examples are retained for purposes of the Safeguards Rule.

    45 16 CFR 313.3(i)(2)(ii)(C).

    46 16 CFR 313.3(i)(2)(ii)(E).

    Fourth, for purposes of the Privacy Rule, proposed § 313.3(k)(2) no longer includes, as examples of “financial institutions,” retailers that extend credit by issuing their own credit cards to consumers; career counselors specializing in finance, accounting or audit employment; businesses that print and sell checks; businesses that regularly wire money to and from consumers; check cashing businesses; accountants or other tax preparation services that are in the business of completing tax returns; businesses that operate travel services in connection with financial services; businesses providing real estate settlement services; mortgage brokers, or investment advisory companies and credit counseling services.47 The examples are retained for purposes of the Safeguards Rule.

    47 16 CFR 313.3(k)(2)(E)(i), (iv)-(xii).

    Fifth, for purposes of the Privacy Rule, proposed § 313.3(k)(5) no longer includes as examples of “entities that are not significantly engaged in financial activities,” retailers that only extend credit via occasional “lay away” and deferred payment plans; merchants that allow individuals to “run a tab”; or grocery stores that allow individuals to cash checks or write checks for a higher amount than a purchase and obtain cash back.48 The examples are retained for purposes of the Safeguards Rule. The Commission invites comment regarding whether any of the examples that the Commission proposes to eliminate for purposes of the Privacy Rule are applicable to motor vehicle dealers. The Commission also seeks comment regarding the examples that remain for purposes of the Privacy Rule in the definitions of proposed § 313.3 and the applicability of such examples to motor vehicle dealers.

    48 16 CFR 313.3(k)(4)(iii) and (iv).

    The existing Privacy Rule generally defines “you” as a financial institution over which the Commission has enforcement jurisdiction under the GLBA. Because this definition refers to the Commission's enforcement authority rather than its rulemaking authority, the definition is overbroad in light of the amendments to the GLBA discussed above. Therefore, the Commission proposes to revise the definition of “you” so that for purposes of the Privacy Rule it applies to only those entities over which the Commission has rulemaking authority. For purposes of the Safeguards Rule, the definition of “you” remains unchanged.

    The Commission requests comment on the proposed changes to the definition of “you.” The Commission notes that the purpose of the changes to the Privacy Rule scope and definitions serve solely to conform the Privacy Rule to the revisions in the Dodd-Frank Act as to the scope of the Commission's rulemaking authority. These changes do not reflect any change in the Commission's authority to enforce the Privacy Rule or Regulation P.

    Section 313.9—Delivering Privacy and Opt-Out Notices

    Section 313.9(a) of the Rule requires that motor vehicle dealers provide initial and annual privacy notices so that each consumer “can reasonably be expected” to receive actual notice in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically. Section 313.9(b) provides examples of delivery methods that would result in reasonable expectation of actual notice, including hand delivery and delivery by mail. The examples also include posting on a Web site for customers who: (1) Conduct transactions electronically, and (2) acknowledge receipt of the notice as a necessary step to obtaining a particular financial product or service.49 Section 313.9(c) further allows delivery of the annual notice through a Web site, but only if a customer uses the dealer's Web site to access financial products and services and consents to receive notices at the Web site.50 Below, the Commission describes proposed changes to § 313.9(c) that would allow motor vehicle dealers to utilize an alternative delivery method for the annual notices. In some circumstances, motor vehicle dealers could substitute their annual privacy notices with a clear and conspicuous disclosure—as part of an account statement, coupon book, or other legally-required or permitted notice or disclosure—stating that their privacy notice is available on their Web site and will be mailed to the customer on request. As required by the GLBA, this substitute disclosure would have to be provided at least annually.

    49 16 CFR 313.9(b).

    50 16 CFR 313.9(c).

    The Commission seeks information concerning the effect on customer privacy rights if motor vehicle dealers were to use the alternative delivery method rather than their current delivery methods. Relatedly, the Commission requests comment on how often customers currently read annual privacy notices under the Privacy Rule and how frequently the notices would be read if they were provided pursuant to the proposed alternative delivery method. The Commission further requests comment on whether the proposed alternative delivery method would be effective in reducing the burden on motor vehicle dealers of mailing hard copy privacy notices. In particular, the Commission requests information regarding how many annual privacy notices motor vehicle dealers provide.

    Lastly, the Commission notes that the current Rule prescribes certain circumstances under which motor vehicle dealers can provide privacy notices electronically or via online posting. For example, the Rule allows covered entities to provide notices electronically if the consumer agrees or to provide notice online if the consumer is required to acknowledge receipt of the notice. See 16 CFR 313.9. The Commission invites comment regarding how often privacy notices are delivered electronically or posted online under the existing Rule and whether companies that currently provide notices electronically will likely experience cost savings under the proposed new rule requirements.

    9(c)(2) Alternative Method for Providing Certain Annual Notices 9(c)(2)(i)

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i) describes the circumstances under which a motor vehicle dealer may use the alternative delivery method summarized above.51

    51 Existing § 313.9(c) would be redesignated as § 313.9(c)(1) and its subparagraphs redesignated as § 313.9(c)(1)(i) and (ii), respectively, to accommodate the new addition. The Commission is also proposing to add a heading to new paragraph (c)(1) for technical reasons.

    9(c)(2)(i)(A)

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(A) would set forth the first condition for using the alternative delivery method: That the motor vehicle dealer must not share the customer's information with nonaffiliated third parties in a manner that triggers the opt-out requirement under the GLBA. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle dealer may use the alternative delivery method if it shares the customer's information with nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by §§ 313.13 (for joint marketing), 313.14 (for processing and servicing transactions), and 313.15 (with consent, or for security purposes, fraud prevention, legal purposes or fiduciary purposes). It may not use the alternative delivery method, for example, if it shares the customer's nonpublic personal information with a nonaffiliated insurance company for marketing purposes. The Commission believes the alternative delivery method will generally reduce the burden of compliance for motor vehicle dealers, while still mandating the use of the current delivery method to ensure that customers have direct notice of their opt-out rights, where they exist.

    The Commission invites comment on the number of motor vehicle dealers that would not be able to take advantage of the alternative delivery method because they share data with nonaffiliated third parties. The Commission further invites comment on whether customers with opt-out rights pursuant to the Privacy Rule should continue to receive the annual privacy notice pursuant to the current delivery method or if motor vehicle dealers should be able to utilize the proposed alternative delivery method for such customers.

    9(c)(2)(i)(B)

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(B) would set forth the second condition for using the alternative delivery method for the annual privacy notice: That the motor vehicle dealer not include on its annual notice an opt-out under section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the FCRA.52 As discussed above, FCRA section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) allows sharing of certain consumer information with affiliates, but only if the motor vehicle dealer provides the consumer with notice and an opportunity to opt out of the information sharing. Although this is a requirement of the FCRA, section 503(b)(4) of the GLBA and § 313.6(a)(7) of the Privacy Rule require a motor vehicle dealer's privacy notice to include any opt-out rights provided under section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the FCRA. Accordingly, to the extent that a motor vehicle dealer shares customer information with affiliates for marketing purposes, thus triggering the obligation to include an opt-out pursuant to FCRA section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii), the motor vehicle dealer cannot take advantage of the alternative delivery method.53 As noted above, the Commission believes that directly reminding consumers of any opt-out rights at least annually will be important for consumers. This is true regardless whether the opt-out right is provided under the GLBA or the FCRA.

    52 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(2)(A)(iii).

    53See 64 FR 35162, 35176 (June 1, 2000).

    The Commission invites comment on the extent to which different motor vehicle dealers provide a FCRA section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) opt-out and thus would be precluded from using the proposed alternative delivery method. The Commission further invites comment as to whether customers with opt-out rights under this section of the FCRA benefit from receiving the annual privacy notice pursuant to the current delivery method or could receive the notice via the proposed alternative delivery method.

    9(c)(2)(i)(C)

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(C) would contain the third condition for using the alternative delivery method, related to the requirements of section 624 of the FCRA 54 and the Affiliate Marketing Rule, 16 CFR part 680. FCRA section 624, as implemented by the Affiliate Marketing Rule, provides that a person may not use certain information about a consumer that it receives from an affiliate to market to that consumer unless the consumer receives notice and the opportunity to opt out of such marketing.55

    54 15 U.S.C. 1681s-3.

    55 16 CFR 680.21(a).

    In contrast to the FCRA section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) notice and opt-out right concerning affiliate sharing, which is generally required to be included on the GLBA annual privacy notice, the FCRA section 624 (and Affiliate Marketing Rule) notice and opt-out right concerning marketing by affiliates is not required to be included on that notice. However, the Affiliate Marketing Rule notice and opt-out right may be included on the privacy notice.56

    56 16 CFR 680.23(b).

    The Commission proposes—under § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(C)—that a motor vehicle dealer that is required to provide a notice and opt out under the Affiliate Marketing Rule may use the alternative delivery method, provided that the motor vehicle dealer has previously satisfied the Affiliate Marketing Rule requirements or does not use the annual privacy notice as the sole means of providing notice to customers of that opt-out right.57 Alternatively, the motor vehicle dealer could continue to use the current delivery method and include the Affiliate Marketing opt-out on the annual privacy notice, with no separate notice required.

    57 Certain requirements for the Affiliate Marketing notice and opt out differ, depending on whether it is included as part of the model privacy notice or issued separately. Where a motor vehicle dealer includes the Affiliate Marketing notice and opt-out on the model privacy notice, that opt-out must be of indefinite duration. See Appendix A to Part 313 at C.2(d)(6). In contrast, where a motor vehicle dealer provides the Affiliate Marketing notice and opt-out separately, the Affiliate Marketing Rule allows the opt-out to be offered for as little as five years, subject to renewal, and the disclosure of the duration of the opt-out must be included on the notice. See 16 CFR 680.22(b). 16 CFR 680.23(a)(1)(iv). Because inclusion of the Affiliate Marketing opt-out on the model privacy notice requires a motor vehicle dealer to honor the opt-out indefinitely, a motor vehicle dealer that also offers the opt-out right separately in order to use the alternative delivery method would be able to comply with both the Privacy Rule and the Affiliate Marketing Rule by stating in the separate Affiliate Marketing notice that the opt-out is of indefinite duration and by honoring such opt-out requests indefinitely.

    The Commission invites comment on the extent to which motor vehicle dealers include the Affiliate Marketing Rule opt-out on their Privacy Rule privacy notices and thus would be precluded from using the proposed alternative delivery method. The Commission further invites comment on whether imposing this condition on using the alternative delivery method is beneficial to consumers.

    9(c)(2)(i)(D)

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(D) would present the fourth condition for using the alternative delivery method: That the substantive information a motor vehicle dealer is required to convey on its annual privacy notice has not changed since the immediately previous privacy notice (whether initial, annual, or revised) to the customer.58 The Commission believes that the current delivery method is likely less useful if the customer has already received a privacy notice, and the motor vehicle dealer's sharing practices remain generally unchanged since that previous notice. Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(D) lists the specific disclosures of the privacy notice that must not change in order for a motor vehicle dealer to take advantage of the alternative delivery method. They are:

    58 Note that information disclosed pursuant to § 313.6(a)(6) and (a)(7) is not included in proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(D) because if those situations apply, a motor vehicle dealer could not use the alternative delivery method under proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(A) and (B), as discussed above.

    • The categories of nonpublic personal information that the motor vehicle dealer collects (§ 313.6(a)(1) and (a)(4));

    • the categories of nonpublic personal information that the motor vehicle dealer discloses (§ 313.6(a)(2));

    • the categories of affiliates and nonaffiliated third parties to whom the motor vehicle dealer discloses nonpublic personal information, other than to parties that administer or enforce transactions, service or process financial products, or maintain or service accounts, under § 313.14 and to parties for security, fraud prevention, legal purposes, or similar purposes under § 313.15 (§ 313.6(a)(3));

    • if the motor vehicle dealer discloses nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party for joint marketing as set forth under § 313.13, a separate statement of the categories of information disclosed and the categories of third parties to whom the disclosures were made (§ 313.6(a)(5));

    • the motor vehicle dealer's policies and practices with respect to protecting the confidentiality and security of nonpublic personal information (§ 313.6(a)(8)); and

    • the description of the purpose for sharing with service providers and other entities that conduct fraud prevention, security, or similar services (§ 313.6(a)(9)).

    The Commission emphasizes that a motor vehicle dealer would be precluded from using the alternative delivery method only if it made substantive changes to the information disclosed on the previous written notice sent to the consumer. Stylistic changes in the wording of the notice that do not denote a change in practices would not prevent a motor vehicle dealer from using the alternative delivery method. Nor would the proposed section prohibit a motor vehicle dealer from using the alternative delivery method if the dealer eliminated categories of information it disclosed or categories of third parties to whom it disclosed information. Any other substantive change to its information sharing practices would preclude use of the alternative delivery method; however, the motor vehicle dealer could use the alternative delivery method to meet its next annual privacy notice requirement if it first sent a revised privacy notice pursuant to the standard delivery requirements.

    The Commission invites comment about the effect on customers of conditioning availability of the alternative delivery method on there being no change from the previous year's notice. The Commission further invites comment on how often motor vehicle dealers change their privacy notice such that they would be precluded from using the proposed alternative delivery method. Lastly, the Commission invites comment on the extent to which a motor vehicle dealer's changing its data security policy should preclude it, like financial institutions covered by Regulation P, from using the proposed alternative delivery method.

    9(c)(2)(i)(E)

    The last condition for use of the alternative delivery method, which would be set forth in proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(E), requires that the motor vehicle dealer use the model privacy form for its annual privacy notice. Currently, the Privacy Rule does not require use of the model notice because the statute under which it was promulgated only required that regulators give financial institutions the option to use such a model notice.59

    59 15 U.S.C. 6803.

    However, the Commission proposes to permit use of the alternative delivery method only if a motor vehicle dealer uses the model privacy form for its annual privacy notice. This approach would likely incentivize use of the model notice, which consumer research has shown to be effective in communicating information.60 The Commission does not believe that the one-time burden of creating a model notice will place an undue burden on motor vehicles dealers, who will likely be able to save costs by not sending annual privacy notices.

    60 74 FR 62890, 62891 (Dec. 1, 2009).

    The Commission notes that the model form accommodates information that may be required by state or international law, as applicable, in a box called “Other important information.” 61 Accordingly, the Commission expects that a motor vehicle dealer that has additional privacy disclosure obligations pursuant to state or international law would still be able to use the model form in order to take advantage of the proposed alternative delivery method. The Commission invites comment on related state or international law requirements and their interaction with the model privacy notice, as well as the proposed condition on the alternative delivery method in general.

    61 Appendix A to Part 313 at C(3)(c).

    The Commission contemplates that adoption of the model privacy form may require changes to the wording and layout of the privacy notice, but not to the information conveyed. Thus, adoption of the model notice would not constitute a change to the prior year's notice that would preclude use of the alternative delivery method under proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(D).62 The Commission solicits comment on this issue. The Commission further invites comment on the extent to which motor vehicle dealers currently use the model privacy notice, and if they do not, whether they would choose to adopt it in order to take advantage of the proposed alternative delivery method. Lastly, the Commission invites comment on the benefit to customers of receiving the model privacy notice rather than a privacy notice in a non-standard format.

    62 In a somewhat analogous situation, the agencies that promulgated the model privacy notice explained: “Adoption of the model form, with no change in policies or practices, would not constitute a revised notice [for purposes of the rule section on revised privacy notices], although institutions may elect to consider the format change as revision, at their option.” 74 FR 62890, 62907 n. 196.

    Finally, the Commission generally invites comment on the conditions in proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(i)(A) through (E) and whether any of those conditions should not be required or whether other conditions should be added.

    9(c)(2)(ii)

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(ii) sets forth the mechanics of the alternative delivery method for annual notices.

    9(c)(2)(ii)(A)

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(ii)(A) would set forth the first component of the alternative delivery method: that a motor vehicle dealer inform the customer of the availability of the annual privacy notice on its Web site. Under this proposed subsection, a motor vehicle dealer must clearly and conspicuously convey, not less than annually—on an account statement, coupon book, or notice or disclosure the institution is required or expressly permitted to use under any other provision of law—three pieces of information: (1) That its privacy notice has not changed, (2) that the notice is available on its Web site, and (3) that a hard copy of the notice will be mailed to customers if they call to request one.

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(ii)(A) states that this notice must be “clear and conspicuous,” which is defined as meaning “reasonably understandable” and “designed to call attention to the nature and significance of the information.” 63 The Commission believes that the existing examples in § 313.3(b)(2)(i) and (ii) for the “reasonably understandable” and “designed to call attention” requirements likely would provide sufficient guidance on ways to make the notice clear and conspicuous. For example, the Rule states that, if the notice is combined with other information, it must contain “distinctive type size, style, and graphic devices, such as shading or sidebars.” 64

    63 16 CFR 313.3(b)(1).

    64 16 CFR 313.3(b)(2)(ii)(E).

    Although the Commission proposes to require that motor vehicle dealers convey this “notice of availability” not less than annually, they may elect to convey it more often (e.g., quarterly or monthly). The Commission invites comment on whether the approach used for notice of availability for motor vehicle dealers should differ from that for the financial institutions covered by Regulation P. In particular, the Commission is interested in comment on: (1) Whether the proposed example notice of availability would make the alternative delivery method more feasible for motor vehicle dealers to implement, (2) whether the illustrative elements not specifically required by the Rule should be so required, and (3) whether the proposed language would be effective in informing customers of the availability of the privacy notice.

    As noted, proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(ii)(A) would require the notice of availability to be conveyed on an account statement, coupon book, or notice or disclosure the motor vehicle dealer is required or expressly and specifically permitted to issue under any other provision of law. An account statement would include periodic statements or billing statements. A coupon book refers to a book of payment coupons typically included with an installment loan. The Commission believes customers are likely to read account statements or coupon books that directly concern the status of their account.

    A “notice or disclosure the institution is required or expressly and specifically permitted to issue under any other provision of law” would include disclosures that are expressly and specifically permitted by law, even if not required. This language builds on the language used in the Affiliate Marketing Rule, which provides that “a notice required by this subpart may be coordinated and consolidated with any other notice or disclosure required to be issued under any other provision of law. . . .” 65 The Commission notes that a notice of availability would not satisfy the proposed rule requirement if included on advertising materials that were neither required nor specifically permitted by law. The Commission invites comment on the benefits and costs of requiring the notice of availability to be included on an account statement, coupon book, or document required or expressly and specifically permitted under any other provision of law. The Commission further requests comment as to the best documents on which to place the notice of availability, particularly in light of what consumers are likely to read.

    65 16 CFR 680.23(b).

    The Commission further notes that where two or more motor vehicle dealers provide a joint privacy notice pursuant to § 313.9(f), the proposal would require each motor vehicle dealer to separately provide the notice of availability. The Commission invites comment on how often motor vehicle dealers jointly provide privacy notices and whether the proposed alternative delivery method would be feasible for such jointly issued notices.

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(ii)(A) also would require the institution to state on the notice of availability that its privacy policy has not changed, which, as discussed in detail below, is a condition that a dealer must satisfy in order to be able to use the alternative delivery method. This proposed requirement can help customers assess whether they are interested in reading the policy. This statement would always be accurate if the alternative delivery method is used correctly, since a motor vehicle dealer could not use the alternative delivery method if its annual privacy notice had changed.

    The proposal would further require that the statement include a specific web address that takes customers directly to the page where the privacy notice is available. The section also would require that the web address conveyed on the notice of availability provide the customer with direct access to the page that contains the privacy notice, so that the customer need not click on any additional links.

    Next, proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(ii)(A) would require that the notice of availability include a telephone number that a customer can call to request a hard copy of the annual privacy notice. This number need not be a dedicated number established for this purpose alone. This requirement is intended to assist customers who do not have internet access or would prefer to receive a hard copy of the privacy notice. The Commission encourages motor vehicle dealers that already maintain a toll-free number to use that number in the statement required by § 313.9(c)(2)(ii)(A), to simplify the process for a customer to call and request a mailed copy of the privacy notice.

    As an alternative, the Commission invites comment on whether the approach used for notice of availability for motor vehicle dealers should differ from that for the financial institutions covered by Regulation P. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the advantages and disadvantages of requiring motor vehicle dealers to provide a dedicated telephone number for privacy notice requests so that customers can easily request a hard copy of the notice without navigating a complicated automated telephone menu. The Commission also invites comment on whether it should require a dedicated toll-free number for this purpose.

    9(c)(2)(ii)(B)

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(ii)(B) would set forth the second component of the alternative delivery method: that the motor vehicle dealer post its current privacy notice continuously and in a clear and conspicuous manner on a page of the institution's Web site on which the only content is the privacy notice. The Commission believes that, were the notice included on a page with other content, such as other disclosures or promotions for products, that content could detract from the prominence of the notice and make it less likely that a customer would actually read it.66 The Commission believes that this requirement is feasible for most motor vehicle dealers, and for a motor vehicle dealer that does not currently post its annual notice on its Web site, creating a specific page for this purpose is a one-time process that could be implemented without significant cost.

    66 Information that is not content, such as navigational menus to other pages on the Web site, could appear on the same page as the privacy notice. Moreover, other pages on the dealer's Web site could link to the page containing the privacy notice, but the customer would still have to be provided a specific web address that takes the customer directly to the page where the privacy notice is available to satisfy the requirement to post the notice on the motor vehicle dealer's Web site in proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(ii)(B). Finally, with regard to the proposed requirement that the notice be posted in a “clear and conspicuous” manner, the Commission notes that existing § 313.3(b)(2)(iii) gives examples of what clear and conspicuous means for a privacy notice posted on a Web site. One example is a Web page that uses text or visual cues to encourage scrolling down the page if necessary to view the entire notice, and as long as the page does not include text, graphics, hyperlinks, or sound that may distract from the notice.

    This section would further require that the Web page that contains the privacy notice be accessible to the customer without requiring the customer to provide any information such as a login name or password or agree to any conditions to access the page. This provision is intended to make accessing the privacy notice on an institution's Web site as simple and straightforward as possible.

    The Commission invites comment regarding the prevalence of motor vehicle dealers that currently maintain Web sites, whether they currently post the Privacy Rule notice on those Web sites, and if they do not, how costly it would be to do so. The Commission additionally seeks comment on whether motor vehicle dealers provide different privacy notices for different groups of customers, such that posting multiple privacy notices on the dealer's Web site may create confusion as to which is the relevant privacy notice that is applicable to a particular customer. The Commission seeks comment on the relative benefit or harm to customers of accessing the privacy notice on a motor vehicle dealer's Web site as proposed. Lastly, the Commission invites comment as to whether motor vehicle dealers should be required to provide specific reminder information to a consumer about that consumer's previously established preferences—for example, whether the consumer has already opted out—via a login and password-protected section of the Web site.

    9(c)(2)(ii)(C)

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(ii)(C) would set forth the third component of the alternative delivery method: That the motor vehicle dealer mail its current privacy notice to those customers who request it by telephone within ten calendar days of such request. The Commission proposes this requirement to assist customers without internet access and customers with internet access who would prefer to receive a hard copy of the notice. This requirement makes clear that a motor vehicle dealer may not, for example, wait to mail the privacy notice with another document, such as a quarterly statement. Motor vehicle dealers may not charge the customer for delivering the annual notice, given that delivery of the annual notice is required by statute and regulation.

    The Commission invites comment on the cost associated with mailing privacy notices on request, and whether mailing of the privacy notice within ten calendar days of a request is feasible for motor vehicle dealers. The Commission further requests comment on whether requiring mailing within ten calendar days is sufficient to ensure that customers receive privacy notices in a timely manner.

    9(c)(2)(iii)

    Proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(iii) would provide an example of a notice of availability that satisfies § 313.9(c)(2)(ii)(A). The Commission intends this example to provide clear guidance on permissible content for the notice of availability to facilitate compliance. The content of the example notice of availability in proposed § 313.9(c)(2)(iii) draws from language in the existing model privacy notice in Part 313, App. A, which was previously subject to consumer testing.67 The proposed example would include the heading “Privacy Notice” in boldface (or otherwise emphasized) on the notice of availability. The proposed example further would state that Federal law requires the motor vehicle dealer to tell customers how it collects, shares, and protects their personal information; this language mirrors the “Why” box on the model privacy notices.68 The remaining portion of the proposed example would inform customers that the motor vehicle dealer's privacy notice has not changed, the address of the Web site at which customers can access the privacy notice, and the telephone number to call to request a free copy of the notice. The Commission notes that the proposed example contains certain elements that would satisfy proposed § 313.9(c)(2), but other language and formatting techniques could also satisfy that section. These elements include titling the notice of availability “Privacy Notice,” including a statement that “Federal law requires the motor vehicle dealer to tell customers how it collects, shares, and protects their personal information,” and stating that getting a copy of the notice is “free” to the consumer.

    67See Appendix A to 16 CFR part 313, at A.

    68Id.

    The Commission invites comment on whether the proposed example notice of availability for motor vehicle dealers should differ from that for financial institutions covered by Regulation P. In particular, the Commission is interested in comment on: (1) Whether the proposed example notice of availability would make the alternative delivery method more feasible for motor vehicle dealers to implement, (2) whether the elements not specifically required by the rule should be so required, and (3) whether the proposed language would be effective in informing customers of the availability of the privacy notice.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations. The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.69

    69 5 U.S.C. 603-605.

    An IRFA is not required here because the proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission does not expect the proposal to impose costs on small entities. All methods of compliance under current law will remain available to small entities if the proposal is adopted. Thus, a small entity that is in compliance with current law need not take any different or additional action if the proposal is adopted. In addition, as discussed above, the Commission believes that the proposed alternative method would allow many motor vehicle dealers to reduce their costs.

    Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),70 Federal agencies are generally required to seek Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for information collection requirements prior to implementation. Under the PRA, the Commission may not conduct or sponsor, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to an information collection, unless the information collection displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

    70 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    This proposal would amend 16 CFR part 313. The collections of information related to the Privacy Rule have been previously reviewed and approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA and assigned OMB Control Number 3084-0121.71

    71 The FTC has current clearance through October 31, 2017. See 79 FR 55489 (Sept. 16, 2014).

    As explained below, the proposed amendments do not modify or add to information collection requirements that were previously approved by OMB. Under this proposal, a motor vehicle dealer will be permitted, but not required, to use an alternative delivery method for the annual privacy notice if:

    • It does not share information with nonaffiliated third parties other than for purposes covered by the exclusions allowed under the Privacy Rule;

    • It does not include on its annual privacy notice an opt-out under section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the FCRA;

    • The annual privacy notice is not the only method used to satisfy the requirements of section 624 of the FCRA and 16 CFR part 680, if applicable;

    • Certain information it is required to convey on its annual privacy notice has not changed since it provided the immediately prior privacy notice; and

    • It uses the Privacy Rule model privacy form for its annual privacy notice.

    Under the proposed alternative delivery method, the motor vehicle dealer would have to:

    • Convey at least annually on another notice or disclosure that its privacy notice is available on its Web site and will be mailed upon request to a specified telephone number. Among other things, the dealer would have to include a specific web address that takes the customer directly to the privacy notice;

    • Post its current privacy notice continuously on a page of its Web site that contains only the privacy notice, without requiring a login or any conditions to access the page; and

    • Mail its current privacy notice to customers who request it by telephone within ten calendar days of such request.

    Under the existing clearance, the FTC has attributed to itself the estimated burden regarding all motor vehicle dealers and then shares equally the remaining estimated PRA burden with the Bureau for other types of financial institutions for which both agencies have enforcement authority regarding the GLBA Privacy Rule.72

    72 79 FR 55489.

    The Commission does not believe that this proposed rule would impose any new or substantively revised collections of information as defined by the PRA. Rather, the Commission believes that the proposed amendment would have the overall effect of reducing the currently cleared estimated burden for the information collections associated with the Privacy Rule annual privacy notice.

    By definition, the expected cost savings to motor vehicle dealers from the proposed revisions to § 313.9(c) is the expected number of annual privacy notices that would be provided through the proposed alternative delivery method multiplied by the expected reduction in the cost per-notice from using the alternative delivery method. The first step in estimating the expected cost savings to motor vehicle dealers from proposed § 313.9(c)(2) would be to identify the motor vehicle dealers whose current information sharing practices would allow them to use the proposed alternative method. The Commission would then need to determine their currents costs for providing the annual privacy notices and the expected costs of providing these notices under proposed § 313.9(c)(2).

    In order to reach such an estimate for financial institutions, the Commission looked to the Bureau's rulemaking. The Bureau performed a number of analyses and outreach activities to approximate the expected cost savings for financial institutions. After examining 125 banks selected through random sampling, the Bureau found that the overall average rate at which banks' information sharing practices would make them eligible for using the alternative delivery method if other conditions were met is 80%.73 The Bureau's results indicated that a large majority of smaller banks would likely be able to use the proposed alternative delivery method but most of the largest banks would not.74 For non-depository institutions subject to the Commission's enforcement, the Bureau similarly estimated that 80% would be able to use the alternate delivery method.75 Subject to further information through public comment, the Commission preliminarily assumes that this 80% is characteristic as well for motor vehicle dealers. The Commission requests comment and the submission of information relevant to the information sharing practices of motor vehicle dealers and the extent to which they may be able to use the proposed alternative delivery method.

    73 79 FR at 27226.

    74Id. Only 18% of sampled banks with assets over $10 billion could clearly use the proposed alternative delivery method, while 81% of sampled banks with assets of $10 billion or less and 88% of sampled banks with assets of $500 million or less could clearly use the proposed alternative delivery method. The Bureau also examined the privacy policies of 54 credit unions and found 62% of those with assets over $500 million could use the alternative delivery method and 44% of those with $500 million or less in assets could (though, due to inadequate information, the Bureau could not make the assessment for 48% of those credit unions with $500 million or less in assets). Id.

    75 79 FR at 27229.

    The Commission does not have precise data on the number of annual privacy notices motor vehicle dealers currently provide to directly compute the total number of annual privacy notices that would no longer be sent; however, in the Commission's proposal to extend the current PRA clearance for the Privacy Rule,76 the Commission estimated the total costs to motor vehicle dealers to disseminate annual disclosures to be about $18.4 million.77 Applying the Commission's estimate that 80% of motor vehicle dealers would be able to utilize the alternative delivery method, the estimated reduction in ongoing burden would be approximately 638,400 hours annually for roughly 48,000 motor vehicle dealers.78 The reduction in estimated ongoing costs from the reduction in ongoing burden would be approximately $14.7 million annually.79 The Commission requests comment on this preliminary analysis as well as the submission of additional data that could inform the Commission's consideration of the cost savings to motor vehicle dealers.

    76 79 FR 55489 (Sept. 14, 2014).

    77Id. at 55490-91 Table IIB.

    78 The 638,400 hours estimate is 80% of the previously published estimate of 798,000 hours, cumulatively, for established motor vehicle dealers to disseminate annual notices. See id. at 55490 (Table IIB). The estimated number of motor vehicle dealers that would use the alternative delivery method is 80% of the previously published estimate of the number of motor vehicle dealers, 60,000. See id. at Table IIA notes.

    79 This is the product of the above-noted costs to motor vehicle dealers to disseminate annual disclosures, $18.4 million, multiplied by the assumed 80% reduction for the alternative delivery method. Estimates of ongoing savings are gross figures and do not take into account any ongoing costs associated with the alternative delivery method, which the Commission believes would be minimal. They would consist of additional text on a notice or disclosure the institution already provides, additional phone calls from consumers requesting that the model form be mailed, and the costs of mailing the forms prompted by these calls. The Commission currently believes that few consumers will request that the form be mailed in order to read it or to exercise any voluntary opt-out right, given the availability of the notices online. There would be minimal ongoing costs associated with the alternative delivery method from maintaining a Web page if a motor vehicle dealer already has a Web page dedicated to the annual privacy policy.

    The Commission believes that the one-time cost for some motor vehicle dealers to adopt the alternative delivery method is minimal. Motor vehicle dealers that already use the model form and would adopt the alternative delivery method would incur minor one-time legal, programming and training costs. These dealers would have to communicate on a notice or disclosure they already issue under any other provision of law that the privacy notice is available. The expense of adding this notification would be minor. Staff may need some additional training in storing copies of the model form and sending it to customers on request. Motor vehicle dealers that do not use the model form would incur a one-time cost to create one. However, since the promulgation of the model privacy form in 2009, an Online Form Builder has existed that any institution can use to readily create a unique, customized privacy notice using the model form template.80 The Commission assumes that motor vehicle dealers that do not currently have Web sites would not choose to comply with these requirements in order to use the alternative delivery method.

    80 This Online Form Builder is available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20100415a.htm.

    The Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not contain any new or substantively revised information collection requirements as defined by the PRA and that the burden estimate for the previously-approved information collections should be reduced as explained above. The Commission welcomes comments on these determinations or any other aspect of the proposal for purposes of the PRA. Comments should be submitted as outlined in the ADDRESSES section above. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Invitation To Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before August 31, 2015. Write “Amendment to the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule, 16 CFR part 313, Project No. R411016” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive personal information, such as Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive health information, including medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).81 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    81 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/GLBPrivacyamendment, by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Amendment to the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule, 16 CFR part 313, Project No. R411016” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before August 31, 2015. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 313

    Consumer protection, Motor vehicle dealers, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade practices.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR part 313, as set forth below:

    PART 313—PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for Part 313 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq., 12 U.S.C. 5519.

    2. In § 313.1, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 313.1 Purpose and scope.

    (b) Scope. This part applies only to nonpublic personal information about individuals who obtain financial products or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes from the institutions listed below. This part does not apply to information about companies or about individuals who obtain financial products or services for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes. This part applies to those “financial institutions” over which the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has rulemaking authority pursuant to section 504(a)(1)(C) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. An entity is a “financial institution” if its business is engaging in a financial activity as described in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 12 U.S.C. 1843(k), which incorporates by reference activities enumerated by the Federal Reserve Board in 12 CFR 211.5(d) and 12 CFR 225.28. The “financial institutions” subject to the Commission's rulemaking authority are any persons described in 12 U.S.C. 5519 that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both. They are referred to in this part as “You.

    3. In § 313.3, revise paragraphs (e), (i), (k), and (q) to read as follows:
    § 313.3 Definitions.

    (e)(1) Consumer means an individual who obtains or has obtained a financial product or service from you that is to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or that individual's legal representative.

    (2) Examples for purposes of 16 CFR part 313 and 314—(i) An individual who applies to you for credit for personal, family, or household purposes is a consumer of a financial service, regardless of whether the credit is extended.

    (ii) An individual who provides nonpublic personal information to you in order to obtain a determination about whether he or she may qualify for a loan to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes is a consumer of a financial service, regardless of whether the loan is extended.

    (iii) If you hold ownership or servicing rights to an individual's loan that is used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, the individual is your consumer, even if you hold those rights in conjunction with one or more other institutions. (The individual is also a consumer with respect to the other financial institutions involved.) An individual who has a loan in which you have ownership or servicing rights is your consumer, even if you, or another institution with those rights, hire an agent to collect on the loan.

    (iv) An individual who is a consumer of another financial institution is not your consumer solely because you act as agent for, or provide processing or other services to, that financial institution.

    (v) An individual is not your consumer solely because he or she is a participant or a beneficiary of an employee benefit plan that you sponsor or for which you act as a trustee or fiduciary.

    (3) Examples for purposes of 16 CFR part 314—(i) An individual who provides nonpublic personal information to you in connection with obtaining or seeking to obtain financial, investment, or economic advisory services is a consumer, regardless of whether you establish a continuing advisory relationship.

    (ii) An individual is not your consumer solely because he or she has designated you as trustee for a trust.

    (iii) An individual is not your consumer solely because he or she is a beneficiary of a trust for which you are a trustee.

    (i)(1) Customer relationship means a continuing relationship between a consumer and you under which you provide one or more financial products or services to the consumer that are to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

    (2) Examples—(i) Continuing relationship. (A) A consumer has a continuing relationship with you, for purposes of 16 CFR part 313 and part 314, if the consumer:

    (1) Has a credit or investment account with you;

    (2) Obtains a loan from you;

    (3) Purchases an insurance product from you;

    (4) Enters into an agreement or understanding with you whereby you undertake to arrange credit to purchase a vehicle, for the consumer;

    (5) Enters into a lease of personal property on a non-operating basis with you; or

    (6) Has a loan for which you own the servicing rights.

    (B) A consumer also has a continuing relationship with you, for purposes of 16 CFR part 314, if the consumer:

    (1) Holds an investment product through you, such as when you act as a custodian for securities or for assets in an Individual Retirement Arrangement;

    (2) Enters into an agreement or understanding with you whereby you undertake to arrange or broker a home mortgage loan, for the consumer;

    (3) Obtains financial, investment, or economic advisory services from you for a fee;

    (4) Becomes your client for the purpose of obtaining tax preparation or credit counseling services from you;

    (5) Obtains career counseling while seeking employment with a financial institution or the finance, accounting, or audit department of any company (or while employed by such a financial institution or department of any company);

    (6) Is obligated on an account that you purchase from another financial institution, regardless of whether the account is in default when purchased, unless you do not locate the consumer or attempt to collect any amount from the consumer on the account; or

    (7) Obtains real estate settlement services from you.

    (ii) No continuing relationship. (A) For purposes of 16 CFR parts 313 and 314, a consumer does not, however, have a continuing relationship with you if:

    (1) The consumer obtains a financial product or service from you only in isolated transactions, such as cashing a check with you or making a wire transfer through you;

    (2) You sell the consumer's loan and do not retain the rights to service that loan; or

    (3) The consumer obtains one-time personal or real property appraisal services from you.

    (B) For purposes of 16 CFR part 314, a consumer also does not have a continuing relationship with you if:

    (1) The consumer obtains a financial product or service from you only in isolated transactions, such as using your ATM to withdraw cash from an account at another financial institution or purchasing a money order from you;

    (2) You sell the consumer airline tickets, travel insurance, or traveler's checks in isolated transactions; or

    (3) The consumer purchases checks for a personal checking account from you.

    (k)(1) Financial institution means any institution the business of which is engaging in financial activities as described in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)). An institution that is significantly engaged in financial activities is a financial institution.

    (2) Example of financial institution for purposes of 16 CFR part 313 and 314. An automobile dealership that, as a usual part of its business, leases automobiles on a nonoperating basis for longer than 90 days is a financial institution with respect to its leasing business because leasing personal property on a nonoperating basis where the initial term of the lease is at least 90 days is a financial activity listed in 12 CFR 225.28(b)(3) and referenced in section 4(k)(4)(F) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    (3) Examples of financial institution for purposes of 16 CFR part 314. (i) A retailer that extends credit by issuing its own credit card directly to consumers is a financial institution because extending credit is a financial activity listed in 12 CFR 225.28(b)(1) and referenced in section 4(k)(4)(F) of the Bank Holding Company Act and issuing that extension of credit through a proprietary credit card demonstrates that a retailer is significantly engaged in extending credit.

    (ii) A personal property or real estate appraiser is a financial institution because real and personal property appraisal is a financial activity listed in 12 CFR 225.28(b)(2)(i) and referenced in section 4(k)(4)(F) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    (iii) A career counselor that specializes in providing career counseling services to individuals currently employed by or recently displaced from a financial organization, individuals who are seeking employment with a financial organization, or individuals who are currently employed by or seeking placement with the finance, accounting or audit departments of any company is a financial institution because such career counseling activities are financial activities listed in 12 CFR 225.28(b)(9)(iii) and referenced in section 4(k)(4)(F) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    (iv) A business that prints and sells checks for consumers, either as its sole business or as one of its product lines, is a financial institution because printing and selling checks is a financial activity that is listed in 12 CFR 225.28(b)(10)(ii) and referenced in section 4(k)(4)(F) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    (v) A business that regularly wires money to and from consumers is a financial institution because transferring money is a financial activity referenced in section 4(k)(4)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act and regularly providing that service demonstrates that the business is significantly engaged in that activity.

    (vi) A check cashing business is a financial institution because cashing a check is exchanging money, which is a financial activity listed in section 4(k)(4)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    (vii) An accountant or other tax preparation service that is in the business of completing income tax returns is a financial institution because tax preparation services is a financial activity listed in 12 CFR 225.28(b)(6)(vi) and referenced in section 4(k)(4)(G) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    (viii) A business that operates a travel agency in connection with financial services is a financial institution because operating a travel agency in connection with financial services is a financial activity listed in 12 CFR 211.5(d)(15) and referenced in section 4(k)(4)(G) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    (ix) An entity that provides real estate settlement services is a financial institution because providing real estate settlement services is a financial activity listed in 12 CFR 225.28(b)(2)(viii) and referenced in section 4(k)(4)(F) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    (x) A mortgage broker is a financial institution because brokering loans is a financial activity listed in 12 CFR 225.28(b)(1) and referenced in section 4(k)(4)(F) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    (xi) An investment advisory company and a credit counseling service are each financial institutions because providing financial and investment advisory services are financial activities referenced in section 4(k)(4)(C) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    (4) Financial institution does not include:

    (i) Any person or entity with respect to any financial activity that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.);

    (ii) The Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation or any entity chartered and operating under the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.); or

    (iii) Institutions chartered by Congress specifically to engage in securitizations, secondary market sales (including sales of servicing rights) or similar transactions related to a transaction of a consumer, as long as such institutions do not sell or transfer nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party other than as permitted by §§ 313.14 and 313.15 of this Part.

    (iv) Entities that engage in financial activities but that are not significantly engaged in those financial activities.

    (5) Example of entities that are not significantly engaged in financial activities for purposes of 16 CFR part 313 and 314. A motor vehicle dealer is not a financial institution merely because it accepts payment in the form of cash, checks, or credit cards that it did not issue.

    (6) Examples of entities that are not significantly engaged in financial activities for purposes of 16 CFR part 314. (i) A retailer is not a financial institution if its only means of extending credit are occasional “lay away” and deferred payment plans or accepting payment by means of credit cards issued by others.

    (ii) A retailer is not a financial institution merely because it accepts payment in the form of cash, checks, or credit cards that it did not issue.

    (iii) A merchant is not a financial institution merely because it allows an individual to “run a tab.”

    (iv) A grocery store is not a financial institution merely because it allows individuals to whom it sells groceries to cash a check, or write a check for a higher amount than the grocery purchase and obtain cash in return.

    (q) For purposes of 16 CFR part 313, You includes each “financial institution” over which the Commission has rulemaking authority pursuant to section 504(a)(1)(C) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. For purposes of 16 CFR part 314, You includes each “financial institution” (but excludes any “other person”) over which the Commission has enforcement jurisdiction pursuant to section 505(a)(7) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

    4. In § 313.9, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 313.9 Delivering privacy and opt out notices.

    (c) Annual notices only. (1) Reasonable expectation. You may reasonably expect that a customer will receive actual notice of your annual privacy notice if:

    (i) The customer uses your Web site to access financial products and services electronically and agrees to receive notices at the Web site, and you post your current privacy notice continuously in a clear and conspicuous manner on the Web site; or

    (ii) The customer has requested that you refrain from sending any information regarding the customer relationship, and your current privacy notice remains available to the customer upon request.

    (2) Alternative method for providing certain annual notices. (i) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, you may use the alternative method described in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section to satisfy the requirement in § 313.5(a)(1) to provide a notice if:

    (A) You do not disclose the customer's nonpublic personal information with nonaffiliated third parties other than for purposes under §§ 313.13, 313.14, and 313.15;

    (B) You do not include on your annual privacy notice pursuant to § 313.6(a)(7) an opt out under section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(2)(A)(iii));

    (C) The requirements of section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681s-3) and Part 680 of this chapter, if applicable, have been satisfied previously or the annual privacy notice is not the only notice provided to satisfy such requirements;

    (D) The information you are required to convey on your annual privacy notice pursuant to § 313.6(a)(1) through (5), (8), and (9) has not changed since you provided the immediately previous privacy notice (whether initial, annual or revised) to the customer, other than to eliminate categories of information you disclose or categories of third parties to whom you disclose information; and

    (E) You use the model privacy form in the appendix to this part for your annual privacy notice.

    (ii) For an annual privacy notice that meets the requirements in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, you satisfy the requirement in § 313.5(a)(1) to provide a notice if you:

    (A) Convey in a clear and conspicuous manner not less than annually on an account statement, coupon book, or a notice or disclosure you are required or expressly and specifically permitted to issue under any other provision of law that your privacy notice is available on your Web site and will be mailed to the customer upon request by telephone. The statement must state that your privacy notice has not changed and must include a specific Web address that takes the customer directly to the page where the privacy notice is posted and a designated telephone number for the customer to request that it be mailed;

    (B) Post your current privacy notice continuously in a clear and conspicuous manner on a page of your Web site that contains only the privacy notice, without requiring the customer to provide any information such as a login name or password or agree to any conditions to access the page; and

    (C) Mail your current privacy notice to those customers who request it by telephone within ten days of the request.

    (iii) An example of a statement that satisfies paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section is: “Privacy Notice” in boldface or otherwise emphasized: Privacy Notice—Federal law requires us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Our privacy policy has not changed and you may review our policy and practices with respect to your personal information at [Web address] or we will mail you a free copy upon request if you call us at [telephone number].

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-14328 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM15-16-000] Transmission Operations Reliability Standards and Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission proposes to approve revisions to the Transmission Operations and Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards, developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which the Commission has certified as the Electric Reliability Organization responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards.

    DATES:

    Comments are due August 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:

    Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert T. Stroh (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8473, [email protected] Eugene Blick (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (301) 665-1759, [email protected] Darrell G. Piatt (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (205) 332-3792, [email protected]
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission proposes to approve revisions to the Transmission Operations (TOP) and Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination (IRO) Reliability Standards, developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). The Commission believes that the proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards improve on the currently-effective standards by providing a more precise set of Reliability Standards addressing operating responsibilities and improving the delineation of responsibilities between applicable entities. The Commission also believes that the revised TOP Reliability Standards eliminate gaps and ambiguities in the currently-effective TOP requirements and improve efficiency by incorporating the necessary requirements from the eight currently-effective TOP Reliability Standards into three cohesive, comprehensive Reliability Standards. Further, the Commission believes that the proposed standards clarify and improve upon the currently-effective TOP and IRO Reliability Standards by designating requirements in the proposed standards that apply to transmission operators for the TOP standards and reliability coordinators for the IRO standards. Thus, the Commission proposes to find that there are benefits to clarifying and bringing efficiencies to the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards, consistent with the Commission's policy promoting increased efficiencies in Reliability Standards and reducing requirements that are either redundant with other currently-effective requirements or have little reliability benefit.2

    1 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012).

    2Electric Reliability Organization Proposal to Retire Requirements in Reliability Standards, Order No. 788, 145 FERC ¶ 61,147 (2013).

    2. The Commission also proposes to find that NERC has adequately addressed the concerns raised by the Commission in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Remand NOPR) issued in November 2013.3 In the Remand NOPR, the Commission proposed to remand an earlier version of proposed TOP and IRO Standards due to concerns regarding the proposed treatment of system operating limits (SOLs) and interconnection reliability operating limits (IROLs) and concerns about outage coordination. Further, the Commission proposes to approve the definitions for operational planning analysis and real-time assessment, and the violation severity level and violation risk factor assignments.

    3Monitoring System Conditions—Transmission Operations Reliability Standard, Transmission Operations Reliability Standards, Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 145 FERC ¶ 61,158 (2013). Concurrent with filing the proposed TOP/IRO standards in the immediate proceeding, NERC submitted a motion to withdraw the earlier petition that was the subject of the Remand NOPR. No protests to the motion were filed and the petition was withdrawn pursuant to 18 CFR 385.216(b).

    3. While proposing to approve the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards, below the Commission seeks clarifying comments addressing four issues: (A) Possible inconsistencies in identifying IROLs; (B) monitoring of non-bulk electric system facilities; (C) removal of the load-serving entity as an applicable entity for proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3; and (D) data exchange capabilities. Based on comments and information received on these issues, the Commission may issue directives as appropriate.

    I. Background

    4. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards are enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 initial Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including the existing TOP and IRO Reliability Standards.4 In addition, in Order No. 748, the Commission approved revisions to the IRO Reliability Standards.5

    4Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr. 4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).

    5Mandatory Reliability Standards for Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits, Order No. 748, 134 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2011).

    5. On April 16, 2013, in Docket No. RM13-14-000, NERC submitted for Commission approval three revised TOP Reliability Standards to replace the eight currently-effective TOP standards.6 Additionally, on April 16, 2013, in Docket No. RM13-15-000, NERC submitted for Commission approval four revised IRO Reliability Standards to replace six currently-effective IRO Reliability Standards. On November 21, 2013, the Commission issued the Remand NOPR in which the Commission expressed concern that NERC had “removed critical reliability aspects that are included in the currently-effective standards without adequately addressing these aspects in the proposed standards.” 7 The Commission identified two main concerns and asked for clarification and comment on a number of other issues. Among other things, the Commission expressed concern that the proposed TOP Reliability Standards did not require transmission operators to plan and operate within all SOLs, which is a requirement in the currently-effective standards. In addition, the Commission expressed concern that the proposed IRO Reliability Standards did not require outage coordination.

    6 On April 5, 2013, in Docket No. RM13-12-000 NERC proposed revisions to Reliability Standard TOP-006-3 to clarify that transmission operators are responsible for monitoring and reporting available transmission resources and that balancing authorities are responsible for monitoring and reporting available generation resources.

    7 Remand NOPR, 145 FERC ¶ 61,158 at P 4.

    6. On December 20, 2013, NERC filed a motion requesting that the Commission defer action, until January 31, 2015, to allow NERC time to consider the reliability concerns raised by the Commission in the Remand NOPR. The Commission granted that motion on January 14, 2014.8 In response to the Remand NOPR, NERC initiated Project 2014-03 to develop further revisions to the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards.

    8Monitoring System Conditions—Transmission Operations Reliability Standard, Transmission Operations Reliability Standards, Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards, Order Granting Motion to Defer Action, 146 FERC ¶ 61,023 (2014).

    NERC Petition

    7. On March 18, 2015, as supplemented on May 12, 2015, NERC submitted a petition seeking approval of two sets of Reliability Standards to replace the currently-effective TOP and IRO Reliability Standards. NERC states that the proposed TOP Reliability Standards generally address real-time operations and planning for next-day operations, and apply primarily to the responsibilities and authorities of transmission operators, with certain requirements applying to the roles and responsibilities of the balancing authority. NERC adds that the proposed IRO Reliability Standards set forth the responsibility and authority of reliability coordinators to provide for reliable operations. According to NERC, reliability coordinators have an essential role in ensuring reliable operations, as they are the functional entities with the highest level of authority and have the wide-area view of the bulk electric system.9

    9 The TOP and IRO Reliability Standards are not attached to this NOPR. The complete text of the Reliability Standards is available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM15-16 and is posted on the ERO's Web site, available at: http://www.nerc.com.

    8. NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards include improvements over the currently effective TOP and IRO Reliability Standards in key areas such as: (1) Operating within SOLs and IROLs; (2) outage coordination; (3) situational awareness; (4) improved clarity and content in foundational definitions; and (5) requirements for operational reliability data.

    9. NERC states that the proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards address the coordinated efforts to plan and reliably operate the bulk electric system under both normal and abnormal conditions. NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards provide a comprehensive framework for reliable operations, with important improvements to ensure the bulk electric system is operated within pre-established limits while enhancing situational awareness and strengthening operations planning. NERC explains that the proposed Reliability Standards establish or revise requirements for operations planning, system monitoring, real-time actions, coordination between applicable entities, and operational reliability data. According to NERC, the proposed Reliability Standards help to ensure that reliability coordinators and transmission operators work together, and with other functional entities, to operate the bulk electric system within SOLs and IROLs.10 Further, NERC explains that SOLs and IROLs are vital concepts in the Reliability Standards because they establish acceptable performance criteria both pre- and post-contingency to maintain reliable bulk electric system operations. NERC states that when any facility rating or stability limit is exceeded, or expected to be exceeded, these conditions should be mitigated to avoid the possibility of further deteriorating system conditions and the potential for a cascading event. In addition, NERC states that the standard drafting team developed a white paper on SOL definition and exceedance criteria which clarified the team's position on establishing and exceeding SOLs, and on implementing operating plans to mitigate exceedances. The SOL white paper explains the links between relevant reliability standards and reliability concepts to establish a common understanding necessary for developing effective operating plans to mitigate SOL exceedances.11

    10 The NERC Glossary of Terms defines IROL as “[a] System Operating Limit that, if violated, could lead to instability, uncontrolled separation, or Cascading outages that adversely impact the reliability of the Bulk Electric System.” In turn, NERC defines SOL as “[t]he value (such as MW, MVar, Amperes, Frequency or Volts) that satisfies the most limiting of the prescribed operating criteria for a specified system configuration to ensure operation within acceptable reliability criteria. . . .”

    11 NERC Petition at 46 and Exhibit E, “White Paper on System Operating Limit Definition and Exceedance Clarification.”

    10. NERC states that it reviewed the report on the Arizona-Southern California Outages on September 8, 2011, Causes and Recommendations (“2011 Southwest Outage Blackout Report”) that includes findings and recommendations applicable to transmission operators, balancing authorities and reliability coordinators, and provides explanations of how the proposed Reliability Standards address the reliability issues identified following the 2011 Southwest Outage Blackout Report. Further, NERC states that it addressed outstanding Commission directives relevant to the proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards.

    Revisions to TOP Standards

    11. NERC proposes three TOP Reliability Standards to replace the existing suite of TOP standards. The proposed TOP Reliability Standards generally address real-time operations and planning for next-day operations, and apply primarily to the responsibilities and authorities of transmission operators. Among other things, NERC states that the proposed revisions to the TOP Reliability Standards help ensure that transmission operators plan and operate within all SOLs.

    TOP-001-3 (Transmission Operations)

    12. NERC proposes Reliability Standard TOP-001-3 (Transmission Operations), which contains twenty requirements. The purpose of proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3 is to prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that adversely affect the reliability of the interconnection, by ensuring prompt action to prevent or mitigate such occurrences. According to NERC, the proposed standard achieves this reliability goal by providing appropriate entities with the authority to take actions, or direct the actions of others, to maintain reliability during real-time operations. NERC explains that the standard includes real-time monitoring and real-time assessment requirements to preserve reliability and ensure that applicable entities identify and address all SOL exceedances.

    13. Requirements R1 and R2 require each transmission operator and balancing authority to explicitly and affirmatively act to address the reliability of its area through its own actions or by issuing operating instructions. In contrast, NERC notes that the obligation to act in currently effective Reliability Standard TOP-001-1a is implied, but not an explicit requirement. Requirements R3 and R4 together provide that each applicable entity must comply with each operating instruction issued by its transmission operator, unless doing so would violate safety, equipment, regulatory, or statutory requirements or the action cannot be physically implemented, and require an applicable entity to notify the transmission operator if it is unable to comply with the transmission operator's operating instruction. Similarly, Requirements R5 and R6 require the same actions of applicable entities with respect to an operating instruction issued by a balancing authority.

    14. Requirement R7 requires each transmission operator to assist other transmission operators within its reliability coordinator area, and Requirement R8 requires a transmission operator to inform applicable entities of the transmission operator's actual or expected operations that result in, or could result in, an emergency.

    15. Requirements R9, R16, and R17 address outage coordination of monitoring and control equipment. Requirement R9 provides that each balancing authority and transmission operator must notify its reliability coordinator and known impacted interconnected entities of all planned outages, and unplanned outages of 30 minutes or more, for telemetering and control equipment, monitoring and assessment capabilities, and associated communication channels between the affected entities. Requirements R16 and R17 state that each transmission operator and balancing authority must provide its system operators with the authority to approve planned outages and maintenance.

    16. Requirement R10 addresses transmission operator monitoring obligations to help ensure that transmission operators have the necessary situational awareness to maintain reliable operations. Requirement R10 provides that each transmission operator must take certain steps for determining SOL exceedances within its transmission operator area. NERC explains that Requirement R10 addresses the Commission's concerns that the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards, that were the subject of the Remand NOPR, did not have sufficient requirements for real-time monitoring. Requirement R11 is the equivalent of Requirement R10 for balancing authorities.

    17. Requirement R12 provides that each transmission operator must not operate outside of any identified IROL for a continuous duration exceeding its associated IROL Tv. NERC states that this requirement will provide consistency with the reliability coordinators requirements contained in currently-effective Reliability Standard IRO-009-1.12 Requirement R13 provides that each transmission operator must ensure that a real-time assessment is performed at least once every 30 minutes. The revised definition of “real-time assessment” includes additional specificity regarding various inputs for the assessment and how that information may be provided through third-party services, which may provide smaller entities an efficient method for compliance. Requirement R14 provides that each transmission operator must initiate its operating plan to mitigate a SOL exceedance identified as part of its real-time monitoring or real-time assessment.13

    12 NERC defines Tv as “[t]he maximum time that an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit can be violated before the risk to the interconnection or other Reliability Coordinator Area(s) becomes greater than acceptable. Each Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit's Tv shall be less than or equal to 30 minutes.”

    13 NERC Petition, Exhibit B at 5.

    18. Requirement R15 provides that each transmission operator must inform its reliability coordinator of actions taken to return the system to within limits when a SOL has been exceeded. Requirement R18 provides that each transmission operator must operate to the most limiting parameter in instances where there is a difference in SOLs. Requirements R19 and R20 provide that each transmission operator and balancing authority must have data exchange capabilities with the entities from which it needs data in order to maintain reliability in its area.

    19. In addition, NERC states that it removed the load-serving entity (LSE) function from proposed TOP-001-3, Requirements R3 through R6 due to the November 2014 NERC Board of Trustees action to remove the LSE as a functional entity from NERC's Rules of Procedure.14 On May 12, 2015, NERC supplemented its filing with additional explanation for the removal of the LSE function.

    14 NERC Petition, Exhibit K, Consideration of Comments January 7, 2015, at 2.

    TOP-002-4 (Operations Planning)

    20. Proposed Reliability Standard TOP-002-4 contains seven requirements relating to operations planning for transmission operators and balancing authorities. NERC explains that the proposed standard addresses next-day planning and provides for the necessary notifications and coordination between various functional entities. NERC adds that the revised definition of “operational planning analysis” specifies the scope and inputs required for next-day analyses. According to NERC, the proposed standard also improves coordination of next-day operations by requiring transmission operators and balancing authorities to provide operating plans to their reliability coordinators.

    21. Proposed Requirements R1 through R3 and R6 apply to transmission operators, and proposed Requirements R4, R5, and R7 apply to balancing authorities. Requirement R1 requires each transmission operator to have an operational planning analysis that will allow it to assess whether its planned operations for the next day within its transmission operator area will exceed any of its SOLs. Requirement R2 requires each transmission operator to have operating plans for next-day operations to address potential SOL exceedances identified in the operational planning analysis performed pursuant to Requirement R1. Requirement R4 requires each balancing authority to have operating plans for the next day that address expected generation resource commitment and dispatch, interchange scheduling, demand patterns, and capacity and energy reserve requirements, including deliverability capability. Requirements R3 and R5 require each transmission operator and balancing authority, respectively, to notify the entities identified in their operating plan as to their roles in that plan. Requirements R6 and R7 require each transmission operator and balancing authority to provide its operating plan to its reliability coordinator.

    TOP-003-3 (Operational Reliability Data)

    22. Proposed Reliability Standard TOP-003-3 (Operational Reliability Data) establishes requirements for the provision of information and data needed by the transmission operator and balancing authority for reliable operations. The purpose of proposed Reliability Standard TOP-003-3 is to ensure that transmission operators and balancing authorities have the data needed to fulfill their operational and planning responsibilities. The proposed Reliability Standard consists of five Requirements, including requirements for balancing authorities and transmission operators to maintain and distribute to relevant entities data specifications needed to perform various analyses and assessments. The proposed Reliability Standard also requires entities receiving data specifications to respond according to mutually agreed upon parameters including format and security protocols.

    23. Requirement R1 requires each transmission operator to maintain a documented specification for the data necessary, including non-bulk electric system and external network data, for it to perform its operational planning analysis, real-time monitoring, and real-time assessments. Requirement R2 requires each balancing authority to maintain a documented specification for the data necessary for it to perform its analysis functions and real-time monitoring. Requirements R3 and R4 require each transmission operator and balancing authority to distribute its data specification to the entities that have the necessary data. Requirement R5 requires each applicable entity receiving a data specification pursuant to Requirement R3 or R4 to satisfy the obligations of the documented data specification.

    24. In response to the Commission's concerns in the Remand NOPR with regard to the need for including external networks and sub-100 kV facilities in the operational planning analysis conducted by transmission operators, NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard TOP-003-3 requires each applicable entity to develop a data specification that would cover its data needs for monitoring and analysis purposes, including non-bulk electric system data and external network data deemed necessary by the transmission operator to support its operational planning analyses, real-time monitoring, and real-time assessments. With respect to sub-100 kV facilities, NERC determined that any sub-100 kV elements that are necessary for reliable operation of the bulk electric system would be included as bulk electric system facilities through the exception process provided in Appendix 5C to the NERC Rules of Procedure. NERC explains that the exception process provides the means for transmission operators and reliability coordinators to include elements in the bulk electric system that are necessary for the reliable operation of the interconnected transmission system but were not identified in the bulk electric system definition. Accordingly, NERC concludes that it is not necessary to include non-bulk electric system monitoring in Reliability Standard TOP-001-3. In addition, NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R10 requires transmission operators to monitor bulk electric system facilities within their transmission operator area, and to obtain information deemed necessary by the transmission operator about such bulk electric system facilities located outside of the transmission operator area when determining SOL exceedances.

    25. NERC adds that when non-bulk electric facilities have no impact on the bulk electric system, but are needed for completing system models, the Commission-approved Reliability Standard FAC-001-2, Requirement R3 addresses the issue. This Reliability Standard requires the reliability coordinator to include in its methodology its entire reliability coordinator area and critical modeling details from other reliability coordinator areas that would affect the facility under study. In addition, the reliability coordinator must include details of system models used to determine SOLs.

    Revisions to IRO Standards

    26. The proposed IRO Reliability Standards, which complement the proposed TOP Standards, are designed to ensure that the bulk electric system is planned and operated in a coordinated manner to perform reliably under normal and abnormal conditions. The proposed IRO Reliability Standards set forth the responsibility and authority of reliability coordinators to provide for reliable operations. NERC states that in the proposed IRO Reliability Standards reliability coordinators must continue to monitor SOLs in addition to their obligation in the currently effective Reliability Standards to monitor and analyze IROLs. These obligations require reliability coordinators to have the wide-area view necessary for situational awareness and provide them the ability to respond to system conditions that have the potential to negatively affect reliable operations.

    IRO-001-4 (Reliability Coordination—Responsibilities)

    27. Proposed Reliability Standard IRO-001-4 (Reliability Coordination—Responsibilities) contains requirements relating to the reliability coordinator's overall responsibility for reliable operation within the reliability coordinator area. Requirement R1 provides that each reliability coordinator must act to address the reliability of its reliability coordinator area through direct actions or by issuing operating instructions. Requirement R2 provides that each applicable entity must comply with its reliability coordinator's operating instructions unless compliance cannot be implemented or would violate safety, equipment, regulatory, or statutory requirements. Requirement R3 provides that applicable entities must inform the reliability coordinator if they are unable to perform an operating instruction issued by its reliability coordinator.

    IRO-002-4 (Reliability Coordination—Monitoring and Analysis)

    28. Proposed Reliability Standard IRO-002-4 (Reliability Coordination—Monitoring and Analysis) contains requirements relating to capabilities for monitoring and analysis of real-time operating data. The purpose of the proposed Reliability Standard is to provide system operators with the capabilities necessary to monitor and analyze data needed to perform reliability functions. Requirement R1 requires each reliability coordinator to have data exchange capabilities with its balancing authorities, transmission operators, and other entities as it deems necessary, for it to perform operational planning analyses, real-time monitoring, and real-time assessments. Requirement R2 provides that each reliability coordinator must provide its system operators with the authority to approve planned outages and maintenance of its telecommunication, monitoring, and analysis capabilities. Requirement R3 provides that each reliability coordinator must monitor facilities, the status of special protection systems and non-bulk electric system facilities identified as necessary within its reliability coordinator area and neighboring reliability coordinator areas, to identify any SOL or IROL exceedances. Requirement R4 provides that each reliability coordinator must have monitoring systems that provide information used by the reliability coordinator's operating personnel, with particular emphasis to alarm management and awareness systems, automated data transfers, and synchronized information systems, over a redundant infrastructure.

    IRO-008-2 (Reliability Coordinator Operational Analyses and Real-time Assessments)

    29. Proposed Reliability Standard IRO-008-2 (Reliability Coordinator Operational Analyses and Real-time Assessments) contains requirements for reliability coordinators to conduct next-day analyses and assessments of operating conditions in real-time to help prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading. NERC states that the proposed definitions of operational planning analysis and real-time assessment are integral components of proposed Reliability Standard IRO-008-2 because they specify the scope and inputs for next-day analysis and real-time assessments of operating conditions in real-time. Furthermore, NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard IRO-008-2 enhances next-day operations planning by specifying requirements for coordination of the reliability coordinator's operating plan to address potential SOL and IROL exceedances.

    30. Requirement R1 provides that each reliability coordinator must perform an operational planning analysis that will allow it to assess whether the planned operations for the next day will exceed SOLs and IROLs. Requirement R2 requires each reliability coordinator to have a coordinated operating plan for next-day operations to address potential SOL and IROL exceedances identified as a result of its operating planning analysis. Requirement R3 provides that each reliability coordinator must notify impacted entities identified in its operating plan as to their role in the plan. Requirement R4 states that each reliability coordinator must ensure that a real-time assessment is performed at least once every 30 minutes. Requirement R5 provides that each reliability coordinator must notify impacted transmission operators and balancing authorities within its reliability coordinator area and other impacted reliability coordinators when a real-time assessment indicates an actual or expected condition that results in, or could result in, a SOL or IROL exceedance. Further, Requirement R6 provides that each reliability coordinator must notify impacted entities when a SOL or IROL exceedance has been prevented or mitigated.

    IRO-010-2 (Reliability Coordinator Data Specification and Collection)

    31. Proposed Reliability Standard IRO-010-2 (Reliability Coordinator Data Specification and Collection) provides a mechanism for a reliability coordinator to obtain the information and data it needs for reliable operations and to help prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages. According to NERC, proposed Reliability Standard IRO-010-2 reflects recommendations from the 2011 Southwest Outage Blackout Report, including more clearly identifying necessary data and information to be included in a reliability coordinator's data specification. Requirement R1 provides that the reliability coordinator must maintain a documented specification for the data, including non-bulk electric system and external network data, necessary for it to perform its operational planning analyses, real-time monitoring, and real-time assessments. Requirement R2 provides that the reliability coordinator must distribute its data specification to entities that have the required data. Requirement R3 provides that applicable entities receiving a data specification must satisfy the obligations of the documented specification using a mutually-agreeable format, process for resolving data conflicts, and security protocol.

    IRO-014-3 (Coordination Among Reliability Coordinators)

    32. Proposed Reliability Standard IRO-014-3 (Coordination among Reliability Coordinators) contains requirements for coordination for interconnected operations at the reliability coordinator level. The purpose of the proposed Reliability Standard is to ensure that each reliability coordinator's operations are coordinated such that they will not adversely affect other reliability coordinator areas and to preserve the reliability benefits of interconnected operations. Requirement R1 requires each reliability coordinator to have and implement operating procedures, processes, or plans for activities that require notification or coordination of actions that may affect adjacent reliability coordinator areas. Requirement R2 requires each reliability coordinator to maintain its operating procedures, processes, or plans through annual reviews and updates, with no more than 15 months passing between reviews. Requirement R3 requires each reliability coordinator to notify other impacted reliability coordinators upon identification of an expected or actual emergency. Requirement R4 specifies that, if the reliability coordinators disagree on the existence of an emergency, each must operate as though an emergency exists. Requirement R5 states that a reliability coordinator that identifies an emergency must develop an action plan to resolve the emergency, and Requirement R6 requires impacted reliability coordinators to implement the action plan. Under Requirement R7, a reliability coordinator must assist another reliability coordinator if the requesting reliability coordinator has implemented its emergency procedures.

    IRO-017-1 (Outage Coordination)

    33. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard IRO-017-1 (Outage Coordination) is a new Reliability Standard designed to ensure that outages are properly coordinated in the operations planning time horizon and near-term transmission planning horizon. According to NERC, the requirements in the proposed Reliability Standard, which span both time horizons, provide the necessary requirements for effective coordination of planned outages to support reliable operations.

    34. NERC notes that in the Remand NOPR the Commission identified coordination of outages as a critical reliability function that should be performed by the reliability coordinator that was not adequately addressed. NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard IRO-017-1 addresses the Commission's Remand NOPR concerns by requiring each reliability coordinator to develop, implement and maintain an outage coordination process for generation and transmission outages. NERC also explains that each transmission operator and balancing authority would then be required to perform the functions specified in its reliability coordinator's process. Further, NERC states that each planning coordinator and transmission planner will provide its planning assessment to relevant reliability coordinators and work together to solve any issues or conflicts with planned outages among the applicable entities. Additionally, NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard IRO-014-3, Requirement R1, Part 1.4 requires reliability coordinators to coordinate with adjacent reliability coordinators the exchange of planned and unplanned outage information to support operational planning analyses and real-time assessments in their operating procedures, processes, or plans.

    35. Proposed Reliability Standard IRO-017-1 has four requirements. Requirement R1 provides that each reliability coordinator must develop, implement, and maintain an outage coordination process for generation and transmission outages. Requirement R2 provides that each transmission operator and balancing authority must perform the functions specified in its reliability coordinator's outage coordination process. Requirement R3 provides that each planning coordinator and transmission planner must provide its planning assessment to impacted reliability coordinators. Requirement R4 requires each planning coordinator and transmission planner to jointly develop solutions with its respective reliability coordinators for identified issues or conflicts with planned outages in its planning assessment for the near-term transmission planning horizon.

    Definitions

    36. NERC also proposes revised definitions for “operational planning analysis” and “real-time assessment.” 15 NERC contends that the proposed definitions provide significant additional detail compared to the currently effective definitions to enhance the consistency and the reliability benefit of operational planning analysis and real-time assessments.16 NERC states that the additional specificity reflected in the proposed definitions addresses concerns raised in the Remand NOPR and includes several inputs that were identified as recommendations in the 2011 Southwest Outage Blackout Report, which, in turn, will enhance situational awareness.

    15 The proposed definition of operational planning analysis is “[a]n evaluation of projected system conditions to assess anticipated (pre-Contingency) and potential (post-Contingency) conditions for next-day operations. The evaluation shall reflect applicable inputs including, but not limited to, load forecasts; generation output levels; Interchange; known Protection System and Special Protection System status or degradation; Transmission outages; generator outages; Facility Ratings; and identified phase angle and equipment limitations. (Operational Planning Analysis may be provided through internal systems or through third-party services.)”

    16 The proposed definition of real-time assessment is “[a]n evaluation of system conditions using Real-time data to assess existing (pre-Contingency) and potential (post-Contingency) operating conditions. The assessment shall reflect applicable inputs including, but not limited to: Load, generation output levels, known Protection System and Special Protection System status or degradation, Transmission outages, generator outages, Interchange, Facility Ratings, and identified phase angle and equipment limitations. (Real-time Assessment may be provided through internal systems or through third-party services.)”

    37. The proposed NERC Glossary term “Operating Instruction” defines the scope of commands that are covered by the proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards. NERC explains that the revisions in the proposed definitions are intended to ensure that operational planning analyses and real-time assessments contain sufficient details to result in an appropriate level of situational awareness for next-day planning and real-time operations, respectively.

    Implementation Plan

    38. NERC proposes that, for all standards except proposed Reliability Standards TOP-003-3 and IRO-010-2, the effective date will be the first day of the first calendar quarter twelve months after Commission approval. The twelve month implementation period for all of the standards except TOP-003-3 and IRO-010-2 is intended to allow time for entities to update processes and train operators on the revised requirements. All of the Requirements in proposed TOP-003-3 and IRO-010-2 except TOP-003-3, Requirements R5 and IRO-010-2, Requirement R3 would become effective three months earlier, in order to provide recipients of data requests from their reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and/or balancing authorities time to respond to the requests for data.

    39. According to NERC's implementation plan, for proposed TOP-003-3, all requirements except Requirement R5 will become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter nine months after the date that the standard is approved. For proposed IRO-010-2, Requirements R1 and R2 would become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is nine months after the date that the standard is approved. Requirement R3 would become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter twelve months after the date that the standard is approved. NERC states that the reason for the difference in effective dates for proposed TOP-003-3 and IRO-010-2 is to allow applicable entities to have time to properly respond to the data specification requests.

    II. Discussion

    40. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, we propose to approve NERC's proposed revisions to the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We believe that NERC's approach of consolidating requirements and removing redundancies generally has merit and is consistent with Commission policy promoting increased efficiencies in Reliability Standards and reducing requirements that are either redundant with other currently effective requirements or have little reliability benefit.17

    17Electric Reliability Organization Proposal to Retire Requirements in Reliability Standards, Order No. 788, 145 FERC ¶ 61,147 (2013).

    41. We agree with NERC that the proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards would improve reliability by defining an appropriate division of responsibilities between reliability coordinators and transmission operators.18 Specifically, NERC states that the proposed TOP Reliability Standards will be improved by eliminating multiple TOP standards, resulting in a more concise set of standards. Thus, we believe that NERC's TOP proposal would reduce redundancy and more clearly delineate responsibilities between applicable entities. In addition, we believe that the proposed Reliability Standards provide a comprehensive framework as well as important improvements to ensure that the bulk electric system is operated within pre-established limits while enhancing situational awareness and strengthening operations planning. We believe that the proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards address the coordinated efforts to plan and reliably operate the bulk electric system under both normal and abnormal conditions.

    18See, e.g., Order No. 748, 134 FERC ¶ 61,213, at PP 39-40.

    42. For these reasons, we propose to approve NERC's revisions to the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards. We also discuss below: (A) Concerns raised in the Remand NOPR plus possible inconsistencies of identifying IROLs; (B) other reliability issues including (1) monitoring of non-bulk electric system facilities; (2) removal of the load-serving entity function from proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3; and (3) data exchange capabilities.

    A. Remand NOPR Issues 1. Operational Responsibilities and Actions of SOLs and IROLs

    43. We propose to find that NERC has adequately addressed the concerns raised by the Commission in the Remand NOPR with respect to the treatment of SOLs in the proposed TOP Reliability Standards. In the Remand NOPR, the Commission expressed concern that the proposed TOP standards did not have a requirement “for transmission operators to plan and operate within all SOLs. Without a requirement to plan and operate within all SOLs in the proposed standards and by limiting non-IROL SOLs to only those identified by the transmission operator internal to its area, system reliability is reduced and negative consequences can occur outside of the transmission operator's internal area.” 19 The Commission noted that “non-IROL SOLs that appear to be excluded from the proposed standard are non-IROL SOLs that are in a transmission operator's area that impact another transmission operator's area or more than one transmission operator's area.” 20

    19 Remand NOPR, 145 FERC ¶ 61,158 at P 42.

    20Id. P 51.

    44. The Commission believes that the proposed TOP Reliability Standards address the Commission's Remand NOPR concerns by requiring transmission operators to plan and operate within all SOLs, and to monitor and assess SOL conditions within and outside a transmission operator's area. Specifically, proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R14 requires each transmission operator to initiate its operating plan to mitigate a SOL exceedance identified as part of its real-time monitoring or real-time assessment. Proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R10 requires each transmission operator to monitor facilities within its transmission operator area as well as certain facilities outside of its transmission operator area to determine SOL exceedances within its transmission operator area during the real-time operations time horizon. In addition, proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R15 requires that each transmission operator inform its reliability coordinator of actions taken to resolve a SOL exceedance.21 To address the concerns of operational planning, proposed Reliability Standard TOP-002-4, Requirement R1 requires each transmission operator to have an operational planning analysis to assess whether its next-day planned operations will exceed any of its SOLs within its area, and Requirement R2 requires the transmission operator to have a next-day operating plan(s) to address any potential SOLs exceedances identified in its operational planning analysis.22

    21 NERC Petition at 24-25.

    22 NERC Petition at 27.

    45. Further, proposed Reliability Standard IRO-008-2, Requirements R1, R2, R3, R5, and R6 require reliability coordinators to plan and operate within SOLs and IROLs, which we believe work in tandem with the proposed TOP Standards and address the Commission's concern that the previously-proposed Reliability Standards limited “non-IROL SOLs” to only those internally identified by the transmission operator. Specific to operational planning, proposed Reliability Standard IRO-008-2, Requirement R1 requires the reliability coordinator to have an operational planning analysis to assess whether its next-day planned operations will exceed SOLs and IROLs within its wide area, and Requirement R2 requires the reliability coordinator to have a coordinated next-day operating plan(s) to address potential SOLs and IROLs exceedances identified in its operational planning analysis while considering the next-day operating plan(s) provided by its transmission operators and balancing authorities.23 Requirement R3 requires the reliability coordinator to notify impacted entities identified in its operating plan cited in Requirement R2 as to their role in such plan(s). The Commission believes that the consideration of the transmission operators' and balancing authorities' operating plans by the reliability coordinator in its own operating plan provides the necessary situational awareness of all SOLs, internal and external to the transmission operator or balancing authority.

    23 NERC Petition at 52.

    46. In the Remand NOPR, the Commission raised the concern that the then-proposed version of the TOP/IRO Standards did not consider the possibility that additional SOLs could develop or occur in the same-day or real-time operational time horizon, and therefore would pose an operational risk to the interconnected transmission network.24 To address this concern, Reliability Standard IRO-008-2, Requirement R5 requires each reliability coordinator to notify impacted transmission operators and balancing authorities within its reliability coordinator area and other impacted reliability coordinators when results of a real-time assessment indicate actual or expected conditions that could result in SOL or IROL exceedances, and Requirement R6 requires reliability coordinator notification to impacted transmission operators, balancing authorities and other impacted reliability coordinators when any SOLs or IROLs have been prevented or mitigated.25

    24 Remand NOPR, 145 FERC ¶ 61,158 at P 55.

    25 NERC Petition at 32.

    47. Likewise, based on NERC's explanation, we believe that the proposed Reliability Standards in the immediate proceeding are designed to improve system performance by giving reliability coordinators the authority to direct actions to prevent or mitigate instances of exceeding IROLs. This delineation of responsibilities between reliability coordinators and transmission operators is appropriate because the primary decision-making authority for mitigating IROL exceedances is assigned to reliability coordinators while transmission operators have the primary responsibility for mitigating SOL exceedances.26 To further support the reliability coordinator's primary responsibility for IROLs to prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading, proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R12 requires that a transmission operator must not operate outside of any identified IROLs for a continuous duration exceeding its associated IROL Tv.27

    26See Remand NOPR, 145 FERC ¶ 61,158 at P 85. Further, currently-effective Reliability Standard IRO-009-1, Requirement R4 states that “[w]hen actual system conditions show that there is an instance of exceeding an IROL in its Reliability Coordinator Area, the Reliability Coordinator shall, without delay, act or direct others to act to mitigate the magnitude and duration of the instance of exceeding that IROL within the IROL's Tv.”

    27 NERC Petition at 25.

    48. In addition, NERC explains that the proposed Reliability Standard IRO-014-3 contains requirements for coordination of interconnection operations at the reliability coordinator level and ensures that each reliability coordinator's operations are coordinated such that they will not adversely affect other reliability coordinators' areas.28 Proposed Reliability Standard IRO-014-3 requires the reliability coordinator to have and implement operating procedures, processes, or plans for activities that require notification or coordination of actions that may affect adjacent reliability coordinators' areas.

    28 NERC Petition at 33.

    49. Furthermore, the Commission believes the revised definitions of operational planning analysis and real-time assessment are critical components of the proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards and, together with the definitions of SOLs, IROLs and operating plans, work to ensure that reliability coordinators, transmission operators and balancing authorities plan and operate the bulk electric system within all SOLs and IROLs to prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading. In addition, the revised definitions of operational planning analysis and real-time assessment address other concerns raised in the Remand NOPR as well as multiple recommendations in the 2011 Southwest Outage Blackout Report.29 For example, the definition of operational planning analysis is used in proposed Reliability Standards TOP-002-4, TOP-003-3, IRO-002-4, IRO-008-2, IRO-010-2, and IRO-014-3 to ensure a consistent approach to operations planning for the reliability coordinators, transmission operators and balancing authorities.30 Further, the proposed revised operational planning analysis definition adds additional detail and clarity, including the evaluation of pre- and post-contingency conditions as well as the evaluation of multiple applicable inputs that are absent in the currently-effective definition.

    29 NERC Petition at 17-18.

    30 NERC Petition at 19.

    50. Likewise, the definition of real-time assessment is used in the following proposed Reliability Standards: TOP-001-3; TOP-003-3; IRO-002-4; IRO-008-2; IRO-010-2; and IRO-014-3 to ensure a consistent approach to the real-time operation of the Bulk Power System for the reliability coordinators, transmission operators and balancing authorities.31 The proposed revised real-time assessment definition is the same type of evaluation as the operational planning analysis with the exception that real-time assessment uses real-time data to assess existing conditions and operational planning analysis uses projected system conditions to assess anticipated system conditions.

    31 NERC Petition at 18.

    51. The Commission does note, however, that in Exhibit E (SOL White Paper) of NERC's petition, NERC states that with regard to the SOL concept, the SOL White Paper brings “clarity and consistency to the notion of establishing SOLs, exceeding SOLs, and implementing Operating Plans to mitigate SOL exceedances.” 32 The Commission further notes that IROLs, as defined by NERC, are a subset of SOLs that, if violated, could lead to instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that adversely impact the reliability of the bulk electric system.33 The Commission agrees with NERC that clarity and consistency are important with respect to establishing and implementing operating plans to mitigate SOL and IROL exceedances. However, the Commission notes that in its 2015 State of Reliability report, NERC states that the Western Interconnection reliability coordinator definition of an IROL has additional criteria that may not exist in other reliability coordinator areas.34 Based on this information, it is unclear whether NERC regions apply a consistent approach to identifying IROLs. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on (1) identification of all regional differences or variances in the formulation of IROLs, (2) the potential reliability impacts of such differences or variations, and (3) the value of providing a uniform approach or methodology to defining and identifying IROLs.

    32 NERC Petition, Exhibit E, “White Paper on System Operating Limit Definition and Exceedance Clarification” at 1.

    33 NERC Glossary of Terms defines Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit as “[a] System Operating Limit that, if violated, could lead to instability, uncontrolled separation, or Cascading outages that adversely impact the reliability of the Bulk Electric System.”

    34 NERC 2015 State of Reliability report at 44, available at www.nerc.com. See also WECC Reliability Coordination System Operating Limits Methodology for the Operations Horizon, Rev. 7.0 (effective March 3, 2014) at 18 (stating that “SOLs qualify as IROLs when . . . studies indicate that instability, Cascading, or uncontrolled separation may occur resulting in uncontrolled interruption of load equal to or greater than 1000 MW”), available at https://www.wecc.biz/Reliability/PhaseII%20WECC%20RC%20SOL%20Methodology%20FINAL.pdf.

    2. Outage Coordination

    52. We believe, too, that NERC has addressed the concerns raised in the Remand NOPR with respect to the IRO standards regarding planned outage coordination. In the Remand NOPR, the Commission expressed concern with NERC's proposal because Reliability Standards IRO-008-1, Requirement R3 and IRO-010-1a (subjects of the proposed remand and now withdrawn by NERC) did not require the coordination of outages, noting that outage coordination is a critical reliability function that should be performed by the reliability coordinator.35

    35 Remand NOPR, 145 FERC ¶ 61,158 at P 90.

    53. With respect to proposed Reliability Standard IRO-017-1, submitted by NERC for approval in the immediate proceeding, Requirement R1 requires each reliability coordinator to develop, implement and maintain an outage coordination process for generation and transmission outages within its reliability coordinator area. Under Requirement R2, each transmission operator and balancing authority, in turn, would perform the functions specified in its reliability coordinator's outage coordination process. Further, Requirement R3 requires each planning coordinator and transmission planner to provide its planning assessment to the relevant reliability coordinators and to work together to solve any issues or conflicts with planned outages among the applicable entities under Requirement R4. Additionally, proposed Reliability Standard IRO-014-3, Requirement R1, Part 1.4 requires reliability coordinators to include the exchange of planned and unplanned outage information to support operational planning analyses and real-time assessments in the operating procedures, processes, and plans for activities that require coordination with adjacent reliability coordinators. Further, the proposed revised definitions of operational planning analysis and real-time assessments require that these evaluations of system conditions include transmission and generation outages. We believe that these proposed standards and revised definitions adequately address our concerns with respect to outage coordination as outlined in the Remand NOPR.

    B. Other Reliability Issues

    54. While proposing to approve the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards, the Commission seeks clarifying comments addressing three additional issues: (1) Monitoring of non-bulk electric system facilities; (2) removal of the load-serving entity as an applicable entity for proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3; and (3) data exchange capabilities. Based on comments and information received on these issues, the Commission may issue directives as appropriate.

    1. Monitoring of Non-Bulk Electric System Facilities NERC Petition

    55. NERC explains how the proposed Reliability Standards address the recommendations in the 2011 Southwest Outage Blackout Report, in particular with respect to Finding 17 concerning the impact of sub-100 kV facilities on the reliability of the interconnected transmission network. Finding 17 states:

    WECC RC and affected TOPs and BAs do not consistently recognize the adverse impact sub-100 kV facilities can have on BPS reliability. As a result, sub-100 kV facilities might not be designated as part of the BES, which can leave entities unable to address the reliability impact they can have in the planning and operations time horizons. If, prior to September 8, 2011, certain sub-100 kV facilities had been designated as part of the BES and, as a result, were incorporated into the TOPs' and RC's planning and operations studies, or otherwise had been incorporated into these studies, cascading outages may have been avoided on the day of the event.

    Recommendation 17 states:

    WECC, as the RE, should lead other entities, including TOPs and BAs, to ensure that all facilities that can adversely impact BPS reliability are either designated as part of the BES or otherwise incorporated into planning and operations studies and actively monitored and alarmed in [real-time contingency analysis] systems.

    NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard IRO-002-4, Requirement R3 addresses monitoring of non-bulk electric system facilities by requiring each reliability coordinator to monitor facilities and necessary non-bulk electric system facilities in order to identify SOL and IROL exceedances within its reliability coordinator area.36 In addition, NERC states that proposed Reliability Standards IRO-010-2, Requirement R1.1 and TOP-003-3, Requirement R1.1 address non-bulk electric system data by specifically requiring reliability coordinators and transmission operators to incorporate any non-bulk-electric system data as deemed necessary into their operational planning analyses, real-time monitoring, and real-time assessments.37

    36 NERC Petition at 61.

    37Id. at 40.

    56. However, NERC explains that the standard drafting team concluded it is unnecessary to include non-bulk electric system monitoring in proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R10 for the transmission operator, in a similar fashion as proposed Reliability Standard IRO-002-4, Requirement R3 for the reliability coordinator. Instead, the standard drafting team determined that any non-bulk electric system facility elements that are necessary for reliable operation of the bulk electric system would be included in the bulk electric system through the exception process provided in Appendix 5C to the NERC Rules of Procedure. NERC states that the exception process provides the means for transmission operators and reliability coordinators to include elements in the bulk electric system that are necessary for the reliable operation of the interconnected transmission system but not identified in the bulk electric system definition.38

    38Id. at 47-48.

    Commission Proposal

    57. We propose to find that NERC has adequately addressed the 2011 Southwest Outage Blackout Report recommendation in connection with sub-100 kV facilities for proposed Reliability Standards IRO-002-4, Requirement R3, IRO-010-2, Requirement R1.1 and TOP-003-3, Requirement R1.1. In doing so, we rely primarily on the proposed responsibility of the reliability coordinator to monitor such facilities to the extent necessary.

    58. However, the transmission operator may have a more granular perspective than the reliability coordinator of its necessary non-bulk electric system facilities to monitor in order to identify SOL and IROL exceedances, and it is not clear whether or how the transmission operator would communicate any insight it may have to the reliability coordinator to ensure monitoring of all necessary facilities. Thus, the Commission seeks comment on how NERC will ensure that the reliability coordinator will receive information from the transmission operator regarding which non-bulk electric system facilities should be monitored. Further, as stated above, Recommendation 17 states “. . . to ensure that all facilities that can adversely impact BPS reliability are either designated as part of the BES or otherwise incorporated into planning and operations studies and actively monitored and alarmed in [real-time contingency analysis] systems.” (emphasis added.) Including such non-bulk electric system facilities in the definition of bulk electric system through the Rules of Procedure exception process could be an option to address any potential gaps for monitoring facilities. However, there may be potential efficiencies gained by using a more expedited method to include non-bulk electric system that requires monitoring. Thus, the Commission seeks comments on whether the exception process should be used exclusively in all cases.

    59. Alternatively, we seek comment regarding whether this concern should be addressed through a review process of the transmission operators' systems to determine if there are important non-bulk-electric system facilities that require monitoring. For example, Commission staff could work with NERC, Regional Entities and applicable entities to review their system modeling and perform an analysis to identify non-bulk electric system facilities that need monitoring. Accordingly, we seek comment from NERC and other interested persons on these alternatives.

    2. Removal of Load-Serving Entity Function From TOP-001-3 NERC Petition

    60. Proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R3 requires that each balancing authority, generator operator and distribution provider shall comply with each operating instruction issued by its transmission operator, and proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R4 requires that each balancing authority, generator operator and distribution provider inform its transmission operator of its inability to comply with an operating instruction. Proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R5 requires that each transmission operator, generator operator and distribution provider shall comply with each operating instruction issued by its balancing authority, and proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R6 requires that each transmission operator, generator operator and distribution provider inform its balancing authority of its inability to comply with an operating instruction.39

    39 NERC Petition at 22-23.

    61. In its petition, NERC states that, during the standard drafting process, the load-serving entity function was removed from proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirements R3 through R6. NERC explains that the removal of the load-serving entity as an applicable entity was based on the November 2014 NERC Board of Trustees action to remove load-serving entity as a functional entity from NERC's Rules of Procedure.40 Since that time, the Commission has issued an order in Docket No. RR15-4-000 that denied, without prejudice, NERC's proposal to remove the load-serving entity as a functional entity under NERC's Risk Based Registration petition and directed NERC to submit a compliance filing to address this issue.41

    40 NERC Petition, Exhibit K, Consideration of Comments January 7, 2015, at 2.

    41North American Electric Reliability Corp., 150 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2015).

    62. On May 12, 2015, NERC supplemented its initial petition with additional explanation for the removal of the load-serving entity function from proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3. NERC explains that the proposed standard gives transmission operators and balancing authorities the authority to direct the actions of certain other functional entities by issuing an operating instruction to maintain reliability during real-time operations. According to NERC, load-serving entities are not included in the list of entities that must comply with a transmission operator's or balancing authority's operating instructions. NERC contends that the exclusion is justified because none of the functions performed by load-serving entities, as described in the NERC Functional Model, necessitate that load-serving entities be subject to a requirement to comply with such operating instructions to ensure that a transmission operator or balancing authority can maintain reliability.42 NERC adds that a load-serving entity does not own or operate bulk electric system facilities or equipment or the facilities or equipment used to serve end-use customers and its NERC Functional Model tasks are limited in scope. As indicated by the NERC Functional Model, the load-serving entity does not play a role in shedding load in real-time.

    42 NERC Supplemental Filing at 6.

    63. NERC also explains in its supplemental filing that the standard drafting team did not identify any circumstances under which a transmission operator or balancing authority would need to issue an operating instruction to a load-serving entity to prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages. NERC contends that, with respect to the load-serving entity's role as a provider of information to other functional entities, that role is primarily carried out ahead of real-time and would not be the subject of an operating instruction. Additionally, NERC states that the load-serving entity's real-time role with respect to voluntary load curtailment does not necessitate requiring load-serving entities to comply with operating instructions issued by a transmission operator or balancing authority. In order to maintain reliability in their areas and prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages, there may be circumstances under which transmission operators and balancing authorities need to shed load. NERC states that such action is implemented in real-time to address imminent or existing reliability issues such as an exceedance of an IROL or SOL, or a voltage problem. According to NERC, due to the urgent nature of these circumstances, the reliability coordinator, balancing authority, or transmission operator may issue operating instructions directly to the distribution provider for physical implementation of load shedding (except when this can be accomplished directly by the transmission operator).43

    43 NERC Supplemental Filing at 9.

    Commission Proposal

    64. NERC proposes the removal of the load-serving entity function from proposed Reliability Standard, TOP-001-3, Requirements R3 through R6, as a recipient of an operating instruction from a transmission operator or balancing authority. However, the Commission notes that the issuance and compliance of operating instructions under proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3 is not limited to the real-time operations time horizon only.44

    44 NERC TOP/IRO Petition, Exhibit A includes the following time horizons for proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirements R3 through R6: “[Time Horizon: Same-Day Operations, Real-Time Operations].”

    65. Further, if a transmission operator or balancing authority would issue an operating instruction to a load-serving entity such as to carry out interruptible load curtailments, it is not clear what entity would respond to this operating instruction if the load-serving entity is removed from proposed TOP-001-3, Requirements R3 through R6.45

    45 NERC Glossary of Terms defines Interruptible Load as the “[d]emand that the end-use customer makes available to its Load-Serving Entity via contract or agreement for curtailment.”

    66. The Commission notes that NERC is required to make a compliance filing in July 2015 in Docket No. RR15-4-000. The Commission's decision on that filing will guide any action in this proceeding.

    3. Data Exchange Capabilities NERC Petition

    67. In Order No. 808, the Commission approved Reliability Standards COM-001-2 (Communications) and COM-002-4 (Operating Personnel Communications Protocols).46 In Order No. 808, the Commission explained that it had raised concerns in the underlying NOPR proposing to approve these COM Reliability Standards (COM NOPR) whether COM-001-2 addresses “facilities that directly exchange or transfer data.” 47 In response to the COM NOPR, NERC and other commenters clarified that Reliability Standard COM-001-2, which covers communications capability requirements, is not intended to address data exchanges or transfers.48 As the Commission noted in Order No. 808, NERC maintained that Reliability Standard COM-001-2 need not include requirements regarding data exchange capability, “because such capability is covered under other existing or proposed standards.” 49 The Commission did not make any determinations regarding facilities used for data exchange capability in Order No. 808 and, based on NERC's explanation in its supplemental filing, the Commission stated that it would address these issues in this TOP and IRO rulemaking proceeding.50

    46Communications Reliability Standards, Order No. 808, 151 FERC ¶ 61,039 (2015).

    47 Order No. 808, 151 FERC ¶ 61,039 at P 54, quoting Communications Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210, at P 33 (2014).

    48Id. P 48.

    49Id. See also NERC's Supplemental Comments in Response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Communications Reliability Standards, Docket No. RM14-13-000 at 3.

    50 Order No. 808, 151 FERC ¶ 61,039 at P 54.

    68. In general, it appears that facilities for data exchange capabilities are addressed in NERC's proposal. For example, proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirements R19 and R20 require some form of “data exchange capabilities” for the transmission operator and balancing authority, respectively. Similarly, proposed Reliability Standard IRO-002-4, Requirement R1 requires some form of “data exchange capabilities” for the reliability coordinator. However, we seek additional explanation from NERC regarding how it addresses data exchange capabilities in the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards in the following areas: (a) Redundancy and diverse routing; and (b) testing of the alternate or less frequently used data exchange capability.

    (i) Redundancy and Diverse Routing of Data Exchange Capabilities Background

    69. The terms “redundant” and “diverse routing” of data exchange capabilities appear in Reliability Standard COM-001-1, where the reliability coordinator, transmission operator and balancing authority are required to have telecommunication facilities that are “redundant” and “diversely routed” to maintain Bulk-Power System reliability.51 NERC added two definitions (Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication) to Reliability Standard COM-001-2 that addressed redundant and diverse routing of communications between persons and proposed to eliminate the need to use phrases such as “redundant and diversely routed” that it described as ambiguous.52 With respect to the data exchange capabilities, NERC stated that several proposed or existing standards “provided the necessary mandatory Requirements to ensure proper data exchange is occurring.” 53 NERC also asserted that four proposed IRO and TOP standards “include specific coverage related to data exchange,” and “collectively require data exchange capability” for reliability coordinators, transmission operators, balancing authorities, generator operators, and distribution providers.54

    51 COM-001-1.1 Standard, Requirement R1 requires that “[e]ach Reliability Coordinator, Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority shall provide adequate and reliable telecommunications facilities for the exchange of Interconnection and operating information:” and R1.4 requires that “[w]here applicable, these facilities shall be redundant and diversely routed.”

    52 NERC COM Petition at 16.

    53 NERC COM Petition at 16.

    54 NERC Supp. COM Comments at 3. NERC identified these same four standards in its Initial Comments, but provides a more detailed discussion of the proposed standards and their status in its Supplemental Comments.

    70. In Order No. 808, the Commission approved NERC's definition of the terms Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication. NERC defines Interpersonal Communication as “[a]ny medium that allows two or more individuals to interact, consult, or exchange information.” NERC defines Alternative Interpersonal Communication as “[a]ny Interpersonal Communication that is able to serve as a substitute for, and does not utilize the same infrastructure (medium) as, Interpersonal Communication used for day-to-day operation.” 55 Reliability Standard COM-001-2, Requirements R1 through R6 require that reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities have Interpersonal Communication capabilities and Alternative Interpersonal Communication capabilities in place with other defined entities (e.g., other interconnected transmission operators). In its COM Petition, NERC maintained that the defined terms make clear that an entity's communication capability must be redundant and that each of the capabilities must not utilize the same medium, while eliminating the need to use ambiguous phrases such as “redundant and diversely routed” (as used in the prior version of the standard governing communications capability).56

    55 Order No. 808, 151 FERC ¶ 61,039, at P 45 n.54.

    56 May 14, 2014, NERC COM Petition, Docket No. RM14-13-000 at 15-16.

    71. As noted above, NERC indicated in its response to the COM NOPR that Reliability Standard COM-001-2 need not include requirements regarding data exchange capability because such capability is or would be covered by other existing or proposed standards. Specifically, NERC explained that data exchange is addressed by the currently enforceable Reliability Standards IRO-010-1a and IRO-014-1. In addition, NERC stated that data exchange transfer capabilities are directly addressed in proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, as well as in proposed Reliability Standard IRO-002-4, Requirement R1. NERC also stated that the data itself is covered in proposed Reliability Standard IRO-010-2 and proposed Reliability Standard TOP-003-3.57

    57 NERC COM Supplemental Comments at 3.

    NERC Petition

    72. In the petition in this proceeding, NERC states that in proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, “Requirements R19 and R20 provide that each Transmission Operator (Requirement R19) and Balancing Authority (Requirement R20) must have data exchange capabilities with the entities from which it needs data in order to maintain reliability in its area.” 58 NERC states that Requirements R19 and R20 are consistent with proposed Reliability Standard IRO-002-4, Requirement R1, which provides that each reliability coordinator must have data exchange capabilities with its balancing authorities, transmission operators, and other entities it deems necessary. Requirements R19 and R20 state:

    58 NERC Petition at 26.

    R19. Each Transmission Operator shall have data exchange capabilities with the entities that it has identified that it needs data from in order to maintain reliability in its Transmission Operator Area.

    R20. Each Balancing Authority shall have data exchange capabilities with the entities that it has identified that it needs data from in order to maintain reliability in its Balancing Authority Area.

    Reliability Standard IRO-002-4 Requirement R1 states:

    R1. Each Reliability Coordinator shall have data exchange capabilities with its Balancing Authorities and Transmission Operators, and with other entities it deems necessary, for it to perform its Operational Planning Analyses, Real-time monitoring, and Real-time Assessments.

    In addition, NERC states that IRO-002-4, Requirement R4 requires “each Reliability Coordinator must have monitoring systems . . . over a redundant infrastructure.” 59

    59Id. at 31.

    Commission Proposal

    73. The Commission agrees that proposed Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirements R19 and R20 require some form of “data exchange capabilities” for the transmission operator and balancing authority, respectively, and that proposed Reliability Standard TOP-003-3 addresses the operational data itself needed by the transmission operator and balancing authority. In addition, the Commission agrees that Reliability Standard IRO-002-4, Requirement R1 requires “data exchange capabilities” for the reliability coordinator and that proposed Reliability Standard IRO-010-2 addresses the operational data needed by the reliability coordinator. Further, the Commission agrees that proposed Reliability Standard IRO-002-4 Requirement R4 requires a redundant infrastructure for system monitoring. However, it is not clear whether redundancy and diverse routing of data exchange capabilities (or an equally effective alternative that eliminates the ambiguity of “redundancy” and “diversely routed”) are adequately addressed in proposed Reliability Standards TOP-001-3 and IRO-002-4 for the reliability coordinator, transmission operator, and balancing authority.

    74. Unlike the approach taken with COM-001-2, which requires redundancy and use of a diverse medium through the definitions of Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication, proposed Reliability Standards TOP-001-3 and IRO-002-4 do not appear to address redundancy and diverse routing of data exchange capabilities. While Reliability Standard IRO-002-4, Requirement R4 requires reliability coordinators to have a redundant infrastructure for system monitoring, it is not clear whether this requirement addresses redundancy and diverse routing of other forms of data exchange capabilities. For example, a redundant infrastructure used for system monitoring could be a subset of the total data exchange capabilities used by reliability coordinators and not include redundant infrastructure for capabilities such as control of equipment or real-time assessments. The Commission seeks explanation or clarification from NERC whether and how the proposed Reliability Standards in the immediate proceeding address redundancy and diverse routing or an equally effective alternative to redundancy and diverse routing. Further, if NERC or others believe that redundancy and diverse routing are not addressed, we seek comment on whether there are associated reliability risks of the interconnected transmission network for any failure of data exchange capabilities that are not redundant and diversely routed.

    (ii) Testing of the Alternate or Less Frequently Used Data Exchange Capability NERC Petition

    75. Reliability Standard COM-001-2, Requirement R9 (approved in Order No. 808) requires each reliability coordinator, transmission operator and balancing authority to test its Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability at least once each calendar month and to initiate action to repair or designate a replacement Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability.60

    60 Reliability Standard COM-001-2, Requirement R9 states: “[e]ach Reliability Coordinator, Transmission Operator, and Balancing Authority shall test its Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability at least once each calendar month. If the test is unsuccessful, the responsible entity shall initiate action to repair or designate a replacement Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability within 2 hours.”

    76. As noted above, proposed Reliability Standards TOP-001-3, Requirements R19 and R20 and IRO-002-4, Requirement R1 address primary data exchange capabilities of the transmission operator, balancing authority and reliability coordinator, respectively. However, the proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards do not appear to address testing requirements of alternative or less frequently used data exchange capabilities.

    Commission Proposal

    77. The Commission is concerned that the proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards do not appear to address testing requirements for alternative or less frequently used mediums for data exchange to ensure they would properly function in the event that the primary or more frequently used data exchange capabilities failed. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards address the testing of alternative or less frequently used data exchange capabilities for the transmission operator, balancing authority and reliability coordinator. If NERC or others believe that testing requirements for alternative or less frequently used mediums for data exchange is not necessary, we seek comment on why it is not necessary.

    III. Information Collection Statement

    78. The collection of information contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).61 OMB's regulations require approval of certain informational collection requirements imposed by agency rules.62 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number.

    61 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).

    62 5 CFR 1320.11 (2014).

    79. We solicit comments on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are generated.

    Public Reporting Burden: The Commission proposes to approve revisions to the Transmission Operations and Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards. These revisions will impose new or revised, or retire requirements for the balancing authority, transmission operator, generator operator, distribution provider, generator owner, load-serving entity, purchasing-selling entity, transmission service provider, interchange authority, transmission owner, reliability coordinator, planning coordinator, and transmission planner functions. The Commission based its paperwork burden estimates on the NERC compliance registry as of May 15, 2015. According to the registry, there are 11 reliability coordinators, 99 balancing authorities, 450 distribution providers, 839 generator operators, 80 purchasing-selling entities, 446 load-serving entities, 886 generator owners, 320 transmission owners, 24 interchange authorities, 75 transmission service providers, 68 planning coordinators, 175 transmission planners and 171 transmission operators. The estimates are based on the change in burden from the current standards to the proposed. Not all entity types would experience an increase in burden, which is reflected by absence of those entities from the chart below.

    Collectively, the proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards along with revised definitions provide for certain enhancements over the currently-effective TOP and IRO Reliability Standards.63 For example, the revised definitions of operational planning analysis and real-time assessment, which are applicable to multiple proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards, were enhanced and provide significant additional detail over the currently-effective definitions such as including inputs that were identified as contributing to past outages on the bulk electric system.64 As another example, the new proposed Reliability Standard IRO-017-1 establishes operational planning requirements for each reliability coordinator to implement an outage coordination process for its area that address a reliability gap identified in the Southwest Outage Blackout Report and in the Remand NOPR.65 The Commission estimates the annual reporting burden and cost as follows:

    63 NERC Petition at 10.

    64 NERC Petition at 14.

    65 NERC Petition at 17.

    RM15-16-000 (Transmission Operations Reliability Standards, Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards) Number of
  • respondents 66
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average burden & cost per response 67 Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Cost per respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) FERC-725A TOP-001-3 196 (TOP & BA) 1 196 96 hrs. $6,369 18,816 hrs., $1,248,441 96 hrs., $6,369. TOP-002-4 196 (TOP & BA) 1 196 284 hrs., $18,843 55,664 hrs., $3,693,306 284 hrs., $18,843. TOP-003-3 196 (TOP & BA) 1 196 230 hrs., $15,260 45,080 hrs., $2,991,058 230 hrs., $15,260. Sub-Total for FERC-725A 123,252 hrs., $7,932,806 FERC-725Z IRO-001-4 68 177 (RC & TOP) 1 177 0 hrs. $0 0 hrs. $0 0 hrs. $0. IRO-002-4 11 (RC) 1 11 24 hrs., $1,592 264 hrs., $17,516 24 hrs., $1,592. IRO-008-2 11 (RC) 1 11 228 hrs., $15,127 2,508 hrs., $166,405 228 hrs., $15,127. IRO-010-2 11 (RC) 1 11 36 hrs., $2,388 396 hrs., $26,274 36 hrs., $2,388. IRO-014-3 11 (RC) 1 11 12 hrs., $796 132 hrs., $8,758 12 hrs., $796. IRO-017-1 180 (RC, PC, & TP) 1 180 218 hrs., $14,464 39,240 hrs., $2,603,574 218 hrs., $14,464. Sub-Total for FERC-725Z 42,540 hrs., $2,822,529.00 Retirement of current standards currently in FERC-725A 457 (RC, TOP, BA, TSP, LSE, PSE, & IA) 1 457 −223 hrs., −$14,796 −101,911 hrs., −$6,761,794 −223 hrs., −$14,796. Net Total of NOPR in RM15-16 63,881 hrs, $3,993,540

    Title: FERC-725Z, Mandatory Reliability Standards: IRO Reliability Standards, and FERC-725A, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System

    66 The number of respondents is the number of entities for which a change in burden from the current standards to the proposed exists, not the total number of entities from the current or proposed standards that are applicable.67 The estimated hourly costs (salary plus benefits) are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) information, as of April 1, 2015, for an electrical engineer ($66.35/hour). These figures are available at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm#17-0000. 68 IRO-001-4 is a revised standard with no increase in burden.

    Action: Proposed Changes to Collections.

    OMB Control Nos: 1902-0276 (FERC-725Z); 1902-0244(FERC-725A)

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency of Responses: On-going.

    80. Necessity of the Information and Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to the proposed Reliability Standards TOP-001-3, TOP-002-4, TOP-003-3, IRO-001-4, IRO-002-4, IRO-008-2, IRO-010-2, IRO-014-3, and IRO-017-1 and made a determination that the proposed requirements of these standards are necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.

    81. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

    82. Comments concerning the information collections proposed in this NOPR and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address: [email protected] Please reference OMB Control Nos. 1902-0276 (FERC-725Z) and 1902-0244 (FERC-725A)) in your submission.

    IV. Environmental Analysis

    83. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.69 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.70 The actions approved herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.

    69Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).

    70 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    84. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires a description and analysis of Proposed Rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.71 The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.72 The SBA revised its size standard for electric utilities (effective January 22, 2014) to a standard based on the number of employees, including affiliates (from a standard based on megawatt hours).73 Proposed Reliability Standards TOP-001-3, TOP-002-4, TOP-003-3, IRO-001-4, IRO-002-4, IRO-008-2, IRO-010-2, IRO-014-3, and IRO-017-1 are expected to impose an additional burden on 196 entities (reliability coordinators, transmission operators, balancing authorities, transmission service providers, and planning authorities). Comparison of the applicable entities with the Commission's small business data indicates that approximately 82 of these entities are small entities that will be affected by the proposed Reliability Standards.74 As discussed above, proposed Reliability Standards TOP-001-3, TOP-002-4, TOP-003-3, IRO-001-4, IRO-002-4, IRO-008-2, IRO-010-2, IRO-014-3, and IRO-017-1 will serve to enhance reliability by imposing mandatory requirements for operations planning, system monitoring, real-time actions, coordination between applicable entities, and operational reliability data. The Commission estimates that each of the small entities to whom the proposed Reliability Standards TOP-001-3, TOP-002-4, TOP-003-3, IRO-001-4, IRO-002-4, IRO-008-2, IRO-010-2, IRO-014-3, and IRO-017-1 applies will incur costs of approximately $147,364 (annual ongoing) per entity. The Commission does not consider the estimated costs to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

    71 5 U.S.C. 601-12.

    72 13 CFR 121.101 (2013).

    73 SBA Final Rule on “Small Business Size Standards: Utilities,” 78 FR 77343 (Dec. 23, 2013).

    74 The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under one of several different categories, each with a size threshold based on the company's number of employees, including affiliates, the parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this NOPR, we are using a 750 employee threshold for each affected entity to conduct a comprehensive analysis.

    VI. Comment Procedures

    85. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due August 24, 2015. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM15-16-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.

    86. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

    87. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    88. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

    VII. Document Availability

    89. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

    90. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.

    91. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

    List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40 Reliability standards.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15433 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket Nos. RM15-7-000, RM15-12-000, and RM15-13-000] Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” and Related Reliability Standards AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standards and definitions of terms submitted in three related petitions by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-approved Electric Reliability Organization. The Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations) and PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding). According to NERC, the proposed Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline and clarify the existing requirements of certain currently-effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) and Protection and Control (PRC) standards. The Commission also proposes to approve NERC's revised definition of the term “Remedial Action Scheme” as set forth in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards, and modifications of specified Reliability Standards to incorporate the revised definition. Further, the Commission proposes to approve the proposed implementation plans, and the retirement of certain currently-effective Reliability Standards. The Commission discusses concerns regarding several of NERC's proposals and, depending on the comments provided in response, the Commission may direct NERC to develop further modifications to address the concerns and possibly delay the retirement of one currently-effective standard.

    DATES:

    Comments are due August 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:

    Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nick Henery (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8636, [email protected].

    Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8524, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standards and definitions of terms submitted in three related petitions by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-approved Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). In particular, the Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations) and PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding). NERC explains that the proposed Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline, and clarify the existing requirements of certain currently-effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) and Protection and Control (PRC) standards. The Commission also proposes to approve NERC's revised definition of the term “Remedial Action Scheme” as set forth in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary), and modifications of specified Reliability Standards to incorporate the revised definition. Further, the Commission proposes to approve assigned violation risk factors and violation severity levels, proposed implementation plans, and the retirement of certain currently-effective Reliability Standards. The Commission discusses concerns regarding several of NERC's proposals and, depending on the comments provided in response, the Commission may direct NERC to develop further modifications to address the concerns and possibly delay the retirement of one currently-effective standard.

    1 16 U.S.C. 824o.

    I. Background

    2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.2 Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight or by the Commission independently. In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.3

    2 16 U.S.C. 824o.

    3North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

    3. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including initial versions of EOP-001, EOP-002, and EOP-003.4 In addition, the Commission directed NERC to develop certain modifications to the EOP standards. In Order No. 693, the Commission also approved several Undervoltage Load Shedding (UVLS)-related Reliability Standards, including PRC-010-0, PRC-021-1 and PRC-022-1.5 Also, the Commission directed NERC to modify Reliability Standard PRC-010-0 to develop an “integrated and coordinated” approach to all protection systems.6 In Order No. 693, the Commission approved the NERC Glossary, including NERC's currently-effective Special Protection System and Remedial Action Scheme definitions.

    4Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).

    5 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at PP 1509, 1560 and 1565. The Commission neither approved nor remanded Reliability Standard PRC-020-1, explaining that the standard only applied to Regional Reliability Organizations. Id. P 1555.

    6Id. P 1509.

    II. NERC Petitions

    4. NERC submitted three related petitions that we address together in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR).7

    7 The proposed EOP and PRC Reliability Standards are not attached to this notice of proposed rulemaking, nor are the additional standards that NERC proposes to modify to incorporate the revised term Remedial Action Scheme. The proposed Reliability Standards are available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in the identified dockets and on the NERC Web site, www.nerc.com.

    A. NERC EOP Petition—Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 (Docket No. RM15-7-000)

    5. On December 29, 2014, NERC submitted a petition seeking Commission approval of proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 and a revised definition of “Energy Emergency.” NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 consolidates the requirements in three existing Reliability Standards: EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1 and EOP-003-2 “into a single Reliability Standard that clarifies the critical requirements for Emergency Operations while ensuring strong communication and coordination across the functional entities.” 8 NERC seeks retirement of Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1 and EOP-003-2, as well as the approval of the associated implementation plan and violation risk factors and violation severity levels for Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 detailed in the petition. NERC also asserts that proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 satisfies seven Commission directives set forth in Order No. 693.9

    8 NERC EOP Petition at 3.

    9Id. at 12-18.

    6. NERC states that the purpose of proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 is “to address the effects of operating Emergencies by ensuring each Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority has developed Operating Plans to mitigate operating Emergencies, and that those plans are coordinated within a Reliability Coordinator area.” 10 NERC notes that Requirements R2 and R6 of the proposed Reliability Standard incorporate Attachment 1, which describes three energy emergency levels used by the reliability coordinator and the process for communicating the condition of a balancing authority experiencing an energy emergency.11

    10Id. at 2.

    11 Attachment 1 describes three alert levels: Energy Emergency Alert Level 1 (all available generation resources in use, concern about sustaining required contingency reserves); Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (load management procedures in effect, energy deficient balancing authority implements its emergency Operating Plan but maintains minimum contingency reserve requirements); and Energy Emergency Alert Level 3 (firm load interruption is imminent or in process, energy deficient balancing authority unable to maintain minimum contingency reserve requirements).

    7. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 includes six requirements, and is applicable to balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators. Requirements R1 and R2 require transmission operators and balancing authorities to develop, maintain and implement reliability coordinator-reviewed operating plans to mitigate operating, capacity and energy emergencies.12 Requirement R1 specifies elements for the plans “as applicable,” which is intended to provide flexibility to account for regional differences and pre-existing emergency mitigation methods. NERC states that the requirement for transmission operators and balancing authorities to maintain operating plans includes the expectation that the plans are current and up-to-date.13

    12 Operating Plan is defined in the NERC Glossary as a “document that identifies a group of activities that may be used to achieve some goal. An Operating Plan may contain Operating Procedures and Operating Processes. A company-specific system restoration plan that includes an Operating Procedure for black-starting units, Operating Processes for communicating restoration progress with other entities, etc., is an example of an Operating Plan.”

    13 NERC EOP Petition at 8-9.

    8. Requirement R3 requires reliability coordinators to review the operating plans submitted by transmission operators and balancing authorities and is designed to ensure that there is appropriate coordination of reliability risks identified in the operating plans. In reviewing operating plans, reliability coordinators shall consider compatibility, coordination and inter-dependency with other entity operating plans and notify transmission operators and balancing authorities if revisions to their operating plans are necessary.14

    14Id. at 10-11.

    9. Requirement R4 requires transmission operators and balancing authorities to resolve any issues identified by the reliability coordinator and resubmit their revised operating plans within a time period specified by the reliability coordinator. Requirement R5 requires each reliability coordinator to notify balancing authorities and transmission operators in its area, and neighboring reliability coordinators, within thirty minutes of receiving an emergency notification. Requirement R6 requires a reliability coordinator with a balancing authority experiencing a potential or actual energy emergency to declare an energy emergency alert in accordance with Attachment 1.

    10. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 also includes the following revised definition of Energy Emergency:

    Energy Emergency—A condition when a Load-Serving Entity or Balancing Authority has exhausted all other resource options and can no longer meet its expected Load obligations.

    NERC explains that the proposed revised definition is intended to clarify that an energy emergency is not limited to a load-serving entity and, based on a review of the impact on the body of NERC Reliability Standards, “does not change the reliability intent of other requirements of Definitions.” 15

    15Id. at 18.

    B. NERC PRC Petition—Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Docket No. RM15-12-000)

    11. On February 6, 2015, NERC submitted a petition seeking approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding), approval of a revised definition of Undervoltage Load Shedding Program (UVLS Program) for inclusion in the NERC Glossary, the implementation plan for the proposed Reliability Standard and the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels and retirement of four PRC Reliability Standards.16

    16 Reliability Standard PRC-010-0 (Assessment of the Design and Effectiveness of UVLS Program); Reliability Standard PRC-020-1 (Under-Voltage Load Shedding Program Database); Reliability Standard PRC-021-1 (Under-Voltage Load Shedding Program Data); and Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 (Under-Voltage Load Shedding Program Performance).

    12. In its petition, NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is a single, comprehensive standard that addresses the same reliability principles outlined in the four currently-effective UVLS-related Reliability Standards.17 NERC explains that the purpose of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is to “establish an integrated and coordinated approach to the design, evaluation, and reliable operation of Undervoltage Load Shedding Programs” as directed by the Commission in Order No. 693.18 Also, according to NERC, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 replaces the applicability to and involvement of “Regional Reliability Organization” in Reliability Standards PRC-020-1 and PRC-021-1 and consolidates the four currently-effective UVLS-Related Standards into one comprehensive standard. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 “reflects consideration of the 2003 Blackout Report recommendations,” 19 particularly, Recommendation 21 for NERC to “make more effective and wider use of system protection measures” 20 and Recommendation 21C that “NERC determine the goals and principles needed to establish an integrated approach to relay protection for generators and transmission lines, as well as of UFLS and UVLS programs.” 21

    17 NERC PRC Petition at 14.

    18Id. (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs ¶ 31,242 at P 1509).

    19 NERC PRC Petition at 2 (citing the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations, April, 2004 (2003 Blackout Report)).

    20 NERC PRC Petition at 4 (citing 2003 Blackout Report at 3, 158).

    21 NERC PRC Petition at 6.

    13. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 incorporates a proposed definition of UVLS Program, which reads:

    Undervoltage Load Shedding Program (UVLS Program): An automatic load shedding program, consisting of distributed relays and controls, used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting the Bulk Electric System (BES), leading to voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading. Centrally controlled undervoltage-based load shedding is not included.

    NERC explains that “to ensure that the applicability of the proposed Reliability Standard covers undervoltage-based load shedding systems whose performance has an impact on system reliability, a UVLS Program must mitigate risk of one or more of the following: Voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading impacting the Bulk Electric System. By focusing on the enumerated risks, the definition is meant to exclude locally-applied relays that are not designed to mitigate wide-area voltage collapse.” 22 NERC states that the proposed UVLS Program definition “clearly identifies and separates centrally controlled undervoltage-based load shedding, which is now addressed by the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme.” 23

    22Id. at 16.

    23Id. at 15. NERC's petition for approval of the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme (Docket No. RM15-13-000) is discussed below.

    14. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 applies to planning coordinators and transmission planners because “either may be responsible for designing and coordinating the UVLS Program . . . [and] also applies to Distribution Providers and Transmission Owners responsible for the ownership, operation and control of UVLS equipment as required by the UVLS Program established by the Transmission Planner or Planning Coordinator.” 24 NERC explains that the planning coordinator or transmission planner that establishes a UVLS Program is responsible for identifying the UVLS equipment and the necessary distribution provider and transmission owner (referred to as “UVLS entities” in the Applicability section) that performs the required actions.

    24Id.

    15. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 “applies only after an entity has determined the need for a UVLS Program as a result of its own planning studies.” 25 NERC explains that the eight requirements in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 meet four primary objectives: (1) The proposed standard requires applicable entities to evaluate a UVLS Program's effectiveness prior to implementation, including coordination with other protection systems and generator voltage ride-through capabilities; (2) applicable entities must comply with UVLS program specifications and implementation schedule; (3) applicable entities must perform periodic assessment and performance analysis; and (4) applicable entities must maintain and share UVLS Program data.

    25Id. at 14.

    16. Proposed Requirement R1 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner that is developing a UVLS Program to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of its program before implementation to confirm its effectiveness in resolving the undervoltage conditions for which it was designed, and that it is integrated through coordination with generator ride-through capabilities and other protection and control systems. Also, the planning coordinator or transmission planner must provide the UVLS Program specifications and implementation schedule to the applicable UVLS entities. Requirement R2 requires UVLS entities to meet the UVLS Program's specifications and implementation schedule provided by the planning coordinator or transmission planner or address any necessary corrective actions in accordance with Requirement R5.

    17. Requirement R3 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to perform periodic comprehensive assessments at least every 60 calendar months to ensure continued effectiveness of the UVLS program, including whether the program resolves identified undervoltage issues and that it is integrated and coordinated with generator voltage ride-through capabilities and other specified protection and control systems. Requirement R4 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to commence a timely assessment of a voltage excursion subject to the UVLS Program, within twelve calendar months of the event, to evaluate whether the UVLS Program resolved the undervoltage issues associated with the event. Requirement R5 requires a planning coordinator or transmission planner to develop a corrective action plan for any program deficiencies identified during an assessment performed under either Requirement R3 or R4, and provide an implementation schedule to UVLS entities within three calendar months of its completion.

    18. Pursuant to Requirement R6, a planning coordinator must update the data necessary to model its UVLS Program for use in event analyses and program assessments at least each calendar year. Requirement R7 requires each UVLS entity to provide data to its planning coordinator, according to the planning coordinator's format and schedule, to support maintenance of the UVLS Program database. Requirement R8 requires a planning coordinator to provide its UVLS Program database to other planning coordinators and transmission planners within its Interconnection, and other functional entities with a reliability need, within thirty calendar days of a written request.

    19. NERC proposes that PRC-010-1 and the revised definition of UVLS Program shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is twelve (12) months after the date that the standard and definition are approved by the Commission. NERC also proposes to retire PRC-010-0, PRC-020-1, PRC-021-1, and PRC-022-1 at midnight of the day immediately prior to the effective date of PRC-010-1.26 Further, NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 addresses reliability obligations that are set forth in Requirements R2, R4 and R7 of currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP-003-2.27 Since NERC has proposed to retire EOP-003-2 in the petition seeking approval of proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 (Docket No. RM15-7-00, discussed above), concurrent Commission action on the two petitions will prevent a possible reliability gap.

    26Id. Ex. B (Implementation Plan).

    27See NERC EOP Petition at 23.

    C. NERC RAS Petition—Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” (Docket No. RM15-13-000)

    20. On February 3, 2015, NERC submitted a petition seeking approval of a proposed revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme in the NERC Glossary. In addition, NERC seeks approval of modified Reliability Standards that incorporate the new definition of Remedial Action Scheme and eliminate use of the term Special Protection System.28 NERC states that the defined terms Special Protection System and Remedial Action Scheme are currently used interchangeably throughout the NERC Regions and in various Reliability Standards. NERC explains that “[a]lthough these defined terms share a common definition in the NERC Glossary of Terms today, their use and application have been inconsistent as a result of a lack of granularity in the definition and varied regional uses of the terms. The proposed revisions add clarity and granularity that will allow for proper identification of Remedial Action Schemes and a more consistent application of related Reliability Standards.” 29

    28 NERC RAS Petition at 1-2. NERC proposes to modify the following Reliability Standards to incorporate the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme and eliminate use of the term Special Protection System: EOP-004-3, PRC-005-3(ii), PRC-023-4, FAC-010-3, TPL-001-0.1(i), FAC-011-3, TPL-002-0(i)b, MOD-030-3, TPL-003-0(i)b, MOD-029-2a, PRC-015-1, TPL-004-0(i)a, PRC-004-WECC-2, PRC-016-1, PRC-001-1.1(i), PRC-005-2(ii), and PRC-017-1. NERC does not propose any changes to the violation risk factors or violation severity levels for the modified standards.

    29Id. at 4-5.

    21. NERC states that the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme consists of a “core” definition, including a list of objectives and a separate list of exclusions for certain schemes or systems not intended to be covered by the revised definition.30 NERC explains that it is proposing a broad definition because of “all the possible scenarios an entity may develop” for its Remedial Action Scheme and a “very specific, narrow definition may unintentionally exclude schemes that should be covered.” 31 Accordingly, NERC proposes the following revised “core” definition of Remedial Action Scheme:

    30Id. at 16. NERC notes that “for each exclusion, the scheme or system could still classify as a Remedial Action Scheme if employed in a broader scheme that meets the definition of Remedial Action Scheme.”

    31Id. at 17.

    A scheme designed to detect predetermined system conditions and automatically take corrective actions that may include, but are not limited to, adjusting or tripping generation (MW and Mvar), tripping load, or reconfiguring a System(s). (sic) RAS accomplish objectives such as:

    • Meet requirements identified in the NERC Reliability Standards;

    • Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES) stability;

    • Maintain acceptable BES voltages;

    • Maintain acceptable BES power flows;

    • Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme events.

    The definition then lists fourteen exclusions, describing specific schemes and systems that do not constitute a Remedial Action Scheme, because each is either a protection function, a control function, a combination of both, or used for system reconfiguration.32

    32Id. at 18.

    22. In the implementation plan, NERC proposes an effective date for the revised Reliability Standards and the revised definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is twelve months after Commission approval.33 NERC also proposes that for entities with existing schemes that become newly classified as “Remedial Action Schemes” resulting from the application of the revised definition, the entities will have additional time of up to twenty-four months from the effective date to be fully compliant with all applicable Reliability Standards.34 Further, NERC asks the Commission to take final action concurrently with the NERC petition on proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Docket No. RM15-12-000) because “[t]he proposed definitions of UVLS Program and Remedial Action Scheme in each project have been coordinated to cover centrally controlled UVLS as a Remedial Action Scheme. Final action by the Commission is needed contemporaneously on both petitions to facilitate implementation and avoid a gap in coverage of centrally controlled UVLS.” 35

    33Id. at 15-16.

    34 NERC RAS Petition, EX. C (Implementation Plan) at 4.

    35 NERC RAS Petition at 25.

    III. Discussion

    23. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, the Commission proposes to approve as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest the proposed Reliability Standards and NERC Glossary definitions set forth in NERC's three petitions pertaining to EOP-011-1, PRC-010-1 and a revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme. As discussed below, the Commission believes that the modified Reliability Standards provide greater clarity, and the consolidated EOP and PRC standards will provide additional efficiencies for responsible entities.

    A. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1

    24. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, we propose to approve proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 and the proposed new Energy Emergency definition, as well as the proposed violation risk factors and violation severity levels and implementation plan. We agree with NERC that proposed EOP-011-1 consolidates and reorganizes previously approved standards, and proposes modifications based on current operating practices and experience. We believe that the Reliability Standard enhances reliability by requiring that actions necessary to mitigate capacity and energy emergencies are focused in single operating plans, and ensures communication and coordination among relevant entities during emergency operations. Also, we are satisfied that the NERC petition adequately addresses the relevant Order No. 693 directives.36

    36 Currently effective EOP-002-3.1 applies, inter alia, to load-serving entities. Proposed EOP-011-1, which would replace EOP-002-3.1, would apply to balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators, but not load-serving entities. The removal of load-serving entities raises questions on who would perform the roles traditionally performed by load-serving entities. For instance, NERC's Functional Model indicates that a load-serving entity has real-time responsibility to receive requests from a balancing authority to voluntarily curtail load and communicate such requests for voluntary load curtailment to end-use customers as directed by the balancing authority. In addition, NERC's Functional Model indicates that a balancing authority has a real-time function to coordinate the use of controllable loads with load-serving entities. The Commission notes that NERC is required to make a compliance filing in July 2015 in Docket No. RR15-4-000. The Commission's decision on that filing will guide our action on this question in this proceeding.

    B. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1

    25. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, we propose to approve proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. We also propose to approve the proposed, revised definition of UVLS Program for inclusion in the NERC Glossary, the implementation plan and the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels. Likewise, we propose to approve the retirement of PRC-010-0, PRC-020-1 and PRC-021-1.37 However, for the reasons explained below, we are concerned whether it is appropriate to retire PRC-022-1, as NERC requests, before an acceptable replacement Reliability Standard is in place to address the potential misoperation of UVLS equipment.

    37 As noted above, the Commission in Order No. 693 did not approve or remand proposed Reliability Standard PRC-020-1 but, rather, took no action on the Reliability Standard pending the receipt of additional information. Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1555. Approval of Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, as proposed herein, will render PRC-020-1 “retired,” i.e., withdrawn, and no longer pending before the Commission.

    26. The Commission agrees with NERC that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 will improve system reliability by establishing an integrated and coordinated approach to the design, evaluation and reliable operation of UVLS Programs, and therefore satisfies the Commission's directive issued in Order No. 693.38 We also propose to approve the proposed UVLS Program definition and agree that it “clearly identifies and separates centrally controlled undervoltage-based load shedding, which is now addressed by the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme.” 39

    38 Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1509.

    39 NERC PRC Petition at 15. NERC's proposed revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme (Docket No. RM15-13-000) is addressed elsewhere in this NOPR.

    27. In the “Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition,” NERC provides an example of a “BES subsystem,” in the diagram below, illustrating a UVLS system that would not be included in the definition of UVLS Program if the consequences of the contingency do not impact the BES.40 The Commission seeks clarification whether this example illustrates a centrally controlled UVLS and would therefore be considered a Remedial Action Scheme.41 The Commission also seeks clarification regarding the use of the term “BES subsystem,” since the term is not defined in the NERC Glossary. Depending on the response from NERC and others, a directive for further modification may be appropriate to ensure that the UVLS standards and related NERC guidance are consistent with the Commission-approved definition of “bulk electric system.” 42

    40 NERC PRC Petition, Ex. A (Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1) at 12.

    41Id. at 3.

    42Revisions to Electric Reliability Organization Definition of Bulk Electric System and Rules of Procedure, Order No. 773, 141 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2012); order on reh'g, Order No. 773-A, 143 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2013), order on reh'g and clarification, 144 FERC ¶ 61,174 (2013), aff'd sub nom., New York v. FERC, 783 F.3d 946 (2d. Cir. 2015).

    EP24JN15.001

    28. NERC proposes to retire Reliability Standard PRC-022-1, which requires transmission operators, load-serving entities and distribution providers to analyze and document all UVLS operations and misoperations. Requirement R1.5 of this Reliability Standard requires that an applicable entity's analysis and documentation should include “[f]or any Misoperation, a Corrective Action Plan to avoid future Misoperations of a similar nature.” Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirement R5 addresses deficiencies in UVLS Programs that a planning coordinator or transmission planner identifies during assessments performed in accordance with either Requirement R3 (periodic UVLS Program effectiveness evaluations) or Requirement R4 (evaluations to assess UVLS Program responses to voltage excursions), and requires the entities to develop a Corrective Action Plan to address the deficiencies.

    29. NERC correctly states that “[w]hen a UVLS Program does not function as expected and designed during a voltage excursion event, this presents a risk to system reliability.” 43 However, we are not persuaded that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirement R4 is an adequate replacement for currently-effective PRC-022-1, which contains requirements specifically addressing misoperations. Accordingly, we propose to deny NERC's proposal to retire currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 concurrent with the effective date of proposed PRC-010-1. Rather, we propose that Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 remain in effect until an acceptable replacement standard is approved and implemented.44

    43Id. at 20.

    44 In the PRC Petition, NERC indicates that UVLS misoperations are currently being addressed in Project 2008-02.2 Phase 2 Undervoltage Load Shedding (UVLS): Misoperations. NERC states that “[t]his phase of the UVLS project will address Misoperation of UVLS equipment to complete the work anticipated by the two standard drafting teams.” Id. at 23. The Commission notes that, on June 9, 2015, NERC filed proposed Reliability Standards PRC-010-2 and PRC-004-5, which include requirements and applicability criteria pertaining to UVLS misoperations.

    C. Revised Definition of Remedial Action Scheme

    30. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, the Commission proposes to approve the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme, the proposed exclusions, the proposed Reliability Standards and proposed implementation plan, as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We are persuaded that the use of a broad, core definition with a wide scope, accompanied by a list of specific exclusions will help avoid confusion and achieve a uniform understanding across all the Regional Entities of the proper classification of what schemes and systems constitute a Remedial Action Scheme. We agree with NERC that the proposed definition will improve reliability by eliminating ambiguity and promoting the proper, consistent identification of Remedial Action Schemes and more consistency in the application of related Reliability Standards.45

    45 NERC RAS Petition at 14-16.

    IV. Information Collection Statement

    31. The collection of information contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).46 OMB's regulations require approval of certain informational collection requirements imposed by agency rules.47 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number.

    46 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

    47 5 CFR 1320.11.

    32. We solicit comments on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are generated.

    A. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1

    33. Public Reporting Burden: As of May 2015, there are 99 balancing authorities, 15 reliability coordinators and 171 transmission operators registered with NERC. These registered entities will have to comply with 6-8 new requirements in the proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1. As proposed, each registered balancing authority will have to comply with Requirements R2, R4, and, under certain circumstances, R5. Each reliability coordinator will have to comply with Requirements R1 and its subparts, R2 and its subparts, R3 and its subparts, R5 and R6. Each transmission operator will have to comply with Requirements R1 and its subparts and R4.

    34. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 replaces a combined total of 40 requirements or subparts that are found in Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1 and EOP-003-2. These three Reliability Standards are proposed to be retired, concurrent with the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1. Accordingly, the requirements in proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 do not create any new burdens for applicable balancing authorities or transmission operators because the requirements in Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 are already burdens or tasks imposed on this set of registered entities by Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1 and EOP-003-2 under FERC-725A (1902-0244).

    35. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 requires reliability coordinators to perform the additional tasks of reviewing, correcting, and coordinating their balancing authorities' and transmission operators' operating procedures for emergency conditions. The Commission estimates that these tasks will add approximately 1,500 man-hours per year for each reliability coordinator as described in detail in the following table:

    RM15-7-000 (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard EOP-011-1) Number of
  • applicable
  • registered
  • entities
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average
  • burden
  • (hours) &
  • cost per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • & total annual
  • cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) RC tasks necessary for EOP-011-1 compliance 11 1 11 1,500
  • 48 92,387
  • 16,500
  • $1,016,257
  • $92,387
    B. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1

    36. Public Reporting Burden: As of May 2015, there are 450 registered distribution providers and 175 transmission planners that are not overlapping in their registration with the distribution provider registration. We estimate that five percent of all distribution providers (23) and transmission planners (9) have under voltage load shedding programs that fall under the proposed Reliability Standard. The proposed Reliability Standard is applicable to planning coordinators and transmission planners, distribution providers and transmission owners. However, only distribution providers and transmission owners would be responsible for the incremental compliance burden under proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirement R2, as described in detail in the following table:

    48 The 1,500 hour figure is broken into 1,300 hours at the engineer wage rate and 200 hours at the clerk wage rate. These estimates assume that the engineer's wage rate will be $66.35 and the clerk's wage rate will be $30.66. These figures are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm; Occupation Code: 17-2071 (engineer) and 43-4071 (clerk).

    RM15-12-000 (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-010-1) 49 Number of
  • applicable
  • registered
  • entities
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average
  • burden
  • (hours) &
  • cost per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • & total annual
  • cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) DP—Requirement 2 23 1 23 50 36
  • $1,906.32
  • 828
  • $43,845.36
  • $1,906
    TP—Requirement 2 3 1 3 51 36
  • $1,906.32
  • 324
  • $17,156.07
  • 1,906
    DP—Requirement 2 Data Retention 23 1 23 12
  • 52 $367.92
  • 276
  • $8,462.16
  • 368
    TP—Requirement 2 Data Retention 3 1 3 12
  • $367.92
  • 108
  • $3,311.28
  • 368
    Total $72,774.87
    C. Remedial Action Scheme Revisions

    49 DP = distribution provider and TP = transmission planner.

    50 The 36 hour figure is broken into 24 hours at the engineer wage rate and 12 hours at the clerk wage rate. These estimates assume that the engineer's wage rate will be $66.35 and the clerk's wage rate will be $30.66. These figures are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm; Occupation Code: 17-2071 (engineer) and 43-4071 (clerk).

    51Id.

    52 Clerk's wage rate is used for managing data retention.

    37. Public Reporting Burden: The Commission approved the definition of Special Protection System (Remedial Action Scheme) in Order No. 693. We propose to approve a revision to the previously approved definition. The proposed revisions to the Remedial Action Scheme definition and proposed Reliability Standards are not expected to result in changes to the scope of systems covered by the proposed Reliability Standards and other Reliability Standards that include the term Remedial Action Scheme. Therefore, the Commission does not expect the proposed revisions to affect applicable entities' current reporting burden.

    FERC-725G4, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding).

    FERC-725S, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations).

    Action: Proposed Collection of Information.

    OMB Control No: OMB Control No. 1902-0270 (FERC-725S); OMB Control No. 1902-TBD (FERC-725G4).

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency of Responses: One time and on-going.

    Necessity of the Information: The proposed approval of the proposed Reliability Standards implements the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System. Specifically, the proposed Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline and clarify the existing requirements of certain currently-effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations and Protection and Control Reliability Standards.

    38. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to proposed Reliability Standards PRC-010-1 and EOP-011-1 and made a determination that the proposed requirements of these Reliability Standards are necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.

    39. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

    40. Comments concerning the information collections proposed in this NOPR and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address: [email protected] Please reference the docket numbers of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket Nos. RM15-13-000, RM15-12-000, and RM15-7-000) in your submission.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    41. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 53 generally requires a description and analysis of Proposed Rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The immediate rulemaking proposes action on three separate, but related, NERC petitions. As discussed above, the consolidated EOP standard and consolidated PRC standards are intended to provide additional efficiencies for responsible entities. Thus, the Commission estimates that the rulemaking will impose only a minimal additional burden on responsible entities, as described below. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 is expected to impose an additional burden on 11 entities (reliability coordinators). The remaining 270 entities (balancing authorities and transmission operators and a combination thereof) will maintain the existing levels of burden. Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC's small business data indicates that approximately 7 of the 11 entities are small entities affected by this proposed Reliability Standard.54

    53 5 U.S.C. 601-12.

    54 The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under one of several different categories, each with a size threshold based on the company's number of employees, including affiliates, the parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this NOPR, we use a 500 employee threshold for each affected entity. Each entity is classified as Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121).

    42. On average, each small entity affected may have a one-time cost of $92,387, representing a one-time review of the program for each entity, consisting of 1,500 man-hours at $66.35/hour (for engineers) and $30.66/hour (for record clerks), as explained above in the information collection statement. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is expected to impose an additional burden on 26 entities (distribution providers and transmission planners or a combination thereof). Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC's small business data indicates that approximately 8 are small entities affected by this proposed Reliability Standard.

    43. On average, each small entity affected may have a cost of $1,906, representing a one-time review of the program for each entity, consisting of 96 man-hours at $66.35/hour (for engineers) and $30.66/hour (for record clerks), as explained above in the information collection statement. The Commission estimates that the modified definition of the term Remedial Action Scheme and related modifications to Reliability Standards will have no cost impact on applicable entities, including any small entities.

    44. The Commission estimates that the combined impact of proposed Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 in this NOPR would impose an additional burden on a total of 47 entities. Further, the Commission estimates that 15 respondents are small entities affected by these proposed Reliability Standards. On average, each small entity affected may have a cost of $92,387 and $1,906 (EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 respectively), representing a one-time review of the program for each entity. The Commission does not consider these costs to be a significant economic impact on small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission seeks comment on this certification.

    VI. Environmental Analysis

    45. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.55 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.56 The actions proposed herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.

    55Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

    56 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).

    VII. Comment Procedures

    46. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due August 24, 2015. Comments must refer to Docket Nos. RM15-13-000, RM15-12-000, and RM15-7-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and address.

    47. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

    48. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    49. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

    VIII. Document Availability

    50. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

    51. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

    52. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

    By direction of the Commission.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15432 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-138526-14] RIN 1545-BM46 Issue Price Definition for Tax-Exempt Bonds AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Partial withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking, notice of proposed rulemaking, and notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    This document partially withdraws the portion of the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2013 (78 FR 56842), relating to the definition of issue price for purposes of the arbitrage restrictions under section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). This document also contains a notice of proposed rulemaking that provides a revised definition of issue price for purposes of the arbitrage restrictions. In addition, this document provides notice of a public hearing on the proposed regulations in this document. The proposed regulations in this document affect issuers of tax-exempt and other tax-advantaged bonds.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments must be received by September 22, 2015. Requests to speak and outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for October 28, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., must be received by September 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-138526-14), Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered to: CC:PA:LPD:PR Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-138526-14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-138526-14). The public hearing will be held at the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Lewis Bell at (202) 317-6980; concerning submissions of comments and the hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information contained in § 1.148-1 has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1347. The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in § 1.148-1(f)(2)(ii) which contains a requirement that the issuer obtain certifications and supporting documentation regarding the underwriter's sales of the issuer's bonds. The collection of information in § 1.148-1(f)(2)(ii) is an increase in the total annual burden under control number 1545-1347. The respondents are issuers of tax-exempt bonds that wish to use the alternative method in § 1.148-1(f)(2)(ii).

    Estimated total annual recordkeeping burden: 52,276 hours.

    Estimated average annual burden hours per respondent: 4 hours.

    Estimated number of respondents: 12,546.

    Estimated annual frequency of responses: 20,910.

    Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by August 24, 2015.

    Comments are sought on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the IRS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information;

    How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;

    How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques and other forms of information technology; and

    Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by section 6103.

    Background

    This document contains proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) on the arbitrage investment restrictions under section 148 of the Code. On June 18, 1993, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published comprehensive final regulations in the Federal Register (TD 8476, 58 FR 33510) on the arbitrage investment restrictions and related provisions for tax-exempt bonds under sections 103, 148, 149, and 150. Since that time, those final regulations have been amended in certain limited respects (the regulations issued in 1993 and the amendments thereto are collectively referred to as the Existing Regulations).

    A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 56842; REG-148659-07) on September 16, 2013 (the 2013 Proposed Regulations), which proposes amendments to the Existing Regulations to address market developments, simplify certain provisions, address certain technical issues, and make the regulations more administrable. One significant change in the 2013 Proposed Regulations addresses the definition of issue price. Comments were received, and a public hearing was held on February 5, 2014. After considering the comments and the statements made at the public hearing, the Treasury Department and the IRS have decided to withdraw § 1.148-1(f) of the 2013 Proposed Regulations relating to issue price and to propose new regulations. This document (the Proposed Regulations) contains the re-proposed definition of issue price. The Treasury Department and the IRS will address the remaining provisions contained in the 2013 Proposed Regulations at a later time.

    Explanation of Provisions

    For purposes of the arbitrage investment restrictions, section 148(h) provides that yield on an issue is to be determined on the basis of the issue price (within the meaning of sections 1273 and 1274). The reason for using issue price (rather than sales proceeds less the costs of issuance) to determine yield for purposes of section 148(h) is to ensure that issuers bear the costs of issuance, rather than recover these costs through arbitrage profits. See H. Rep. No. 99-426, at 517 (1985). Congress thought that this requirement would encourage issuers to scrutinize costs of issuance more closely and would encourage better targeting of the federal subsidy associated with tax-exempt bonds. Id., at 517-518. The issue price definition under the Existing Regulations generally follows the issue price definition used for computing original issue discount on debt instruments under sections 1273 and 1274, with certain modifications. The definition under the Existing Regulations provides that generally the issue price of bonds that are publicly offered is the first price at which a substantial amount of the bonds is sold to the public. However, the issue price definition in the Existing Regulations defines substantial amount as ten percent and applies a reasonable expectations standard (rather than a standard based on actual sales) for determining the issue price of bonds that are publicly offered. Specifically, the issue price of bonds for which a bona fide public offering is made is determined as of the sale date based on reasonable expectations regarding the initial offering price. The issue prices of bonds with different payment and credit terms are determined separately. Notice 2010-35, published May 10, 2010 (2010-19 IRB 660), provides that the arbitrage definition of issue price also applies to other tax-advantaged bond programs, including Build America Bonds under section 54AA and other Qualified Tax Credit Bonds under section 54A.

    The definition of issue price in the 2013 Proposed Regulations differs significantly from that in the Existing Regulations. Consistent with section 148(h), the 2013 Proposed Regulations retain the rule that issue price generally will be determined under the rules of sections 1273 and 1274. The 2013 Proposed Regulations parallel the language in the existing section 1273 regulations by providing that the issue price of tax-exempt bonds issued for money is the first price at which a substantial amount of the bonds is sold to the public. The 2013 Proposed Regulations provide a safe harbor under which an issuer may treat the first price at which a minimum of 25 percent of the bonds in an issue (with the same credit and payment terms) actually is sold to the public as the issue price, provided that all orders at this price received from the public during the offering period are filled (to the extent that the public orders at such price do not exceed the amount of bonds sold). Thus, the 2013 Proposed Regulations base the determination of issue price on actual sales prices instead of reasonably expected sales at initial public offering prices. The 2013 Proposed Regulations also remove the definition of a “substantial amount” as ten percent.

    The 2013 Proposed Regulations define the term “public” to mean any person other than an “underwriter.” The 2013 Proposed Regulations define the term “underwriter” to mean any person that purchases bonds from the issuer for the purpose of effecting the original distribution of the bonds or otherwise participates directly or indirectly in the original distribution. An underwriter includes a lead underwriter and any member of a syndicate that contractually agrees to participate in the underwriting of the bonds for the issuer. A securities dealer (whether or not a member of the issuer's underwriting syndicate) that purchases bonds (whether or not from the issuer) for the purpose of effecting the original distribution of the bonds is also treated as an underwriter for this purpose. An underwriter generally includes a party related to an underwriter. A person that holds bonds for investment is not an underwriter with respect to those bonds.

    A number of comments were received on the 2013 Proposed Regulations issue price definition. In general, the commenters requested the withdrawal of the portion of the 2013 Proposed Regulations relating to the definition or the re-proposal of the definition using the existing reasonable expectations test regarding the initial public offering price, with certain clarifications. Commenters pointed out that issue price must be determined as of the sale date to provide certainty that the bonds will qualify as tax-exempt and meet state or local requirements for debt issuance. The sale date is the date when the syndicate or sole underwriter in contractual privity with the issuer signs the agreement to buy the bonds from the issuer and when the terms of the bond issue are set. Commenters expressed concern about insufficient sales of bonds preventing a timely determination of issue price on the sale date. The commenters noted that the syndicate or sole underwriter in contractual privity purchases the bonds from the issuer, so the syndicate or sole underwriter, rather than the issuer, will bear the risk of any market fluctuations after the sale date. Because the issuer neither bears this risk nor receives any further proceeds, any later change in price is not a factor that affects the costs of issuance paid by the issuer. In addition, later sales prices could reflect changes in the market, whereas the purpose of using issue price is to preclude recovery of issuance costs through arbitrage profits. See H. Rep. No. 99-426, at 517.

    In general, the lower the issue price for the bonds bearing a stated interest rate, the higher the yield. Economically, the issuer should want to receive the highest price for the bonds and pay the lowest yield. This aligns with the purpose of the arbitrage provisions to minimize arbitrage investment benefits and remove incentives to issue more tax-exempt bonds, and thus to limit the federal revenue cost of the tax subsidy for tax-exempt bonds. Many of the commenters stated, however, that the use of actual sales prices likely would result in lower bond offering prices so as to ensure that each issue would meet the 25 percent threshold in the safe harbor in the 2013 Proposed Regulations as of the sale date of the bonds. The commenters pointed to unsold bonds in particular maturities of an overall tax-exempt bond issue that includes a series of bonds with separate maturities and issue prices as the particular impediment to meeting an actual sale requirement as of the sale date. These lower bond prices would reduce proceeds and increase borrowing costs for issuers, increase bond yields for arbitrage purposes, and increase federal tax subsidies.

    In addition, commenters suggested that the definition of underwriter in the 2013 Proposed Regulations was unduly broad and ambiguous. In particular, commenters expressed concern that the 2013 Proposed Regulations effectively required the issuer to obtain price information from dealers that are not in a contractual relationship with the issuer or underwriting syndicate. The commenters also expressed concern that the proposed definition of underwriter necessitated determining a dealer's intent for buying bonds because whether a dealer was an underwriter depended upon whether the dealer purchased bonds with “the purpose of effecting the original distribution of the bonds.”

    In response to the comments received, the Treasury Department and the IRS are re-proposing an amended definition of issue price for tax-exempt bonds. Consistent with section 148(h), the Proposed Regulations retain the rule that issue price generally will be determined under the rules of sections 1273 and 1274. The Proposed Regulations also parallel the language in the existing section 1273 regulations and the Existing Regulations by providing that the issue price of bonds issued for money is the first price at which a substantial amount of the bonds is sold to the public. This rule uses actual sales to determine issue price and is consistent with section 1273. The Proposed Regulations retain the rule in the Existing Regulations that ten percent is a substantial amount.

    The Proposed Regulations also retain the rule for tax-exempt bonds that the issue prices of bonds with different payment and credit terms are determined separately. Tax-exempt bond issues often include bonds with different payment and credit terms that generally sell at different prices. In response to commenters' concerns regarding the need for certainty with respect to the determination of issue price of the issue as of the sale date and that less than a substantial amount of particular bonds included within an issue may be sold by that time, the Proposed Regulations provide an alternative method of determining issue price for bonds a substantial amount of which is not sold pursuant to orders received from the public as of the sale date. Under this alternative method, an issuer may treat the initial offering price to the public as the issue price, provided certain requirements are met.

    In particular, the alternative method requires that the underwriters fill all orders at the initial offering price placed by the public and received by the underwriters on or before the sale date (to the extent the orders do not exceed the amount of bonds to be sold) and do not fill any order received by the underwriters on or before the sale date at a price higher than the initial offering price. Further, the alternative method requires the lead underwriter (or sole underwriter, if applicable) to provide certification with respect to certain matters under the alternative method, including a certification that no underwriter will fill an order received from the public after the sale date and before the issue date at a price higher than the initial offering price, except if the higher price is the result of a market change for those bonds after the sale date (for example, due to a change in interest rates), and that it will provide the issuer with supporting documentation for the matters covered by the certifications.

    Documentation of the initial offering price may include a copy of the pricing wire (or equivalent communication). Documentation of bonds for which an underwriter filled an order placed by the public after the sale date and before the issue date at a price higher than the initial offering price includes both pricing information (amounts, prices, and sale dates) and information regarding the corresponding market change, such as proof of the values of a broad-based index of municipal bond interest rates on bonds similar to the type and credit rating of the bonds being sold. The issuer must not know or have reason to know, after exercising due diligence, that the certifications are false.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that, under syndicate agreements among underwriters and MSRB rules, underwriters are free to sell bonds after the bond purchase agreement is signed at a fair and reasonable price different from the initial offering price. The alternative method allows the use of initial offering price as the issue price in circumstances in which bonds are sold after the sale date and before the issue date at a higher price, provided that the higher price results from a market change for those bonds after the sale date. Based on available data, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the frequency of sales by underwriters at higher prices between the sale date and the issue date is limited. Thus, the burden, in effect, of requiring underwriters to maintain initial public offering prices for unsold bonds until the issue date absent justification for higher prices based on market changes should be limited. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on other safeguards or alternative approaches to ensure that the prices obtained by underwriters in actual sales of bonds to the public between the sale date and the issue date are consistent with use of initial offering prices to the public as of the sale date as a simplifying assumption for issue price determinations in the alternative method.

    The Proposed Regulations define “public” for purposes of determining the issue price of tax-exempt bonds as any person other than an underwriter or a related party to an underwriter. The Proposed Regulations define “underwriter” to include (i) any person that contractually agrees to participate in the initial sale of the bonds to the public by entering into a contract with the issuer or into a contract with a lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate and (ii) any person that, on or before the sale date, directly or indirectly enters into a contract or other arrangement to sell the bonds with any of the foregoing (for example, a retail distribution contract between a member of an underwriting syndicate or selling group and another dealer that is not in the syndicate or selling group).

    The Proposed Regulations remove as unnecessary a rule in the Existing Regulations expressly stating that the issue price does not change if part of the issue is later sold at a different price. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend no substantive change by the removal.

    In accordance with section 6001, the issuer should maintain documentation in its books and records to support its issue price determinations. This documentation includes the specific certifications and documentation required to determine issue price under the alternative method, as well as documentation to support issue price determinations under the general rule. For example, under the general rule, an issuer should include in its books and records any certification from the lead (or sole) underwriter regarding the first price at which a substantial amount of the bonds were sold to the public and reasonable supporting documentation for this price.

    Proposed Effective/Applicability Date

    The Proposed Regulations are proposed to apply prospectively to bonds that are sold on or after the date that is 90 days after publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. In addition, issuers may rely upon the Proposed Regulations with respect to bonds that are sold on or after June 24, 2015, and before the date that is 90 days after publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules 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. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 5) does not apply.

    It is hereby certified that these Proposed Regulations, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. This certification is based generally on the fact that any effect on small entities by these rules generally flows from section 148 of the Code.

    Section 148(h) of the Code requires the yield on an issue of bonds to be determined on the basis of issue price (within the meaning of sections 1273 and 1274). Under section 1273, the issue price is the first price at which a substantial amount of the bonds were sold to the public. Section 1.148-1(f)(2)(ii) of the Proposed Regulations gives effect to the statute by requiring the issuer to obtain certifications and documentation regarding sales of the bonds from the underwriter of the bonds, which is the party that sells the bonds to the public. This information will be used to support the issue price of the bonds for audit and other purposes. Any economic impact of obtaining this information is minimal because most of the information already is provided to issuers by the underwriters under existing industry practices. Accordingly, these proposed changes do not add to the impact on small entities imposed by the statutory provision. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and 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 IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments that are submitted by the public will be available for public inspection and copying at www.regulations.gov or upon request.

    A public hearing has been scheduled for October 28, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 15 minutes before the hearing starts. For more information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by September 22, 2015. Such persons should submit a signed paper original and eight (8) copies or an electronic copy. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these regulations are Johanna Som de Cerff and Lewis Bell, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products), IRS. However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Partial Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, § 1.148-1(f) of the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-148659-07) that was published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2013 (78 FR 56842), is withdrawn.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

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

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.148-0(c) is amended by adding entries for §§ 1.148-1(f) and 1.148-11(m) to read as follows:
    § 1.148-0 Scope and table of contents.

    (c) Table of contents. * * *

    § 1.148-1 Definitions and elections.

    (f) Definition of issue price.

    (1) In general.

    (2) Bonds issued for money.

    (3) Definitions.

    (4) Special rules.

    § 1.148-11 Effective/applicability dates.

    (m) Definition of issue price.

    Par. 3. Section 1.148-1 is amended by revising the definition of issue price in paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 1.148-1 Definitions and elections.

    (b) * * *

    Issue price means issue price as defined in paragraph (f) of this section.

    (f) Definition of issue price—(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (f), issue price is defined in sections 1273 and 1274 and the regulations under those sections.

    (2) Bonds issued for money—(i) In general. The issue price of bonds issued for money is the first price at which a substantial amount of the bonds is sold to the public.

    (ii) Alternative method based on initial offering price. As an alternative to the general rule in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, if the underwriters have not received orders placed by the public for a substantial amount of tax-exempt bonds on or before the sale date, the issuer may treat the initial offering price to the public as the issue price of the bonds if all of the following requirements are met:

    (A) The underwriters fill all orders at the initial offering price placed by the public and received by the underwriters on or before the sale date (to the extent the orders do not exceed the amount of bonds to be sold), and no underwriter fills an order placed by the public and received by the underwriters on or before the sale date at a price higher than the initial offering price.

    (B) The issuer obtains from the lead underwriter in the underwriting syndicate or selling group (or, if applicable, the sole underwriter) certification of the following:

    (1) The initial offering price;

    (2) That the underwriters met the requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section;

    (3) That no underwriter will fill an order placed by the public and received after the sale date and before the issue date at a price higher than the initial offering price, except if the higher price is the result of a market change (such as a decline in interest rates) for those bonds after the sale date; and

    (4) That the lead (or sole) underwriter will provide the issuer supporting documentation for the matters covered by the certifications in paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(B)(1) and (2) of this section and, with regard to paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of this section, either documentation regarding any bonds for which an underwriter filled an order placed by the public and received after the sale date and before the issue date at a price higher than the initial offering price and the corresponding market change for those bonds, or a certification that no underwriter filled such orders at a price higher than the initial offering price.

    (C) The issuer does not know or have reason to know, after exercising due diligence, that the certifications described in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section are false.

    (3) Definitions. For purposes of this paragraph (f), the following definitions apply:

    (i) Public. Public means any person (as defined in section 7701(a)(1)) other than an underwriter or a related party (as defined in § 1.150-1(b)) to an underwriter.

    (ii) Underwriter. The term underwriter include—

    (A) Any person (as defined in section 7701(a)(1)) that contractually agrees to participate in the initial sale of the bonds to the public by entering into a contract with the issuer (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate); and

    (B) Any person that, on or before the sale date, directly or indirectly enters into a contract or other arrangement with a person described in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) of this section to sell the bonds.

    (4) Special rules. For purposes of this paragraph (f), the following special rules apply:

    (i) Separate determinations. The issue price of bonds in an issue that do not have the same credit and payment terms is determined separately.

    (ii) Substantial amount. Ten percent is a substantial amount.

    (iii) Bonds issued for property. If a bond is issued for property, the adjusted applicable Federal rate, as determined under section 1288, is used in lieu of the applicable Federal rate to determine the bond's issue price under section 1274.

    Par. 4. Section 1.148-11 is amended by adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
    § 1.148-11 Effective/applicability dates.

    (m) Definition of issue price. The definition of issue price in § 1.148-1(b) and (f) applies to bonds that are sold on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register.

    John M. Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15411 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Parts 17, 51 and 52 RIN 2900-AO88 Per Diem Paid to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State Homes; Correction AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction and clarification.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs is correcting and clarifying a proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34794).

    DATES:

    The correction and clarification are effective June 24, 2015. The comments due date remains August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted through www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to the Director, Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AO88—Per Diem Paid to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State Homes.” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1068, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. (This is not a toll-free number.) In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Richard Allman, Chief Consultant, Geriatrics and Extended Care Services (10P4G), Veterans Health Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-6750. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The VA is correcting and clarifying its proposed rule on Per Diem Paid to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State Homes that published June 17, 2015, in the Federal Register at 80 FR 34794.

    Correction

    On page 34809, second column, in paragraph (c)(1) of § 51.30, remove “(except increases described in the first sentence of § 51.20(d)(2) of this part)” and replace it with “(except increases described in the first sentence of this section).”

    Clarification

    In revising Subpart B—Obtaining Recognition and Certification for Per Diem Payments, the VA inadvertently left out instructions for § 51.41. This section is not changing and will remain in the CFR if this proposed rule is adopted.

    Approved: June 19, 2015. Michael P. Shores, Chief Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15503 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881; A-1-FRL-9925-87-Region 1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. The revision updates state regulations containing ambient air quality standards (AAQS) to be consistent with EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The intended effect of this action is to approve these regulations into the Connecticut SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881 for comments by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.

    4. Mail: “Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881,” Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.

    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. 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 legal 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:

    David Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone 617-918-1584, facsimile 617-918-0584, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: March 26, 2015. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15462 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-RO5-OAR-2014-0657; FRL-9929-45-Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Michigan State Board Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from Michigan regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 2012 fine particulate (PM2.5) 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. EPA is also proposing to approve a submission from Michigan addressing the state board requirements under section 128 of the CAA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0657 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-2012-0991 and EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0435. 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 guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions? IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions? V. What action is EPA taking? VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. 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? A. What state SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses submissions from the Michigan Department of Environmental Management (MDEQ). The state submitted its infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as state board requirements under section 128 for incorporation into the SIP, on July 10, 2014.

    B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS already meet those requirements.

    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2007 Memo) and has issued additional guidance documents, the most recent on September 13, 2013, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions referenced in this rulemaking pertain to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2), and address the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. To the extent that the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program is non-NAAQS specific, a narrow evaluation of other NAAQS will be included in the appropriate sections.

    C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from MDEQ that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 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.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (SSM); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (director's discretion); and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final New Source Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in separate rulemakings. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale as they relate to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS” in the section, “What is the scope of this rulemaking?” (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).

    III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?

    EPA's guidance for these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied in the 2007 Memo. Specifically, attachment A of that memorandum (Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an infrastructure SIP submission. EPA issued additional guidance documents, the most recent being the 2013 Memo, which further clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS specific.

    IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?

    As noted in the 2013 Memo, pursuant to section 110(a), states must provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. MDEQ provided the opportunity for public comment for these submittals that ended on May 7, 2014. Additionally, MDEQ provided an opportunity for a public hearing. The state received comments and responded to them. EPA is also soliciting comment on our evaluation of the state's infrastructure SIP submission in this notice of proposed rulemaking. MDEQ provided detailed synopses of how various components of its SIP meet each of the requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as applicable. The following review evaluates the state's submissions.

    A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters. EPA has long interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due.1 In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.

    1 See, e.g., EPA's final rule on “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.” 73 FR 66964 at 67034.

    The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (Act 451), sections 324.5503 and 324.5512, provide the Director of MDEQ with the authority to regulate the discharge of air pollutants, and to promulgate rules to establish standards for emissions for ambient air quality and for emissions. To maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Michigan implements controls and emission limits for nitrogen oxide (NOX), a precursor of ozone, in Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1801 through R 336.1834; and controls and emission limits for volatile organic compounds (VOC), also a precursor of ozone, in sections R 336.1601 through R 336.1661 and R 336.1701 through R 336.1710. The NOX controls in sections R 336.1801 through R 336.1834 also help to maintain the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. To maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, Michigan implements SO2 controls and emission limits in sections R 336.1401 through R 336.1420. To maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, Michigan implements controls and emission limits for particulate matter sources in sections R 336.1301 through R 336.1374. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions or rules related to SSM or director's discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).

    B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon request. This review of the annual monitoring plan includes EPA's determination that the state: (i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network plan.

    MDEQ's authority to promulgate rules to establish ambient air quality standard are found in Michigan Compiled laws (MCL) 324.5503 and MCL 324.5512. MDEQ continues to operate an air monitoring network; EPA approved the state's 2015 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan on October 31, 2014, including the plan for ozone, NO2, SO2, and PM2.5. MDEQ enters air monitoring data into AQS, and the state provides EPA with prior notification when changes to its monitoring network or plan are being considered. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for Enforcement of Control Measures; PSD

    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and NNSR programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections 171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.

    The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD provisions that explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone in the PSD program; (iii) identification of precursors to PM2.5 and identification of PM2.5 and PM102 condensables in the PSD program; (iv) PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; and, (v) greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and the “Tailoring Rule.” 3

    2 PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as “coarse” particles.

    3 In EPA's April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking for infrastructure SIPS for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, we stated that each state's PSD program must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (see 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in EPA's August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately address NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or the federal GHG permitting thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD permitting program must be considered not to be met irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the requirement to submit an infrastructure SIP, including the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures

    MDEQ maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP requirements. Part 55 of Act 451, MCL 324.5501 through 324.5542, gives MDEQ the authority to enforce emission limits and other control measures in rules, permits, and orders. In addition, MCL 324.5530 authorizes the Michigan Attorney General to commence a civil service action for appropriate relief for violations of or failure to comply with Part 55 of Act 451. The Clean Corporate Citizen Program is authorized through MCL 324.1401 through 324.1429. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Sub-Element 2: PSD Provisions That Explicitly Identify NOX as a Precursor to Ozone in the PSD Program

    EPA's “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline” (Phase 2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (see 70 FR 71612). Among other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their PSD programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 71679, 71699-71700). This requirement was codified in 40 CFR 51.166.

    The Phase 2 Rule required that states submit SIP revisions incorporating the requirements of the rule, including those identifying NOX as a precursor to ozone, by June 15, 2007 (see 70 FR 71612 at 71683, November 29, 2005).

    EPA approved revisions to Michigan's PSD SIP reflecting these requirements on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and therefore proposes that Michigan has met the set of infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Sub-Element 3: Identification of Precursors to PM2.5 and the Identification of PM2.5 and PM10 Condensables in the PSD Program

    On May 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 28321), EPA issued the Final Rule on the “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to address sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other pollutants that contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation. One of these requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for the secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise known as precursors. In the 2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for the PSD program to be SO2 and NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies that VOCs are not considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD program unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are significant contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations.

    The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs as they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the 2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the definition of “significant” as it relates to a net emissions increase or the potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define “significant” for PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The deadline for states to submit SIP revisions to their PSD programs incorporating these changes was May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).4

    4 EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA's requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements for nonattainment areas under subpart 1. As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the Court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR Rule in order to comply with the Court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's approval of Michigan's infrastructure SIP as to elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.

    The Court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also does not affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some elements.

    The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or after January 1, 2011. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states' PSD programs incorporating the inclusion of condensables were required be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).

    EPA approved revisions to Michigan's PSD SIP reflecting these requirements on April 4, 2014 (see 79 FR 18802), and therefore proposes that Michigan has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Sub-Element 4: PM2.5 Increments in the PSD Program

    On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” (2010 NSR Rule). This rule established several components for making PSD permitting determinations for PM2.5, including a system of “increments” which is the mechanism used to estimate significant deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. These increments are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c), and are included in the table below.

    Table 1—PM2.5 Increments Established by the 2010 NSR Rule in Micrograms per Cubic Meter Annual
  • arithmetic
  • mean
  • 24-hour
  • max
  • Class I 1 2 Class II 4 9 Class III 8 18

    The 2010 NSR Rule also established a new “major source baseline date” for PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new trigger date for PM2.5 as October 20, 2011. These revisions are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule revised the definition of “baseline area” to include a level of significance of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, annual average, for PM2.5. This change is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i).

    On April 4, 2014 (79 FR 18802), EPA finalized approval of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD revisions; therefore, we are proposing that Michigan has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Sub-Element 5: GHG Permitting and the “Tailoring Rule”

    With respect to Elements C and J, EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of Element D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. Michigan has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including GHGs.

    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

    In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).

    EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

    At present, EPA is proposing that Michigan's SIP is sufficient to satisfy Elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved Michigan PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy Elements C, (D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision.

    For the purposes of the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA reiterates that NSR Reform regulations are not within the scope of these actions. Therefore, we are not taking action on existing NSR Reform regulations for Michigan. EPA approved Michigan's minor NSR program on May 6, 1980 (see 45 FR 29790); and since that date, MDEQ and EPA have relied on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Certain sub-elements in this section overlap with elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 110(a)(2)(E) and section 110(a)(2)(J). These links will be discussed in the appropriate areas below.

    D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state.

    On February 17, 2012, EPA promulgated designations for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, stating for the entire country that, “The EPA is designating areas as “unclassifiable/attainment” to mean that available information does not indicate that the air quality in these areas exceeds the 2010 NO2 NAAQS” (see 77 FR 9532). For comparison purposes, EPA examined the design values 5 from NO2 monitors in Michigan and surrounding states. The highest design value based on data collected between 2011 and 2013 was 44 ppb at a monitor in Detroit, MI, compared to the standard which is 100 ppb for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, Michigan has SIP approved rules that limit NOX emissions, including rules in Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1801 through R 336.1834. EPA believes that, in conjunction with the continued implementation of the state's SIP-approved PSD and NNSR regulations, these low monitored values of NO2 will continue in and around Michigan. In other words, the NO2 emissions from Michigan are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state, and these emissions are not likely to interfere with the maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state. Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan has met transport prongs 1 and 2 related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Michigan, as noted in its July 11, 2014, clarification letter, did not make submittals pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    5 The level of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for is 100 parts per billion (ppb) and the form is the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily 1-hour maximum. For the most recent design values, see http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another state.

    EPA notes that Michigan's satisfaction of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS have been detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA further notes that the proposed actions in that section related to PSD are consistent with the proposed actions related to PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated below.

    EPA has previously approved revisions to Michigan's SIP that meet certain requirements obligated by the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. These revisions included provisions that: Explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone, explicitly identify SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5, and regulate condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in applicability determinations and establishing emissions limits. EPA has also previously approved revisions to Michigan's SIP that incorporate the PM2.5 increments and the associated implementation regulations including the major source baseline date, trigger date, and level of significance for PM2.5 per the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA is proposing that Michigan's SIP contains provisions that adequately address the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    States also have an obligation to ensure that sources located in nonattainment areas do not interfere with a neighboring state's PSD program. One way that this requirement can be satisfied is through an NNSR program consistent with the CAA that addresses any pollutants for which there is a designated nonattainment area within the state.

    Michigan's EPA-approved NNSR regulations found in Part 2 of the SIP, specifically in Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1220 and R 336.1221, are consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or 40 CFR part 51, appendix S. Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan has met all of the applicable PSD requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for transport prong 3 related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Memo states that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze.

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove Michigan's satisfaction of the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), transport prong 4, for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate Michigan's compliance with these requirements in a separate rulemaking.6

    6 Michigan has an approved regional haze plan for most non-EGUs. Michigan's plan for EGUs relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule that has been recently superseded by the Cross State Air Pollution Rule to which Michigan EGU sources are also subject.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP contains adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, respectively).

    Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute does not specify the method by which the source should provide the notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for disapproval of this element.

    Michigan has provisions in its EPA-approved PSD program in Michigan Administrative Code section R 336.2817 requiring new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential negative air quality impacts, and has referenced this program as having adequate provisions to meet the requirements of section 126(a). EPA is proposing that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 126(a). Michigan does not have any obligations under any other subsection of section 126, nor does it have any pending obligations under section 115. EPA, therefore, is proposing that Michigan has met all applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate Resources

    This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128.

    Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues

    MDEQ's SIP program is funded through 105 and 103 grants and matching funds from the state's General Fund. As discussed in earlier sections, MDEQ has the legal authority to carry out the Michigan SIP under Act 451 and the Executive Reorganization Order 2011-1. Michigan's PSD regulations provide adequate resources to permit GHG sources. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA

    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires that each SIP contains provisions that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under 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 (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

    On July 10, 2014, MDEQ submitted rules from the Civil Service Rule at 2-8.3(a)(1) for incorporation into the SIP, pursuant to section 128 of the CAA. MDEQ does not have a state board. The authority to approve air permits and enforcement orders rest with the MDEQ Director and his designee. These authorities are found in MCL 324.5503, MCL 324.301(b), Executive Order No. 1995-18, and delegation letter from the MDEQ Director to the Air Quality Division chief and supervisors. Therefore, section 128(a)(1) of the CAA is not applicable in Michigan.

    Under section 128(a)(2), the head of the executive agency with the power to approve enforcement orders or permits must adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. The Civil Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(1) contains provisions that adequately satisfy the requirements of section 128(a)(2). This provision requires that “At least annually, an employee shall disclose to the employee's appointing authority all personal or financial interests of the employee or members of the employee's immediate family in any business or entity with which the employee has direct contact while performing official duties as a classified employee” (Civil Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(1)). The Civil Service Rule 1-9.1 subjects the MDEQ Director and designees to this provision. Therefore, when evaluated together in the context of section 128(a)(2), the director of MDEQ or his/her designee must fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest relating to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. As a result, we are proposing to approve Civil Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(1) into the SIP. On July 10, 2014, MDEQ requested that these rules satisfy not only the applicable requirements of section 128 of the CAA, but that they satisfy any applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing that MDEQ has satisfied the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary Source Monitoring System

    States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.

    MDEQ implements a stationary source monitoring program under the authority of MCL 324.5512 and MCL 324.5503 of Act 451. Additional emissions testing, sampling, and reporting requirements are found in Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.201 through R 336.202 and R 336.2011 through R 336.2199. Emissions data is submitted to EPA through the National Emissions Inventory system and is available to the public online and upon request. EPA proposes that Michigan has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency Powers

    This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. The 2013 Memo states that infrastructure SIP submissions should specify authority, rested in an appropriate official, to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions which present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.

    MDEQ has the authority to require immediate discontinuation of air contamination discharges that constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, safety, welfare, or the environment under MCL 324.5518 of Act 451. MCL 324.5530 provides for civil action by the Michigan Attorney General for a violation as just described. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) related to authority to implement measures to restrain sources from causing or contributing to emissions which present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires states to have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.

    MDEQ continues to update and implement needed revisions to Michigan's SIP as necessary to meet ambient air quality standards. Authority for MDEQ to adopt emissions standards and compliance schedules is found at MCL 324.5512 and MCL 324.5503 of Act 451. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas.

    EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D attainment plans through separate processes.

    J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation With Government Officials; Public Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection

    The evaluation of the submissions from Michigan with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) is described below.

    Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials

    States must provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements.

    Michigan actively participates in the regional planning efforts that include business, community groups, state rule developers, representatives from the FLMs, and other affected stakeholders. Michigan Administrative Code section R 336.2816 requires that FLMs are provided with notification of permit applications that may impact class I areas. Additionally, Michigan is an active member of the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, which consists of collaboration with the States of Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Sub-Element 2: Public Notification

    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and must enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.

    MDEQ notifies the public if there are NAAQS exceedances and of any public health hazards associated with those exceedances through CleanAirAction!, AirNow, and EnviroFlash as well as posting on its Web site. MDEQ published an annual air quality report comparing Michigan monitors to the NAAQS. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Sub-Element 3: PSD

    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD. MDEQ's PSD program in the context of infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA notes that the proposed actions for those sections are consistent with the proposed actions for this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, EPA proposes that Michigan has met all of the infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD associated with section 110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection

    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation “triggered” under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality Modeling/Data

    SIPs must provide for performing air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to EPA upon request.

    MDEQ continues to review the potential impact of major, and some minor, new and modified sources using computer models. Michigan's rules regarding air quality modeling are contained in Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1240 and R 336.1241. These modeling data are available to EPA or other interested parties upon request. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees

    This section requires that SIPs mandate that each major stationary source pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing a permit.

    MDEQ implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62969); revisions to the program were approved on November 10, 2003 (68 FR 63735). MDEQ's authority to levy and collect an annual air quality fee from fee-subject facilities is found in section 324.5522 of Act 451. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    States must consult with and allow participation from local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

    MDEQ regularly works with local political subdivisions for attainment planning purposes and actively participates in regional planning organizations. Rulemaking is subject to notice, comment, and hearing requirements under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, 1969 PA 306 and is authorized in MCL 324.5512. EPA proposes that Michigan has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve most elements of submissions from MDEQ certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve a submission from Michigan intended to meet the state board requirements of section 128, specifically the Civil Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(1).

    EPA's proposed actions for the state's satisfaction of infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) are contained in the table below.

    Element 2008
  • Ozone
  • 2010
  • NO2
  • 2010
  • SO2
  • 2012
  • PM2.5
  • (A)—Emission limits and other control measures. A A A A (B)—Ambient air quality monitoring/data system. A A A A (C)1—Program for enforcement of control measures. A A A A (C)2—PSD. A A A A (D)1—I Prong 1: Interstate transport—significant contribution. NA A NA NA (D)2—I Prong 2: Interstate transport—interfere with maintenance. NA A NA NA (D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate transport—prevention of significant deterioration. A A A A (D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate transport—protect visibility. NA NA NA NA (D)5—Interstate and international pollution abatement. A A A A (E)1—Adequate resources. A A A A (E)2—State board requirements. A A A A (F)—Stationary source monitoring system. A A A A (G)—Emergency power. A A A A (H)—Future SIP revisions. A A A A (I)—Nonattainment planning requirements of part D. + + + + (J)1—Consultation with government officials. A A A A (J)2—Public notification. A A A A (J)3—PSD. A A A A (J)4—Visibility protection. + + + + (K)—Air quality modeling/data. A A A A (L)—Permitting fees. A A A A (M)—Consultation and participation by affected local entities. A A A A In the above table, the key is as follows:  A = Approve  NA = No Action/Separate Rulemaking  + = Not Germaine to Infrastructure.
    VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Michigan Civil Service Commission Rule 2-8.3(a)(1) entitled “Disclosure,” effective October 1, 2013. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements 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 (Public Law 104-4);

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 11, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15556 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 152 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0305; FRL-9927-50] RIN 2070-AJ79 Notification of Submission to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services; Pesticides; Revisions to Minimum Risk Exemption AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of submission to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services.

    SUMMARY:

    This document notifies the public as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that the EPA Administrator has forwarded to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a draft regulatory document concerning the draft final rule entitled “Pesticides; Revisions to Minimum Risk Exemption.” The draft regulatory document is not available to the public until after it has been signed and made available by EPA.

    DATES:

    See Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0305, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryne Yarger, Field and External Affairs Divison (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 605-1193; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. What Action is EPA Taking?

    Section 25(a)(2)(B) of FIFRA requires the EPA Administrator to provide the Secretary of USDA with a copy of any draft final rule at least 30 days before signing it in final form for publication in the Federal Register. Similarly, FIFRA section 21(b) requires the EPA Administrator to provide the Secretary of HHS with a copy of any draft final rule pertaining to a public health pesticide at least 30 days before publishing it in the Federal Register. The draft final rule is not available to the public until after it has been signed by EPA. If either Secretary comments in writing regarding the draft final rule within 15 days after receiving it, the EPA Administrator shall include the comments of the Secretary, if requested by the Secretary, and the EPA Administrator's response to those comments with the final rule that publishes in the Federal Register. If either Secretary does not comment in writing within 15 days after receiving the draft final rule, the EPA Administrator may sign the final rule for publication in the Federal Register any time after the 15-day period.

    II. Do Any Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to This Notification?

    No. This document is merely a notification of submission to the Secretaries of USDA and HHS. As such, none of the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this document.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 152

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

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Jack Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15313 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0230; FRL-9929-03] RIN 2070-ZA16 Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD); Proposed Pesticide Tolerance; Technical Correction AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; technical correction.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of May 29, 2015, concerning Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD), in or on all food commodities. This document corrects typographical errors.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of May 29, 2015 (80 FR 30640) (FRL-9927-02).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the May 29, 2015 proposed rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.

    II. What does this technical correction do?

    EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of May 29, 2015, that was concerning Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD), in or on all food commodities. EPA inadvertently listed a government agency incorrectly.

    The preamble for FR Doc. 2015-12530 published in the Federal Register of May 29, 2015 (80 FR 30640) (FRL-9927-02) is corrected as follows:

    1. On page 30640, second column, under the heading ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, line 4, correct Banda de Lupinus albus doce BLAD to read Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD).

    2. On page 30641, second column, paragraph 3, line 3, Federal Drug Administration is corrected to read: Food and Drug Administration.

    III. Do any of the statutory and executive order reviews apply to this action?

    No. For a detailed discussion concerning the statutory and executive order review, refer to Unit VII. of the May 29, 2015 proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 11, 2015. Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15403 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 121 Wednesday, June 24, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 18, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the 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 burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by July 24, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Census of Agriculture Content Test.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0243.

    Summary of Collection: The purpose of the content test is to evaluate factors impacting the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Census of Agriculture program. The factors include, but are not limited to, respondent burden, questionnaire format and design, Internet instrument performance, new items, changes in question wording and location, ease of completion, and processing methodology such as edit and summary. The proposed forms and letters will be used in a test in 2015-2016 in preparation for taking the 2017 Census of Agriculture. NASS is responsible for conducting the Census of Agriculture under the authority of the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997, Public Law 105-113 (U.S.C. 2204g).

    This is a reinstatement of the Census of Agriculture Content Test, which is conducted every five years prior to the full Census of Agriculture. The last content test was done in 2010 in preparation for the 2012 Census of Agriculture.

    Need and Use of the Information: The Census of Agriculture Content Test is designed to evaluate a number of factors affecting the Census of Agriculture program. It is critical to NASS' ability to design a successful census survey. The actual Census of Agriculture is required by law every five years and serves as the basis for many agriculturally-based decisions. Less frequent content test collections would hinder NASS' ability to adequately evaluate changes needed to improve census data collection and therefore recognize changing trends in agriculture.

    Description of Respondents: Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 65,400.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Other (every 5 years).

    Total Burden Hours: 42,552.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15434 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: American Community Survey (ACS) Methods Panel Tests.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0936.

    Form Number(s): ACS-1, ACS-1(SP), ACS-1PR, ACS-1PR(SP), ACS CATI(HU), ACS CAPI(HU), ACS (Internet), ACS-1(GQ), ACS-1(GQ)(PR)

    Type of Request: Regular Submission.

    Number of Respondents: 636,000.

    Average Hours per Response: 36 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 388,167.

    Needs and Uses:

    The U.S. Census Bureau requests authorization from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the American Community Survey (ACS) Methods Panel.

    The ACS samples about 3.5 million housing unit addresses in the United States and 36,000 in Puerto Rico each year to collect detailed socioeconomic data. The ACS also samples about 195,000 residents living in Group Quarter (GQ) facilities to collect detailed socioeconomic data. Resulting tabulations from that data collection are provided on a yearly basis. The ACS allows the Census Bureau to provide timely and relevant housing and socio-economic statistics, even for low levels of geography.

    An ongoing data collection effort with an annual sample of this magnitude requires that the ACS continue research, testing, and evaluations aimed at improving data quality, achieving survey cost efficiencies, and improving ACS questionnaire content and related data collection materials. The ACS Methods Panel is a research program that is designed to address and respond to emerging issues and survey needs. Over the next three years, the Methods Panel may include testing methods for increasing survey efficiencies, reducing survey cost, lessening respondent burden, and improving response rates. Testing may also include methods to improve data quality.

    At this time, plans are in place to propose several tests: A summer 2015 mail messaging test, a fall 2015 mail messaging test, a 2016 ACS Content Test, a 2016 mail messaging test, a 2017 self-response test with the potential to test both mail messaging as well as questionnaire content, a 2018 self-response test building on the previous tests, as well as tests of Internet data collection enhancements in 2017 and 2018. Since the ACS Methods Panel is designed to address emerging issues, we may conduct additional testing as needed. Any additional testing would focus on methods for reducing data collection costs, improving data quality, revising content, or testing new questions that have an urgent need to be included on the ACS. Please note that this proposal includes summer and fall 2015 mail messaging tests, which were not included in the pre-submission notice.

    First, in response to respondent concerns about prominent references to the mandatory participation in the ACS, the Census Bureau plans to test methods to soften the mandatory messages while emphasizing the benefits of participation in the survey. In May of 2015, the Census Bureau is conducting a test to study the impact of removing the phrase, “YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW” from the envelopes used in the second and fourth mailing to respondents. The summer 2015 test will advance the study of mandatory messaging by modifying the messages included in several of the mailings, including postcards and letters.

    Second, in response to declining response rates and increasing costs, the Census Bureau plans to analyze methods to increase self-response, the least expensive mode of data collection, especially Internet response. The tests would include changes to messages included in mail materials to motivate the public to respond to the ACS, increase awareness of the ACS, as well as changes to design elements of the materials, including color and graphics. Tests would be conducted in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 building on previous tests' findings.

    Additionally, as part of the mail messaging tests in 2017 and 2018, the Census Bureau may include content changes based on continued review of the ACS content in an effort to address respondent concerns and potentially reduce respondent burden. Among other activities, the Census Bureau is reviewing questions to determine if we can revise the wording in a way to make them less burdensome for survey respondents, especially for questions determined during the 2014 ACS Content Review to be especially sensitive, difficult, or time-consuming. Proposed changes to content would be cognitively tested and then included in a field test to assess the impact on both respondent burden and data quality.

    Third, in response to Federal agencies' requests for new and revised ACS questions, the Census Bureau plans to conduct the 2016 ACS Content Test. Changes to the current ACS content and the addition of new content were identified through the OMB Interagency Committee for the ACS, and must be approved for testing by the OMB. The objective of the 2016 ACS Content Test is to determine the impact of changing question wording, response categories, and redefinition of underlying constructs on the quality of the data collected. Revisions to twelve questions/topics are proposed for inclusion in the 2016 ACS Content Test:

    * Telephone Service * Computer and Internet * Relationship * Race and Hispanic Origin * Health Insurance * Health Insurance Premium and Subsidies (new questions) * Journey to Work: Commuting Mode * Journey to Work: Time Left for Work * Number of Weeks Worked * Class of Worker * Industry and Occupation * Retirement Income

    The Census Bureau proposes to evaluate changes to the questions by comparing the revised questions to the current ACS questions, or for new questions, to compare the performance of question versions to each other as well as to other well-known sources of such information.

    Fourth, the ACS began collecting data using the Internet in January 2013. To date, the Web site used to collect the data is designed for a desktop computer screen. The Internet tests being proposed in 2017 and 2018 would evaluate Internet data collection via mobile devices, examine ways to reduce Internet break-offs, email testing, as well as other improvements to Internet data collection.

    Finally, we will continue to examine the operational issues, research the data quality, collect cost information and make recommendations in the future for this annual data collection. The ACS Methods Panel testing, such as the 2015 Mail Messaging Tests, 2016 Content Test, 2016 Mail Messaging Test, 2017 Self-Response Test, and 2018 Self-Response Test, provide a mechanism to investigate ways to reduce or at least maintain data collection costs and improve the quality of the data.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: Multiple one-time tests over a 3-year period.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, sections 141 and 193.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15532 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau Of Industry And Security In the Matter of: Armin Shir Mohammadi, 22505 Rio Aliso Drive, Lake Forest, CA 92630-5514; Order Denying Export Privileges

    On June 21, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Armin Shir Mohammadi (“Mohammadi”) was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)) (“IEEPA”). Specifically, Mohammadi knowingly and willfully conspired to export and caused the exportation, sale, and supply of satellite communication equipment, navigation equipment, and related goods from the United States to persons in third countries with knowledge that such goods were intended for supply, transshipment, and reexportation, to Iran without having first obtained the required authorization from the Secretary of Treasury. Mohammadi was sentenced one year and one day of imprisonment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2015). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Mohammadi's conviction for violating the IEEPA, and in accordance with Section 766.25 of the Regulations, BIS has provided notice and an opportunity for Mohammadi to make a written submission to BIS. BIS has not received a submission from Mohammadi.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Mohammadi's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Mohammadi's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Mohammadi had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until June 21, 2023, Armin Shir Mohammadi, with a last known address of 22505 Rio Aliso Drive, Lake Forest, CA 92630-5514, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Mohammadi by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Mohammadi may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Mohammadi. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until June 21, 2023.

    Issued this 18th day of June, 2015. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15497 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-853, A-570-937, C-570-938] Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada and the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Canada and the People's Republic of China, and Continuation of the Countervailing Duty Order on the People's Republic of China AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determined that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Canada and the People's Republic of China (PRC) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on citric acid from the PRC would likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsides. The International Trade Commission (ITC) also determined that revocation of these AD and CVD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States. Therefore, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 24, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Johnson (Canada AD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office II; Krisha Hill (PRC AD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office IV; or Elizabeth Eastwood (PRC CVD Order), 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) 482-4929, (202) 482-4037, or (202) 482-3874, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 1, 2014, the Department initiated 1 and the ITC instituted 2 five-year (sunset) reviews of the AD orders on citric acid from Canada and the PRC, and the CVD order on citric acid from the PRC, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, the Department determined that revocation of the AD orders on citric acid from Canada and the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that revocation of the CVD order on citric acid from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsidies. Therefore, the Department notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping and the subsidy rates likely to prevail should the orders be revoked, pursuant to sections 752(b) and (c) of the Act.3

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 79 FR 18279 (April 1, 2014).

    2See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and China; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 79 FR 18311 (April 1, 2014).

    3See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada and the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 45763 (August 6, 2014); and Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 79 FR 45761 (August 6, 2014).

    On June 17, 2015, the ITC published its determinations, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the AD orders on citric acid from Canada and the PRC, and the CVD order on citric acid from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.4

    4See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and China; Determination, 80 FR 34693 (June 17, 2015).

    Scope of the Orders

    The scope of the orders include all grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of the blend. The scope of the orders also include all forms of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate. The scope of the orders do not include calcium citrate that satisfies the standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where the excipient constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, of the product. The scope of the orders include the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate, which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively. Citric acid and sodium citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS, respectively. Blends that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under 3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Continuation of the Orders

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of these AD and CVD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping or countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD orders on citric acid from Canada and the PRC and the CVD order on citric acid from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

    The effective date of the continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

    These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to 777(i) the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15399 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-891] Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 24, 2015.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).1 The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014.

    1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Hoefke, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4947 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 4, 2015, based on timely requests for review 2 by Positec USA, Inc., and RW Direct, Inc. (together, Positec), and NPS Public Furniture Corp, d/b/a National Public Seating (NPS), importers of subject merchandise, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014.3 The review covers three companies.4 On April 8, 2015, and April 16, 2015, respectively, Positec and NPS timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review of all three companies listed in the Initiation Notice.5 No other party requested a review of these companies or any other exporters of subject merchandise.

    2See letter from Positec to the Secretary of Commerce entitled, “Request for Administrative Review: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China,” dated December 31, 2014; see also letter from NPS to the Secretary of Commerce entitled, “Request for Administrative Review: Antidumping Duty Order on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China (CASE NO: A-570-891) (POR: December 1, 2013-November 30, 2014),” dated December 31, 2014.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 6041 (February 4, 2015) (Initiation Notice).

    4 The three companies are: Huzhou Shengli Industry Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Jam (Su Zhou) Metal Manufacturing Co, Ltd., and Positec (Macao Commercial Offshore), Ltd.

    5See letter from Positec to the Secretary of Commerce entitled, “Withdrawal of Administrative Request for Review Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 8, 2015; see also letter from NPS to the Secretary of Commerce entitled, “Withdrawal of Review Requests: Antidumping Duty Order on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China (CASE NO: A-570-891) (POR: December 1, 2013-November 30, 2014),” dated April 16, 2015.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, both Positec and NPS timely withdrew their review requests by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding, in its entirety, the administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notifications

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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 which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15537 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-405-803] Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 9, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the 2013-2014 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland.1 The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. This review covers one respondent, CP Kelco Oy (CP Kelco). The Department invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. No parties commented. Accordingly, our final results remain unchanged from the Preliminary Results.

    1See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 19072 (April 9, 2015) (Preliminary Results), and the accompanying Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 24, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 9, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results, but no comments were received.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is all purified CMC, sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent. The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Final Results of Review

    Because no party commented on the Preliminary Results, we made no changes to these final results. We determine that the following dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014:

    Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percentage)
  • CP Kelco Oy 0.00
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Because CP Kelco's weighted average dumping margin is zero, in accordance with the Final Modification, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.2 For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by CP Kelco Oy for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.3

    2See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification).

    3 For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, consistent with section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for CP Kelco will be 0.00 percent, the weighted average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 6.65 percent, which is the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.4 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    4See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, 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 which is subject to sanction.

    The Department is issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15538 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NIST SURF Program Student Applicant Information AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Dr. Brandi Toliver, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1090, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1090, tel. (301) 972-2371, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This is a request to revise the previously, approved information collection, as NIST will be consolidating two “collection instruments” into one application for both Gaithersburg and Boulder locations.

    The purpose of this collection is to gather information requested on behalf of the NIST Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) Program for both Gaithersburg and Boulder locations. The information is submitted by the university on behalf of the student applicants. The student information is utilized by laboratory program coordinators and technical evaluators to determine student eligibility, select students to appropriate research projects, which match their needs, interests, and academic preparation, and ultimately, make offers to participate in the program. The information includes: Student name, host institution, email address/contact information, permanent address, choice of SURF-specific location (Boulder and/or Gaithersburg), class standing, first- and second-choice NIST laboratories/projects they wish to apply to, previous SURF participation/mentor identification, academic major/minor, current overall GPA, need for housing and gender (for housing purposes only), special skills (laboratory, computer programming etc.), availability dates, resume, personal statement of commitment and research interests, two letters of recommendation, academic transcripts, ability to verify U.S. citizenship or permanent legal residency, acknowledgement of background check, and requirements for REAL ID Act.

    II. Method of Collection

    The Student Application Information form will be available on the web. The collection is currently limited to paper form and is required to be scanned and submitted electronically.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0693-0042.

    Form Number(s) None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (revision of an approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 650.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 325.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15531 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S. C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Documentation of Fish Harvest.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0365.

    Form Number(s): NA.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 25.

    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 50.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The seafood dealers who process red porgy, gag, black grouper, or greater amberjack during seasonal fishery closures must maintain documentation, as specified in 50 CFR part 300 subpart K, that such fish were harvested from areas other than the South Atlantic. The documentation includes information on the vessel that harvested the fish and on where and when the fish were offloaded. The information is required for the enforcement of fishery regulations.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15446 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: NOAA Satellite Ground Station Customer Questionnaire.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0227.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 300.

    Average Hours per Response: 5 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 25 hours.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    NOAA asks people who operate ground receiving stations that receive data from NOAA satellites to complete a questionnaire about the types of data received, its use, the equipment involved, and similar subjects. The data obtained are used by NOAA for short-term operations and long-term planning. Collection of this data assists us in complying with the terms of our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the World Meteorological Organization: United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on area of common interest (2008).

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit organizations, individuals or households; federal government; state, local or tribal Government.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15448 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Report of Whaling Operations.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0311.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 158.

    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes for reports on whales struck or on recovery of dead whales, including providing the information to the relevant Native American whaling organization; 5 minutes for the relevant Native American whaling organization to type in each report; and 5 hours for the relevant Native American whaling organization to consolidate and submit reports.

    Burden Hours: 45.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a current information collection.

    Native Americans may conduct certain aboriginal subsistence whaling in accordance with the provisions of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). In order to respond to obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and the IWC, captains participating in these operations must submit certain information to the relevant Native American whaling organization about strikes on and catch of whales. Anyone retrieving a dead whale is also required to report. Captains must place a distinctive permanent identification mark on any harpoon, lance, or explosive dart used, and must also provide information on the mark and self-identification information. The relevant Native American whaling organization receives the reports, compiles them, and submits the information to NOAA.

    The information is used to monitor the hunt and to ensure that quotas are not exceeded. The information is also provided to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which uses it to monitor compliance with its requirements.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; state, local or tribal governments.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15447 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD986 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The NMFS Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application from the University of Rhode Island contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on Exempted Fishing Permit applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line “Comments on URI Bycatch Study EFP.”

    Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on URI Bycatch Study EFP.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9122.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The University of Rhode Island (URI) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to conduct a 1-year lobster trap study that Federal regulations would otherwise restrict. The purpose of this study is to provide data on the effect of alternative escape vent designs on Jonah crab and lobster catch in an attempt to improve the retention of Jonah crabs while not increasing catch of sub-legal lobsters. This EFP proposes to test the modified vents over a wide range of Federal waters throughout Lobster Management Areas 2 and 3, covering statistical areas 515, 521, 526, 537, and 616 (see Figure 1).

    BILLING CODE 3510-22-C EN24JN15.002

    Site selection would be based on each vessel's commercial fishing habits. URI is conducting this study to field test laboratory hypotheses that vents smaller than the minimum 53/4-inch (14.61-cm) regulatory size will allow for greater retention of Jonah crab without increasing lobster mortality. This is in response to the development of a draft Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Jonah Crab that proposes a range of legal harvest width alternatives from no minimum size to 5.5 inches (13.97 cm). These proposed minimum sizes are smaller than the legal vent size length of 53/4 inches (14.61 cm) for Federal lobster gear. Funding for this lobster trap escape vent study is provided by a 2014 NOAA Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program grant.

    URI is requesting exemptions from the following regulations to allow commercial lobster vessels to set, haul, and retain on-board the experimental traps:

    • Trap limit requirements to allow each vessel to fish 15 traps more than each vessel's allocation,

    • Gear specification requirements to allow for the use of smaller than required and closed escape vents, and

    • Trap tag requirements to allow for untagged traps.

    Each vessel will use five each of the three modified traps for sampling: Ventless; smaller vent length of 31/2 inches (8.89 cm); and smaller vent length of 39/16 inches (9.05 inches).

    The EFP would authorize participating vessels to deploy up to three modified traps within their normal trawl configuration, not to exceed a total deployment of 15 modified traps across all trawls, per vessel. Traps will be hauled during normal commercial fishing activity, at least bi-monthly over the course of six months, up to one year. Catch from modified traps will be held briefly on-board vessels to record measurements and sex of crabs and lobster, trap vent type, and soak time. After data are recorded, the applicant states that all catch from modified traps will be promptly discarded and no catch from modified traps would be retained for sale. All catch data would be collected by the vessel captain and crew.

    If approved, URI may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the study. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 19, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15522 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0081] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; School Climate Surveys (SCLS) Benchmark Study 2016 AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0081 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka, Kubzdela 202-502-7411.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: School Climate Surveys (SCLS) Benchmark Study 2016.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 358,649.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 190,665.

    Abstract: The School Climate Surveys (SCLS) are a suite of survey instruments being developed for schools, districts, and states by the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This national effort extends current activities that measure school climate, including the state-level efforts of the Safe and Supportive Schools (S3) grantees, which were awarded funds in 2010 by the ED's Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS) to improve school climate. Through the SCLS, schools nationwide will have access to survey instruments and a survey platform that will allow for the collection and reporting of school climate data across stakeholders at the local level. The surveys can be used to produce school-, district-, and state-level scores on various indicators of school climate from the perspectives of students, teachers, noninstructional school staff and principals, and parents and guardians. This request is to conduct a national SCLS benchmark study, collecting data from a nationally representative sample of schools across the United States, to create a national comparison point for users of SCLS. A nationally representative sample of 500 schools serving students in grades 5-12 will be sampled to participate in the national benchmark study in spring 2016. The data collected from the sampled schools will be used to produce national school climate scores on the various topics covered by SCLS, which will be released in the updated SCLS platform and provide a basis for comparison between data collected by schools and school systems and the national school climate.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer. Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15438 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-513-000] Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on June 5, 2015, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to sections 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authority to construct and operate the Northern Supply Access Project (Project). Specifically, Texas Gas requests authorization to: (i) Construct the new 23,877 hp Harrison Compressor Station in Hamilton County, Ohio; ii) install gas cooling facilities at the Dillsboro Compressor Station in Dearborn County, Indiana; (iii) install a new 9,688 hp gas turbine compressor and various piping modifications at the Bastrop Compressor Station in Morehouse Parish, Louisiana; and (iv) make certain yard and station piping modifications at existing compressor stations in Lawrence County, Indiana; Jeffersontown, Breckinridge and Webster Counties, Kentucky; Tipton County, Tennessee; and Coahoma County, Mississippi. The project is designed to provide an additional 384,000 MMBtu/d of north to south transportation capacity on Texas Gas's system for eight shippers while maintaining bi-directional flow capability on its system. The estimated cost of the Northern Supply Access Project is $149 million.

    This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Kathy D. Fort, Manager, Certificates ad Tariffs, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, TX 77046, by phone at (713) 479-8033 or by email at [email protected].

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 8, 2015.

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15427 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-44-000] Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC (Complainant v. PacifiCorp (Respondent); Notice of Amended Complaint

    Take notice that on June 16, 2015, Sage Grouse Energy Project LLC (Sage Grouse) filed a second answer in response to PacifiCorp's April 22, 2015 filed answer; thereby, Sage Grouse amended its original complaint filed on February 9, 2015, as more fully explained in its amendment. In addition, on June 17, 2015, Sage Grouse supplemented the June 16, 2015 filing with exhibits.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 6, 2015.

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15429 Filed 6-23-15; 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: RP15-1057-000.

    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Asset Management Arrangements to be effective 6/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150612-5046.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1058-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Revise Evergreen Provision for Firm Services to be effective 7/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150612-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1059-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate Agmt Filing (Tenaska 44540) to be effective 6/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150612-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1060-000.

    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, L.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2015/06/15 Chesapeake to be effective 6/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150612-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1061-000.

    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Capacity Release Timeline Cleanup to be effective 7/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20150615-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP07-34-000.

    Applicants: PANHANDLE JOINT PARTIES, Southwest Gas Storage Company, Panhandle Complainants, Panhandle Complainants v. Southwest Gas.

    Description: Southwest Gas Storage Company submits its Semi-Annual Compliance Report, for the period May 1, 2014 through October 31, 2014, under RP07-34, et al.

    Filed Date: 11/25/14.

    Accession Number: 20141125-5393.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-541-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.

    Description: Southwest Gas Storage Company submits its Semi-Annual Compliance Report, for the period May 1, 2014 through October 31, 2014, under RP07-34, et al.

    Filed Date: 11/25/14.

    Accession Number: 20141125-5393.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-34-000.

    Applicants: PANHANDLE JOINT PARTIES, Southwest Gas Storage Company, Panhandle Complainants, Panhandle Complainants v. Southwest Gas.

    Description: Southwest Gas Storage Company submits its Semi-Annual Compliance Report, for the period November 1, 2014 through April 30, 2015, under RP07-34, et al.

    Filed Date: 6/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150602-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-541-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.

    Description: Southwest Gas Storage Company submits its Semi-Annual Compliance Report, for the period November 1, 2014 through April 30, 2015, under RP07-34, et al.

    Filed Date: 6/2/15.

    Accession Number: 20150602-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-896-003.

    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Petition of Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. for Approval of Second Amended Settlement.

    Filed Date: 6/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150611-5237.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-583-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.501: Refund Report in Docket Nos. RP15-583, RP08-426 and RP10-1398.

    Filed Date: 6/11/15

    Accession Number: 20150611-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-615-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.501: Refund Report in Docket Nos. RP15-615, RP08-426 and RP10-1398.

    Filed Date: 6/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150611-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP01-382-025.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits for filing its annual report setting forth the Carlton Resolution buyout and surcharge dollars reimbursed to the Carlton Sourcers on their May Reservation invoices for the 2014-2015 heating season.

    Filed Date: 6/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150601-5403.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1041-000.

    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.

    Description: 2015 Annual Cashout True-Up Report of Elba Express Company, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 6/1/15.

    Accession Number: 20150601-5402.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1052-001.

    Applicants: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Substitute Order No. 801 Compliance filing (System Map Migration to Web site) to be effective 7/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20150615-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1053-001.

    Applicants: Black Marlin Pipeline Company.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Substitute Order No. 801 Compliance Filing (System Map Migration to Web site) to be effective 7/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/15/15.

    Accession Number: 20150615-5226.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 16, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15486 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 308-007] PacifiCorp Energy; Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft and Final Environmental Assessment and Revised Procedural Schedule

    On February 28, 2014, PacifiCorp Energy (PacifiCorp) filed an application for the continued operation of the 1.1-megawatt Wallowa Falls Hydroelectric Project (Wallowa Falls Project) No. 308. On February 10, 2015, PacifiCorp filed an updated application that included modifications to its proposed action. On March 6, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions (REA Notice). The REA notice included a procedural schedule that included preparation of a single Environmental Assessment (EA).

    Based on the comments received in response to the REA notice, Commission staff has determined that its analysis of the proposed relicensing action will require preparation of a Draft and Final EA. A Draft EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the Draft EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Final EA. Staff's conclusions and recommendations will be available for the Commission's consideration in reaching its final licensing decision.

    The application will be processed according to the following revised procedural schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

    Milestone Target date Issue Draft EA November 2015. Comments on Draft EA due December 2015. Modified terms and conditions due January 2016. Commission issues Final EA April 2016.

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Matt Cutlip at (503) 552-2762, or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15490 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CD15-18-000] Soldier Canyon Filter Plant; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On January 23, 2015, Soldier Canyon Filter Plant filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Soldier Canyon Micro Hydro Facility would have an installed capacity of 100 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along the existing 36-inch-diameter Soldier Canyon Pipeline at the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant. The project would be located near Fort Collins in Larimer County, Colorado.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Chris Harris, General Manager, 4424 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521, Phone No. (970) 482-3143.

    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No. (202) 502-6778, email: [email protected]

    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed project would consist of: (1) A proposed 140-square-foot buried powerhouse; (2) an approximately 30-foot-long, 16-inch-diameter intake pipe branching off the 36-inch-diameter Soldier Canyon Pipeline; (3) one 100-kilowatt turbine-generating unit; (4) an approximately 60-foot-long, 16-inch-diameter discharge pipe returning water to the 36-inch-diameter Soldier Canyon Pipeline; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 880 megawatt-hours.

    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

    Table 1—Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Statutory provision Description Satisfies
  • (Y/N)
  • FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity. Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit. Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts. Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA. Y

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.

    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the “COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.

    1 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2014).

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD15-18) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15491 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14327-004] Pershing County Water Conservation District, Nevada; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Proceeding: Surrender of License.

    b. Project No.: 14327-004.

    c. Date Filed: June 4, 2015.

    d. Licensee: Pershing County Water Conservation District, Nevada.

    e. Name of Project: Humboldt River Hydropower Project.

    f. Location: The unconstructed project would be located at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation's Rye Patch Dam, on the Humboldt River in Pershing County, Nevada. The project would occupy 0.25 acre of federal land.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 6.2.

    h. Licensee Contact: Mr. Bennie Hodges, Manager, Pershing County Water Conservation District, P.O. Box 218, Lovelock, NV 89419, Telephone: (775) 273-2293, Email: [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Ashish Desai, (202) 502-8370, [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14327-004.

    k. Description of Project Facilities: The unconstructed project works would consist of (1) an 18-foot by 18-foot powerhouse to be located in an existing parking area immediately downstream of the dam on the west side of the spillway; (2) a new 750-kilowatt generator to be installed within the powerhouse and connected to a new Kaplan turbine via a driveshaft; (3) the Kaplan turbine which would be installed outside of the powerhouse and connected to an existing 48-inch-diameter steel discharge pipe; (4) a second existing 48-inch-diameter steel pipe that would be used to bypass flow past the turbine; (5) a new 24.9-kilovolt, 9,360-foot-long primary transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities.

    l. Description of Proceeding: On June 4, 2015, Pershing County Water Conservation District, Nevada filed a request to surrender their license for the unconstructed project stating that due to the current drought in the western United States, the project is not feasible at this time.

    m. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction in the Commission's Public Reference Room located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371.

    n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    o. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .212 and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    p. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license surrender. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    q. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described proceeding. If any agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15493 Filed 6-23-15; 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 exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-97-000.

    Applicants: Route 66 Wind Power, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Route 66 Wind Power, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5235.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1937-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Old Dominion Electric Cooperative.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Second Revised Service Agreement No. 3746—NITSA between PJM and ODEC to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5248.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1938-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA Service Agreement No. 4183; Queue No. Z2-105 to be effective 10/31/2014.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5266.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1939-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3050 Sunwind Energy Group GIA to be effective 6/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1940-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 4184; Queue No. Z2-106 to be effective 10/31/2014.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5268.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1941-000.

    Applicants: Barclays Bank PLC.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market Based Rate Tariff of Barclays Bank PLC.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5294.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1942-000.

    Applicants: Barclays Capital Energy Inc.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market Based Rate Tariff of Barclays Capital Energy Inc.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5295.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-33-000.

    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Description: Supplement to June 10, 2015 Application for Authorization to Issue Short-Term Debt of Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5272.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15487 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-515-000] Florida Gas Transmission Company LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on June 9, 2015, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT), 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002 filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208(b), and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to relocate several sections of 8-inch and 10-inch diameter laterals (totaling 6.8 miles) due to highway construction and replace them with approximately 4.3 miles of 12-inch pipe. The project is located south of Gandy Blvd., in Pinellas County, Florida (referred to by FGT as the 12-Inch St. Petersburg Lateral Relocation Project), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Stephen T. Veatch, Senior Director, Certificates, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, PO Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210-4967, by telephone at (713) 989-2024 or by email: [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15488 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EF11-4-003] Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 12, 2013, Western Area Power Administration submitted tariff filing per 300.10: OATT 2012 12 4 to be effective 1/1/2013.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 8, 2015.

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15428 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF15-13-000] Cameron LNG, LLC, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Cameron Lng Expansion Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Cameron LNG Expansion Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Cameron LNG, LLC (Cameron) in Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public interest.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before July 20, 2015.

    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on February 24, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF15-13-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF15-13-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Planned Project

    Cameron plans to construct and operate facilities entirely within its existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal. The Project would increase liquefaction capacity by about 9.97 million tons per year and storage of LNG by about 160,000 cubic meters. According to Cameron, it is currently fully subscribed for the original liquefaction volume and anticipates that affiliates of its partners would subscribe for the capacity of this project as well.

    The Project would consist of the following facilities:

    • Two additional liquefaction trains (Trains 4 and 5) with a maximum LNG production capacity of 4.985 million tons per year;

    • A fifth 160,000 cubic meter full containment LNG storage tank to increase the total LNG storage capacity to 800,000 cubic meters;

    • A condensate product storage tank; and

    • Associated utilities and infrastructure.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would be entirely within the existing footprint of Cameron's liquefaction terminal.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it authorizes a project. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:

    • water resources;

    • threatened and endangered species;

    • cultural resources;

    • air quality and noise;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.4 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Cameron files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15-13). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15494 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-68-000] Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On June 18, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL15-68-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and reasonableness of Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc.'s pro forma Facilities Construction Agreement, Generator Interconnection Agreement, and Multi-Party Facilities Construction Agreement. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 151 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2015).

    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-68-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15489 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL13-62-002] Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on June 17, 2015, New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits compliance report regarding buyer-side market mitigation measures, pursuant to the Commission March 19, 2015 Order.1

    1Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 150 FERC ¶ 61,139 (2015) (March 19 Order).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 8, 2015.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15492 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1437-002.

    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.

    Description: Second Supplement to June 30, 2014 Triennial Market Power Update of Tampa Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 6/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20150616-5351.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2721-005.

    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.

    Description: Supplement to April 15, 2015 Non-Material Change in Status Filing of El Paso Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1770-002.

    Applicants: DES Wholesale, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of DES Wholesale, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20150616-5369.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1534-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Report Filing: 2015-06-17_SA 2772 Refund Report of ATC-MGE CFA to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5103.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1930-000.

    Applicants: Duquesne Keystone LLC.

    Description: Duquesne Keystone LLC submits tariff filing per 35.15: notice of cancellation to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/16/15.

    Accession Number: 20150616-5302.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1931-000.

    Applicants: Duquesne Conemaugh LLC.

    Description: Duquesne Conemaugh LLC submits tariff filing per 35.15: notice of cancellation to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 06/16/2015.

    Accession Number: 20150616-5307.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1932-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Duke submits revisions to H22-A revising the calculations to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1933-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: FPL Request for Authority to Sell Ancillary Services at Market-Based Rates to be effective 8/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1934-000.

    Applicants: Northeast Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership.

    Description: Petition of Northeast Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership for Waiver of the Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff of ISO New England, Inc.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1935-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: EDF Trading MDUSA to be effective 6/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5217.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1936-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of Tri-State Construction Agmt—Deaver to be effective 8/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5219.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15430 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9929-62-OGC] Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: Center for Biological Diversity v. McCarthy, Civil Action No. 15-cv-00268 TFH (D. DC). On February 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint. Plaintiff alleged that Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), failed to perform a mandatory duty to promulgate a federal implementation plan (“FIP”) addressing certain requirements of the Clean Air Act to implement the 2006 fine particulate matter (“PM2.5”) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for Puerto Rico, Iowa, and Washington. The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to take certain specified actions.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed partial consent decree must be received by July 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number OGC-2015-0416, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by email to [email protected]; by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Bianco, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-3298; fax number: (202) 564-5603; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under CAA section 110(c)(1). The February 24, 2015 complaint alleged that EPA has a mandatory duty to promulgate a FIP to satisfy the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A)-(C); (D)(i)(II) (Prevention of Significant Deterioration prong only); (E)-(H); and (J)-(M) to implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree to take certain specified actions no later than April 1, 2016, for Puerto Rico and no later than September 30, 2016, for Iowa for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the proposed consent decree outlines the procedure for the Plaintiff to request costs of litigation, including attorney fees. See the proposed consent decree for the specific details.

    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this proposed consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by OGC-2015-0416) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Lorie J. Schmidt, Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15523 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0385; FRL-9929-21] Registration Review; Dockets Opened for Review and Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period for several registration reviews. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. This document also announces the Agency's intent not to open registration review dockets for pyrazon, trypsin modulating oostatic factor, and xanthine and oxypurinol. These pesticides do not currently have any actively registered pesticide products and are not, therefore, scheduled for review under the registration review program.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit III.A., 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: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For pesticide specific information contact: The person identified as a contact in the table in Unit III.A. Also include the docket ID number listed in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticide of interest.

    For general information contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. Authority

    EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

    III. Registration Reviews A. What action is the agency taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registrations identified in the table in this unit to assure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration-that is, they can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in the following table.

    Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening Registration review case name and No. Docket ID No. Contact and contact information Acequinocyl, 7621 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0203 Margaret Hathaway, [email protected], (703) 305-5076. Aspergillus flavus, 6008 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0281 Michael Glikes, [email protected], (703) 305-6231. n-Butyl Mercaptan, 6055 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0262 Menyon Adams, [email protected], (703) 347-8496. Chlorine Dioxide (includes Sodium Chlorite), 4023 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0267 Stephen Savage, [email protected], (703) 347-0345. Cycloate, 2125 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0288 Matthew Manupella, [email protected], (703) 347-0411. Diclosulam, 7249 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0285 Matthew Manupella, [email protected], (703) 347-0411. Furfural, 2305 EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0764 Jolene Trujillo [email protected], (303) 312-6579. Mancozeb, 0643 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0291 Steve Snyderman, [email protected], (703) 347-0249. Metiram, 0644 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0290 Brittany Pruitt, [email protected], (703) 347-0289. Propanil, 0226 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0052 Joel Wolf, [email protected], (703) 347-0228.

    EPA is also announcing that it will not be opening dockets for pyrazon, trypsin modulating oostatic factor, and xanthine and oxypurinol because these pesticides are not included in any products currently registered under FIFRA section 3.

    The Agency will take separate actions to cancel any remaining FIFRA section 24(c) Special Local Needs registrations (7 U.S.C. 136v) with this active ingredient and to propose revocation of any affected tolerances that are not supported for import purposes only.

    B. Docket Content

    1. Review dockets. The registration review dockets contain information that the Agency may consider in the course of the registration review. The Agency may include information from its files including, but not limited to, the following information:

    • An overview of the registration review case status • A list of current product registrations and registrants Federal Register notices regarding any pending registration actions Federal Register notices regarding current or pending tolerances • Risk assessments • Bibliographies concerning current registrations • Summaries of incident data • Any other pertinent data or information

    Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome.

    2. Other related information. More information on these cases, including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the registration review schedule on the Agency's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm. Information on the Agency's registration review program and its implementing regulation may be seen at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review.

    3. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

    • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

    • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as a diographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

    • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

    • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Neil G. Anderson, Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15526 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0389; FRL-9929-01] Pesticides; Risk Management Approach To Identifying Options for Protecting the Monarch Butterfly; Notice of Availability and Public Comment Opportunity AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is announcing the availability of a document for public review and comment that describes the Agency's management approach for understanding and identifying protections for the monarch butterfly. This document is the start of an approach for monarch butterfly protection and weed management which will depend upon (i) input from a diverse group of stakeholders to identify and integrate information with respect to influences on the population dynamics of the monarch butterfly and the milkweed plant; and, (ii) cooperation and collaboration from these diverse stakeholders to identify activities that will balance weed management needs across varied landscapes with conservation of the milkweed plant. EPA is soliciting public comment on which potential action or a combination of actions would be the most effective in reducing the impacts of herbicides on the monarch butterfly.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0389, 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: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Khue Nguyen, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0248; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is taking public comment on a document entitled, Risk Management Approach to Identifying Options for Protecting the Monarch Butterfly, a copy of which is available in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0389. The document identifies the types of information that EPA believes may be important to have in order to identify appropriate actions to take under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to protect monarch butterflies (including milkweed resources) while also enabling pesticide users to meet important weed management needs. EPA is initiating efforts focused specifically on the monarch butterfly for several reasons.

    First, the U.S. has been engaged in an effort with Canada and Mexico through the Canada/Mexico/U.S. Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management, where the three partner nations have agreed to make natural resource conservation a priority. Consistent with its objective to conserve and manage natural resources across North America, the committee has recognized the monarch butterfly as an emblematic species shared by the three countries and renewed their collaborative effort to protect the species and its required resources.

    Secondly, in addition to the efforts of the Trilateral Committee, President Obama issued a memorandum on pollinator protection entitled, Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and other Pollinators. The memorandum highlights the importance of the monarch butterfly and establishes a task force of Federal agencies to develop a strategy to conserve pollinators and the monarch butterfly in particular. The memorandum states that the task force is to develop a strategy that looks to developing partnerships with external stakeholders such as state, tribal and local governments, farmers, corporations, and non-governmental organizations to achieve the goal of protecting and conserving the monarch butterfly and its habitat.

    Finally, in February 2014, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) received a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asking EPA to take actions to reduce the use of the herbicide glyphosate because NRDC believes that the widespread use of glyphosate has impacted the monarch butterfly by reducing the presence of the milkweed. While EPA has denied NRDC's petition, EPA concludes that its ongoing efforts to protect bees, in conjunction now with this effort to protect the monarch butterfly, are in line with the objectives of the NRDC petition.

    In addition, together with several non-governmental organizations, various agencies within the Federal government have been working collaboratively with the Monarch Joint Venture to develop and implement measures to protect monarch butterflies and their migration. The approach and objectives outlined in Risk Management Approach to Identifying Options for Protecting the Monarch Butterfly will support and complement the actions and objectives of the Trilateral Committee and the Presidential Memorandum on Pollinator Health.

    EPA is soliciting public comment on which potential action or a combination of actions would be the most effective in reducing the impacts of herbicides on the monarch butterfly. The agency is also requesting that any additional measures not discussed here be identified.

    Please note that the approach discussed in Risk Management Approach to Identifying Options for Protecting the Monarch Butterfly is intended to provide guidance to EPA personnel and decision-makers and to pesticide registrants. While the requirements in the statutes and Agency regulations are binding on EPA and the applicants, this guidance document is not binding on either EPA or pesticide registrants, and EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. Likewise, pesticide registrants may assert that the guidance is not applicable to a specific pesticide or situation.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: June 16, 2015. Jack Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15405 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0228 and 3060-0931] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before July 24, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the “Supplementary Information” section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0228.

    Title: Section 80.59, Compulsory Ship Inspections and Ship Inspection Certificates, FCC Forms 806, 824, 827 and 829.

    Form Numbers: FCC Forms 806, 824, 827 and 829.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents: 1,310 respondents; 1,310 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.084 hours (5 minutes)-4 hours per response.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual and every five year reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 4, 303, 309, 332 and 362 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,445 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The requirements contained in 47 CFR 80.59 of the Commission's rules are necessary to implement the provisions of section 362(b) of the Communications Act of 934, as amended, which require the Commission to inspect the radio installation of large cargo ships and certain passenger ships at least once a year to ensure that the radio installation is in compliance with the requirements of the Communications Act.

    Further, section 80.59(d) states that the Commission may, upon a finding that the public interest would be served, grant a waiver of the annual inspection required by section 362(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, for a period of not more than 90 days for the sole purpose of enabling the United States vessel to complete its voyage and proceed to a port in the United States where an inspection can be held. An information application must be submitted by the ship's owner, operator or authorized agent. The application must be submitted to the Commission's District Director or Resident Agent in charge of the FCC office nearest the port of arrival at least three days before the ship's arrival. The application must provide specific information that is in rule section 80.59.

    Additionally, the Communications Act requires the inspection of small passenger ships at least once every five years.

    The Safety Convention (to which the United States is a signatory) also requires an annual inspection.

    The Commission allows FCC-licensed technicians to conduct these inspections. FCC-licensed technicians certify that the ship has passed an inspection and issue a safety certificate. These safety certificates, FCC Forms 806, 824, 827 and 829 indicate that the vessel complies with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and the Safety Convention. These technicians are required to provide a summary of the results of the inspection in the ship's log that the inspection was satisfactory.

    Inspection certificates issued in accordance with the Safety Convention must be posted in a prominent and accessible place on the ship (third party disclosure requirement).

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0931.

    Title: Section 80.103, Digital Selective Calling (DSC) Operating Procedures—Maritime Mobile Identity (MMSI).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit entities and Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 40,000 respondents; 40,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .25 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this Information collection is in 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309 and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The reporting requirement is contained in international agreements and ITU-R M.541.9.

    Total Annual Burden: 10,000 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes. The FCC maintains a system of records notice (SORN), FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records” that covers the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that marine VHF radio licensees maintain under 47 CFR 80.103.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is a need for confidentiality with respect to all owners of Marine VHF radios with Digital Selective Calling (DSC) capability in this collection. The licensee records will be publicly available and routinely used in accordance with subsection (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974. FRN numbers and material which is afforded confidential treatment pursuant to a request made under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules will not be available for public inspection. Any personally identifiable information (PII) that individual applicants provide is covered by a system of records, FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records”, and these and all other records may be disclosed pursuant to the Routine Uses as stated in the SORN.

    Needs and Uses: The information collected is necessary to require owners of marine VHF radios with Digital Selective Calling (DSC) capability to register information such as the name, address, type of vessel with a private entity issuing marine mobile service identities (MMSI). The information would be used by search and rescue personnel to identify vessels in distress and to select the proper rescue units and search methods.

    The requirement to collect this information is contained in international agreements with the U.S. Coast Guard and private sector entities that issue MMSI's.

    The information is used by private entities to maintain a database used to provide information about the vessel owner in distress using marine VHF radios with DSC capability. If the data were not collected, the U.S. Coast Guard would not have access to this information which would increase the time and effort needed to complete a search and rescue operation.

    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15496 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-CECANF-2015-06; Docket No. 2015-0006; Sequence No. 6] Commission To Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities; Announcement of Meeting AGENCY:

    Commission To Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, GSA.

    ACTION:

    Meeting Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities (CECANF), a Federal Advisory Committee established by the Protect Our Kids Act of 2012, will hold a meeting open to the public by teleconference on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 in Washington, DC.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 1, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Submit comments identified by “Notice-CECANF-2015-06,” by either of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “Notice-CECANF-2015-06.” Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Notice-CECANF-2015-06.” Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, organization name (if any), and “Notice-CECANF-2015-06” on your attached document.

    Mail: U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7003D, Washington, DC 20405, Attention: Tom Hodnett (CD) for CECANF.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “Notice-CECANF-2015-06” in all correspondence related to this notice. 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:

    Visit the CECANF Web site at https://eliminatechildabusefatalities.sites.usa.gov/ or contact Patricia Brincefield, Communications Director, at 202-818-9596, U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7003D, Washington, DC 20405, Attention: Tom Hodnett (CD) for CECANF.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: CECANF was established to develop a national strategy and recommendations for reducing fatalities resulting from child abuse and neglect.

    Agenda: This meeting on data accountability and interoperability will be hosted by CECANF in conjunction with the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources and the Senate Finance Committee. Invited participants will include senior federal agency staff with program and data expertise on federal data sets identified by CECANF as critical to its charge.

    Attendance at the Meeting: Individuals interested in participating by teleconference must register in advance. To register, please go to http://meetingtomorrow.com/webcast/cecanfdc and follow the prompts. Once you register, you will receive a confirmation email with the teleconference number. Detailed meeting minutes will be posted within 90 days of the meeting. Members of the public will not have the opportunity to ask questions or otherwise participate in the meeting.

    However, members of the public wishing to comment should follow the steps detailed under the heading Dates in this publication or contact us via the CECANF Web site at https://eliminatechildabusefatalities.sites.usa.gov/contact-us/.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Amy Templeman, Acting Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15513 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-CSE-2015-02; Docket No. 2015-0002; Sequence No. 16] Notice of the General Services Administration's Labor-Management Relations Council Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The General Services Administration's Labor-Management Relations Council (GLMRC), a Federal Advisory Committee established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App., and Executive Order 13522, plans to hold one meeting that is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 14, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the General Services Administration's Conference Center, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. This site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Temple L. Wilson, GLMRC Designated Federal Officer (DFO), OHRM, General Services Administration, at telephone 202-969-7110, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The GLMRC is a forum for managers and the exclusive representatives of GSA employees, which are the two national labor unions. In this forum, managers and the Unions discuss Government operations to promote satisfactory labor relations and improve the productivity and effectiveness of GSA. The GLMRC serves as a complement to the existing collective bargaining process, and allows managers and the Unions to collaborate in continuing to deliver the highest quality services to the public. The Council discusses workplace challenges and problems, and recommends solutions that foster a more productive and cost-effective service to the taxpayer, through improving job satisfaction and employees' working conditions.

    Agenda

    The purpose of the meeting is for the GLMRC to discuss workforce planning and development challenges within GSA. The topics to be discussed include the make-up of GSA's current workforce and potential solutions for succession planning, workforce retention strategies, improved diversity, and for targeted training to address skill gaps where necessary. Additionally, the GLMRC will discuss GSA's annual metrics report on monitoring improvements in areas such as agency mission accomplishment, labor-management relationships, and employee satisfaction. The report is to be submitted to the National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations on or before Thursday, December 31, 2015.

    Meeting Access

    The meeting is open to the public. The meeting will be held in the General Services Administration's Conference Center, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. This site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. In order to gain entry into the Federal building where the meeting is being held, public attendees who are Federal employees should bring their Federal employee identification cards, and members of the general public should bring their driver's license or other government-issued identification.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting

    Please see the GLRMC Web site: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/225831 for any materials available in advance of the meeting and for meeting minutes that will be made available after the meeting. Detailed meeting minutes will be posted within 90 days of the meeting.

    Public Comments

    The public is invited to submit written comments for the meeting until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), on the Monday prior to the meeting, by either of the following methods: Electronic or Paper Statements: Submit electronic statements to Ms. Temple Wilson, Designated Federal Officer, at [email protected]; or send paper statements in triplicate to Ms. Wilson at 1800 F Street NW., Suite 7003A, Washington, DC 20405. In general, public comments will be posted on the GLMRC Web site. All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials received, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure.

    Any comments submitted in connection with the GLMRC meeting will be made available to the public under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Wade Hannum, OHRM Director, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of HR Strategy and Services, Center for Talent Engagement (COE4), General Services Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15511 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0177]; [Docket No. 2015-0076; Sequence 27] Submission to OMB for Review; Federal Acquisition Regulation; Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for a new OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a new information collection requirement for Reporting Executive Compensation and First-tier Subcontract Awards. A notice soliciting public comments on the information collection was published in the Federal Register at 79 FR 60468, on October 7, 2014. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0177, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-tier Subcontract Awards, 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 9000-0177. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0177, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-tier Subcontract Awards.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Comment Now” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0177, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-tier Subcontract Awards” on your attached document.

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

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “Information Collection 9000-0177, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-tier Subcontract Awards,” 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:

    Ms. Mahruba Uddowla, Procurement Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, contact via telephone 703-605-2868 or email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (“Transparency Act”), Public Law 109-282, as amended by section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, was enacted to reduce “wasteful and unnecessary spending” by requiring that OMB establish a free, public, online database containing full disclosure of all Federal contract award information for awards of $25,000 or more.

    DoD, GSA, and NASA published an interim rule for public comment at 75 FR 39414, on July 8, 2010, to implement the Transparency Act reporting requirements. The rule requires the insertion of FAR clause 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards, in solicitations and contracts (including commercial item contracts and commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) item contracts) of $25,000 or more.

    The clause at 52.204-10 requires, unless otherwise directed by the contracting officer, for first-tier subcontracts valued at $25,000 or more, prime contractors to report first-tier subcontract award data (e.g., name, amount, address, etc.). If the contractor in the previous tax year had gross income, from all sources, under $300,000, the contractor is exempt from the requirement to report first-tier subcontractor awards. If a first-tier subcontractor in the previous tax year had gross income from all sources under $300,000, the contractor does not need to report awards to that first-tier subcontractor. Contractors will provide these subcontract reports to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) (http://www.fsrs.gov). DoD, GSA, and NASA note that there is pre-population of some data in FSRS from other Government systems.

    The clause at 52.204-10 also requires a contractor to report in the System for Award Management (SAM) database at https://www.sam.gov, the names and total compensation of each of its five most highly compensated executives for the contractor's preceding completed fiscal year. Contractors and first-tier subcontractors are not required to report the total compensation information required by the rule, unless—

    (i) In the contractor or subcontractor's preceding fiscal year, the contractor or subcontractor received—

    (l) 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues in Federal contracts (and subcontracts), loans, grants (and subgrants), cooperative agreements; and

    (2) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenue from Federal contracts (and subcontracts), loans, grants (and subgrants), cooperative agreements; and

    (ii) The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access to the compensation information, see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission total compensation filings at http://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm.)

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    The total annual burden associated with the reporting requirements of FAR 52.204-10 is estimated to be $33,230,972.

    1. Reporting first-tier subcontract award information. The FY13 Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) data collected for new contract actions valued at $25,000 or greater, indicated that there were 155,292 contractors with unique DUNS numbers. It is estimated that based on the exemptions in the rule (e.g., contractors in the previous tax year with less than $300,000 in gross income do not have to report), seventy-five percent of the contractors with actions valued at $25,000 or greater would be subject to the reporting requirements, which would be 116,469 contractors. The burden to report the subcontractor award information (e.g., name, amount, address, etc.) under FAR 52.204-10 is estimated to average 2 hours per response for a prime contractor and approximately three first-tier subcontractors per prime contractor. We estimate the total annual public cost burden for these elements to be $30,747,816 based on the following:

    Respondents: 116,469.

    Responses per respondent: 3.

    Total annual responses: 349,407.

    Preparation hours per response: 2.

    Total response burden hours: 698,814.

    Average hourly wages: ($33.00 + 36.25% overhead. Rounded to nearest dollar): $45.00

    Estimated cost to the public: $30,747,816

    2. Reporting executive compensation. There were 367,875 active registrants in SAM as of September 17, 2014. Of the 367,875 total active registrants, 360,000 were screened out by two questions supporting the rule's requirements, i.e., didn't have 80% or more of their annual gross revenue in U.S. Federal contracts, grants, and/or cooperative agreements and didn't make more than $25 million in annual gross revenue, or did have 80% or $25 million from Federal contracts/grants/cooperative agreements, but the public already had access to the information. It is estimated that it would require those 360,000 registrants 0.10 hours per response, for a total of 36,000 response hours.

    A total of 7,875 SAM registrants would be required to enter actual values for their top five most highly compensated executives. It is estimated that it would require these 7,875 registrants 2.5 hours to provide the information required, for a total of 19,688 response hours.

    Therefore, it is estimated that the total population of respondents is 367,875, and the total estimated response hours is 55,688, resulting in a weighted average of 0.15 hours per respondent for executive compensation reporting.

    The Councils estimate the total annual public cost burden for this element to be $2,483,156 based on the following:

    Respondents: 367,875.

    Responses per respondent: 1.

    Total annual responses: 367,875.

    Preparation hours per response: 0.15.

    Total response burden hours: 55,181.

    Average hourly wages: ($33.06+36.25%overhead): $45.00

    Estimated cost to the public: $2,483,156.

    Based on the above calculations, DoD, GSA, and NASA estimate the total annual burden associated with reporting requirements of FAR 52.204-10 to be $33,323,972. The reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, and reporting the data. It does not cover the time required to conduct research or the time to obtain the information for the data elements.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (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 supporting statement 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. 9000-0177, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-tier Subcontract Awards, in all correspondence.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Edward Loeb, Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15516 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0048; Docket 2015-0076; Sequence 18] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Authorized Negotiators AGENCIES:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Authorized Negotiators.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators, 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, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-501-0650 or via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Per FAR 52.215-1(c)(2)(iv), firms offering supplies or services to the Government under negotiated solicitations must provide the names, titles, and telephone numbers of authorized negotiators to assure that discussions are held with authorized individuals. The information collected is referred to before contract negotiations and it becomes part of the official contract file.

    C. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 68,000.

    Responses Per Respondent: 8.

    Total Responses: 544,000.

    Hours Per Response: .017.

    Total Burden Hours: 9248.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (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 (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiator, in all correspondence.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Edward Loeb, Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15508 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: ORR Requirements for Refugee Cash Assistance; and Refugee Medical Assistance (45 CFR part 400).

    OMB No.: 0970-0036.

    Description: As required by section 412(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), is requesting the information from Form ORR-6 to determine the effectiveness of the State cash and medical assistance, child welfare, social services, and targeted assistance programs. State-by-State Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) utilization rates derived from Form ORR-6 are calculated for use in formulating program initiatives, priorities, standards, budget requests, and assistance policies. ORR regulations require that State Refugee Resettlement and Wilson-Fish agencies, and local and Tribal governments complete Form ORR-6 in order to participate in the above-mentioned programs.

    Respondents: State Refugee Resettlement and Wilson-Fish Agencies, local, and Tribal governments.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    ORR-6 50 3 3.88 582

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 582.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected].

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-7285, Email: [email protected]. Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15502 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Effect of Age on Heart, Lung, Blood, and Sleep Disorders.

    Date: June 24, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7192, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Giuseppe Pintucci, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7192, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0287, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 18, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15442 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; National Institute of General Medical Sciences Review of F12 Applications: Postdoctoral Research Associate (PRAT) Program.

    Date: July 22, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.Contact Person: Robert Horowits, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12H, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-6904, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Trauma & Burn Research Center Review.

    Date: July 23, 2015.

    Time: 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.18, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Brian R. Pike, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12P, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-3907, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 18, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15444 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Conference and Meetings: Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP).

    Date: July 14, 2015.

    Time: 4 p.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Cathleen L Cooper, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4208, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-4512, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PA14-072: Small Business: Therapeutics for Infectious Diseases.

    Date: July 20, 2015.

    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites Alexandria, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Gagan Pandya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, RM 3200, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1167, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Program Project: The Biophysics Collaborative Access Team.

    Date: July 20-22, 2015.

    Time: 7 p.m. to 12 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard by Marriott, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

    Contact Person: Michael Eissenstat, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, BCMB IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4166, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1722, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel—Skeletal Muscle Physiology.

    Date: July 21-22, 2015.

    Time: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).Contact Person: Maria Nurminskaya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1222, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Member Conflict: Vascular and Hematology A.

    Date: July 21-22, 2015.

    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Anshumali Chaudhari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4124, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1210, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel—Drug Discovery for the Nervous System.

    Date: July 21, 2015.

    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Geoffrey G Schofield, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040-A, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1235, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, RFA-OD-15-129: Mobilizing Research: A Research Resource to Enhance Mhealth Research (U2C).

    Date: July 24, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Peter J Kozel, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3139, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1116, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 19, 2015. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15604 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Tracking the Life Course.

    Date: July 31, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 18, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15443 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [CIS No. 2568-15; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0003] RIN 1615-ZB39 Designation of Nepal for Temporary Protected Status AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Through this Notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) has designated Nepal for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for a period of 18 months, effective June 24, 2015 through December 24, 2016. Under section 244(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B), the Secretary is authorized to designate a foreign state (or any part thereof) for TPS upon finding that the foreign state has experienced an earthquake resulting in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions.

    This designation allows eligible Nepalese nationals (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nepal) who have continuously resided in the United States since June 24, 2015, and have been continuously physically present in the United States since June 24, 2015 to be granted TPS. This Notice also describes the other eligibility criteria applicants must meet.

    Individuals who believe they may qualify for TPS under this designation may apply within the 180-day registration period that begins on June 24, 2015 and ends on December 21, 2015. They may also apply for Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) and for travel authorization. Through this Notice, DHS also sets forth the procedures for nationals of Nepal (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nepal) to apply for TPS, EADs, and travel authorization with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

    DATES:

    This designation of Nepal for TPS is effective on June 24, 2015 and will remain in effect through December 24, 2016. The 180-day registration period for eligible individuals to submit TPS applications begins June 24, 2015, and will remain in effect through December 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    • For further information on TPS, including guidance on the application process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at http://www.uscis.gov/tps. You can find specific information about this designation of Nepal for TPS by selecting “TPS Designated Country: Nepal” from the menu on the left of the TPS Web page.

    • You can also contact the TPS Operations Program Manager at the Family and Status Branch, Service Center Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2060; or by phone at (202) 272-1533 (this is not a toll-free number). Note: The phone number provided here is solely for questions regarding this TPS Notice. It is not for individual case status inquires.

    • Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    • Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Abbreviations BIA—Board of Immigration Appeals DHS—Department of Homeland Security EAD—Employment Authorization Document FNC—Final Nonconfirmation Government—U.S. Government IJ—Immigration Judge INA—Immigration and Nationality Act OSC—U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices SAVE—USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program Secretary—Secretary of Homeland Security TNC—Tentative Nonconfirmation TPS—Temporary Protected Status TTY—Text Telephone USCIS—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services What is Temporary Protected Status (TPS)?

    • TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the INA, or to eligible persons without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country.

    • During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to work and to obtain EADs, so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS.

    • TPS beneficiaries may be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.

    • The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to lawful permanent resident status.

    • To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(2).

    • When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation through a separate Federal Register notice, beneficiaries return to the same immigration status they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status has since expired or been terminated), or to any other lawfully obtained immigration status they received while registered for TPS.

    What authority does the Secretary have to designate Nepal for TPS?

    Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government (Government) agencies, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary finds that certain country conditions exist.1 The Secretary can designate a foreign state for TPS if the Secretary determines that one or more of three bases exist. One basis is if the Secretary finds that “. . . (i) there has been an earthquake, flood, drought, epidemic, or other environmental disaster in the state resulting in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in the area affected, (ii) the foreign state is unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return to the state of aliens who are nationals of the state, and (iii) the foreign state officially has requested designation for TPS. . . .” INA section 244(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B).

    1 As of March 1, 2003, in accordance with section 1517 of title XV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, any reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the INA describing functions transferred from the Department of Justice to DHS “shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary” of Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C. 557 (codifying the Homeland Security Act of 2002, tit. XV, section 1517).

    Following the designation of a foreign state for TPS, the Secretary may then grant TPS to eligible nationals of that foreign state (or eligible aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in that state). See INA section 244(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(A). Applicants must demonstrate that they satisfy all eligibility criteria, including that they have been “continuously physically present” in the United States since the effective date of the designation, which is either the date of the Federal Register Notice announcing the designation or such later date as the Secretary may determine, and that they have “continuously resided” in the United States since such date as the Secretary may designate. See INA sections 244(a)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), (c)(1)(A)(i-ii); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), (c)(1)(A)(i-ii).

    Why is the Secretary designating Nepal for TPS through December 24, 2016?

    On April 25, 2015, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck Nepal. The earthquake's epicenter was less than 50 miles from the capital city, Kathmandu, and Pokhara, another major city in central Nepal. Approximately 25 to 33 percent of Nepal's population (over 8 million people) in 39 of Nepal's 75 districts has been affected by the earthquake. There have been numerous aftershocks since the April 25 earthquake, with the strongest striking on May 12 and measuring magnitude 7.3. The May 12 aftershock contributed to additional casualties and resulted in the collapse of some buildings that had suffered damage in the April 25 earthquake. The earthquake and its aftershocks have caused over 8,700 fatalities and more than 20,000 injuries, displaced millions of people, and resulted in destruction or significant damage to over 750,000 homes. The UN estimates 2.8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance.

    The earthquake severely damaged much of the country's infrastructure in the affected areas, including the capital of Kathmandu. Earthquake-related rubble litters urban population centers, and many roads have been destroyed or rendered impassable. Infrastructure damage from the earthquake has jeopardized food security, with over 1.4 million people estimated to be in need of food assistance. Displaced persons have varying access to basic services, such as shelter, water, sanitation, and hygiene and many continue to live outdoors. Medical care was also affected by the earthquake, with over 25 hospitals damaged and more than 900 village health facilities rendered nonfunctional. At least 950,000 children in Nepal are at risk of being unable to return to school or are learning in temporary structures because their schools have been destroyed, damaged.

    The institutional capacity of the Nepalese government to respond to the immediate effects of the earthquake alone is low.

    The April 25 earthquake and its aftershocks caused enormous damage in Nepal'srural areas that are difficult to access because of the mountainous terrain and limited numbers of undamaged roads. With the 2015 monsoon season starting this month, remote areas will face additional threats, including landslides and flooding, and providing aid to them may become more difficult.

    Based upon review of these conditions and after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that:

    • There has been an earthquake, flood, drought, epidemic, or other environmental disaster in Nepal resulting in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in the area affected. See INA section 244(b)(1)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B)(i);

    • Nepal is unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of aliens who are nationals of Nepal. See INA section 244(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B)(ii);

    • Nepal has officially requested designation for TPS. See INA section 244(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B)(iii);

    • The designation of Nepal for TPS will be for an 18-month period from June 24, 2015 through December 24, 2016. See INA section 244(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(2);

    • The date by which applicants for TPS under the designation of Nepal must demonstrate that they have continuously resided in the United States is June 24, 2015. See INA section 244(c)(1)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(A)(ii);

    • The date by which applicants for TPS under the designation of Nepal must demonstrate that they have been continuously physically present in the United States is June 24, 2015, the effective date of this designation of Nepal for TPS. INA sections 244(b)(2)(A), (c)(1)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(2)(A), (c)(1)(A)(i); and

    • An estimated 10,000 to 25,000 nationals of Nepal (and persons without nationality who last habitually resided in Nepal) are (or are likely to become) eligible for TPS under this designation. INA section 244(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1). This estimate is based on the total number of Nepalese nationals believed to be in the United States in a nonimmigrant status or without lawful immigration status.

    Notice of the Designation of Nepal for TPS

    By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, after consultation with the appropriate Government agencies, I designate Nepal for TPS under INA section 244(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B), for a period of 18 months from June 24, 2015 through December 24, 2016.

    Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary. Required Application Forms and Application Fees To Register for TPS

    To register for TPS for Nepal, an applicant must submit each of the following two applications:

    1. Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) with the form fee; and

    2. Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765).

    • For administrative purposes, an applicant must submit an Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) even if no EAD is requested.

    • If you want an EAD you must pay the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) fee only if you are age 14 through 65.

    • No fee for Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) is required if you are not requesting an EAD with an initial TPS application. Additionally, no fee is required if you are requesting an EAD and you are under the age of 14 or over the age of 65.

    You must submit both completed application forms together. If you are unable to pay the required fees, you may apply for a waiver for these application fees and/or the biometrics services fee described below by completing a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912), or submitting a personal letter requesting a fee waiver, and providing satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at http://www.uscis.gov/tps. Fees for Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821), Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765), and biometric services are also described in 8 CFR 103.7(b).

    Biometric Services Fee

    Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years of age or older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay for the biometric services fee, you may request a fee waiver by completing a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or by submitting a personal letter requesting a fee waiver, and providing satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the biometric services fee, please visit the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov. If necessary, you may be required to visit an Application Support Center to have your biometrics captured.

    Re-Filing a TPS Application After Receiving a Denial of a Fee Waiver Request

    If you request a fee waiver when filing your TPS and EAD application forms and your request is denied, you may refile your application packet with the correct fees before the filing deadline of December 21, 2015. If you attempt to submit your application with a fee waiver request before the initial filing deadline, but you receive your application back with the USCIS fee waiver denial, and there are fewer than 45 days before the filing deadline (or the deadline has passed), you may still refile your application within the 45-day period after the date on the USCIS fee waiver denial notice. You must include the correct fees or file a new fee waiver request. Your application will not be rejected even if the deadline has passed, provided it is mailed within those 45 days and all other required information for the application is included. Please be aware that if you re-file your TPS application packet with a new fee waiver request after the deadline based on this guidance and that new fee waiver request is denied, you cannot re-file again. Note: Alternatively, you may pay the TPS application fee and biometrics fee (if age 14 or older) but wait to request an EAD and pay the EAD application fee after USCIS grants your TPS application.

    Mailing Information

    Mail your application for TPS to the proper address in Table 1.

    Table 1—Mailing Addresses If you: Then mail your application to: Would like to send your application by U.S. Postal Service USCIS, P.O. Box 7555, Chicago, IL 60680. Would like to send your application by non-U.S. Postal Service courier Attn: Nepal TPS, 131 S. Dearborn 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60603.

    If you were granted TPS by an Immigration Judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and you wish to request an EAD, please mail your application to the appropriate mailing address in Table 1. After you submit your EAD application and receive a USCIS receipt number, please send an email to the Service Center handling your application. The email should include the receipt number and state that you submitted a request for an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS. This will aid in the verification of your grant of TPS and processing of your EAD application, as USCIS may not have received records of your grant of TPS by either the IJ or the BIA. To obtain additional information, including the email address of the appropriate Service Center, you may go to the USCIS TPS Web page at http://www.uscis.gov/tps.

    E-Filing

    You cannot electronically file your application packet when applying for initial registration for TPS. Please mail your application packet to the mailing address listed in Table 1.

    Supporting Documents What type of basic supporting documentation must I submit?

    To meet the basic eligibility requirements for TPS, you must submit evidence that you:

    • Are a national of Nepal or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nepal. Such documents may include a copy of your passport if available, other documentation issued by the Government of Nepal showing your nationality (e.g., national identity card, official travel documentation issued by the Government of Nepal), and/or your birth certificate with English translation accompanied by photo identification. USCIS will also consider certain forms of secondary evidence supporting your Nepalese nationality. If the evidence presented is insufficient for USCIS to make a determination as to your nationality, USCIS may request additional evidence. If you cannot provide a passport, birth certificate with photo identification, or a national identity document with your photo or fingerprint, you must submit an affidavit showing proof of your unsuccessful efforts to obtain such documents and affirming that you are a national of Nepal. However, please be aware that an interview with an immigration officer will be required if you do not present any documentary proof of identity or nationality or if USCIS otherwise requests a personal appearance. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9), 244.9(a)(1);

    • Have continuously resided in the United States since June 24, 2015. See INA section 244(c)(1)(A)(ii); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(A)(ii); 8 CFR 244.9(a)(2); and

    • Have been continuously physically present in the United States since June 24, 2015, the effective date of the designation of Nepal. See INA sections 244(b)(2)(A), (c)(1)(A)(i);8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(2)(A), (c)(1)(A)(i).

    You must also submit two color passport-style photographs of yourself. The filing instructions on the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) list all the documents needed to establish basic eligibility for TPS. You may also find information on the acceptable documentation and other requirements for applying for TPS on the USCIS Web site at www.uscis.gov/tps under “TPS Designated Country: Nepal.”

    Do I need to submit additional supporting documentation?

    If one or more of the questions listed in Part 4, Question 2 of the Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821) applies to you, then you must submit an explanation on a separate sheet(s) of paper and/or additional documentation. Depending on the nature of the question(s) you are addressing, additional documentation alone may suffice, but usually a written explanation will also be needed.

    Employment Authorization Document (EAD) How can I obtain information on the status of my EAD request?

    To obtain case status information about your TPS application, including the status of a request for an EAD, you can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833). If your Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization has been pending for more than 90 days, and you still need assistance, you may request an EAD inquiry appointment with USCIS by using the InfoPass system at https://infopass.uscis.gov. However, we strongly encourage you first to check Case Status Online or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center for assistance before making an InfoPass appointment.

    When hired, what documentation may I show to my employer as proof of employment authorization and identity when completing Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9)?

    You can find a list of acceptable document choices on the “List of Acceptable Documents” for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9). You can find additional detailed information on the USCIS I-9 Central Web page at http://www.uscis.gov/I-9Central. Employers are required to verify the identity and employment authorization of all new employees by using the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9). Within 3 days of hire, an employee must present proof of identity and employment authorization to his or her employer.

    You may present any document from List A (reflecting both your identity and employment authorization), or one document from List B (reflecting identity) together with one document from List C (reflecting employment authorization). You may present an acceptable receipt for List A, List B, or List C documents as described in the Form I-9 Instructions; the receipt for the application for replacement of a lost, stolen, or damaged employment authorization document is acceptable. A receipt for the application for an initial or renewal employment authorization is not an acceptable receipt. An EAD is an acceptable document under “List A.” Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date.

    Can my employer require that I produce any other documentation to prove my current TPS status, such as proof of my Nepalese citizenship or proof that I have registered for TPS?

    No. When completing the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), including re-verifying employment authorization, employers must accept any documentation that appears on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers may not request documentation that does not appear on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents.” Therefore, employers may not request proof of Nepalese citizenship or proof of TPS registration when completing the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. If presented with EADs that are unexpired on their face, employers should accept such EADs as valid “List A” documents so long as the EADs reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the employee. Refer to the “Note to All Employees” section for important information about your rights if your employer rejects lawful documentation, requires additional documentation, or otherwise discriminates against you because of your citizenship status, immigration status, or national origin.

    Note to All Employers

    Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This Notice does not supersede or in any way limit applicable employment verification rules and policy guidance, including those rules setting forth reverification requirements. For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employers may call USCIS at 888-464-4218 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at [email protected] Calls and emails are accepted in English and many other languages. For questions about avoiding discrimination during the employment eligibility verification process, employers may also call the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) Employer Hotline at 800-255-8155 (TTY 800-237-2515), which offers language interpretation in numerous languages, or email OSC at [email protected]

    Note to Employees

    For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email at [email protected] Calls are accepted in English and many other languages. Employees or applicants may also call the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) Worker Information Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515) for information regarding employment discrimination based upon citizenship status, immigration status, or national origin, or for information regarding discrimination related to Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and E-Verify. The OSC Worker Information Hotline provides language interpretation in numerous languages.

    To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify case result of “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (TNC) must promptly inform employees of the TNC and give such employees an opportunity to contest the TNC. A TNC case result means that the information entered into E-Verify from Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) differs from Federal or state government records.

    Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower pay, or take any adverse action against an employee based on the employee's decision to contest a TNC or because the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot verify an employee's employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). An employee who believes he or she was discriminated against by an employer in the E-Verify process based on citizenship status, immigration status, or national origin, may contact OSC's Worker Information Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515). Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and E-Verify procedures is available on the OSC Web site at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/ and the USCIS Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/E-verify.

    Note Regarding Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies (Such as Departments of Motor Vehicles)

    While Federal Government agencies must follow the guidelines laid out by the Federal, State, and local government agencies establish their own rules and guidelines when granting certain benefits. Each State may have different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents you need to provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, State, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary and/or show you are authorized to work based on TPS. Examples are:

    (1) Your EAD that has a valid expiration date;

    (2) A copy of your Notice of Action (Form I-797C) showing approval for TPS, if you receive one from USCIS.

    Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. You may also provide the agency with a copy of this Federal Register Notice.

    Some benefit-granting agencies use the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) to verify the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits. If such an agency has denied your application based solely or in part on a SAVE response, the agency must offer you the opportunity to appeal the decision in accordance with the agency's procedures. If the agency has received and acted upon or will act upon a SAVE verification and you do not believe the response is correct, you may make an InfoPass appointment for an in-person interview at a local USCIS office. Detailed information on how to make corrections, make an appointment, or submit a written request to correct records under the Freedom of Information Act can be found at the SAVE Web site at http://www.uscis.gov/save, then by choosing “How to Correct Your Records” from the menu on the right.

    [FR Doc. 2015-15576 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0051] Agency Information Collection Activities: Monthly Report on Naturalization Papers, Form N-4, Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    DHS, USCIS invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0051 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2005-0032. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2005-0032;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments:

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2005-0032 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Monthly Report on Naturalization Papers.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form N-4; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: State or local Government. Section 339 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) requires that the clerk of each court that administers the oath of allegiance notify USCIS of all persons to whom the oath of allegiance for naturalization is administered, within 30 days after the close of the month in which the oath was administered. This form provides a format listing the number of those persons to USCIS and provides accountability for the delivery of the certificates of naturalization as required under that section of law.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form N-4 is 160 and the estimated hour burden per response is .50 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 960 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $400.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15436 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5831-N-32] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Voucher Management System (VMS) AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800)877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on April 14, 2015 at 80 FR 20009.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Voucher Management System (VMS).

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-New.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Form Numbers: Financial Forms: HUD-52672, 52681, 52681-B, 52663 and 52673. Originally, the HCV Financials were included in OMB Collection 2577-0169. Regulatory References 982.157 and 982.158. PHAs that administer the HCV program are required to maintain financial reports in accordance with accepted accounting standards in order to permit timely and effective audits. The HUD-52672 (Supporting Data for Annual Contributions Estimates Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program) and 52681 (Voucher for Payment of Annual Contributions and Operating Statement Housing Assistance Payments Program) financial records identify the amount of annual contributions that are received and disbursed by the PHA and are used by PHAs that administer the five-year Mainstream Program, MOD Rehab, and Single Room Occupancy. Form HUD-52663 (Suggested Format for Requisition for Partial Payment of Annual Contributions Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program) provides for PHAs to indicate requested funds and monthly amounts. Form HUD-52673 (Estimate of Total Required Annual Contributions Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program) allows PHAs to estimate their total required annual contributions. The required financial statements are similar to those prepared by any responsible business or organization.

    The automated form HUD-52681-B (Voucher for Payment of Annual Contributions and Operating Statement Housing Assistance Payments Program Supplemental Reporting Form) is entered by the PHA into the Voucher Management System (VMS) on a monthly basis during each calendar year to track leasing and HAP expenses by voucher category, as well as data concerning fraud recovery, Family Self-Sufficiency escrow accounts, PHA-held equity, etc. The inclusion, change, and deletion of the fields mentioned below will improve the allocation of funds and allow the PHAs and the Department to realize a more complete picture of the PHAs' resources and program activities, promote financial accountability, and improve the PHAs' ability to provide assistance to as many households as possible while maximizing budgets. In addition, the fields will be crucial to the identification of actual or incipient financial problems that will ultimately affect funding for program participants. The automated form HUD-52681-B is also utilized by the same programs as the manual forms.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Voucher Management System (VMS) supports the information management needs of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program and management functions performed by the Financial Management Center (FMC) and the Financial Management Division (FMD) of the Office of Public and Indian Housing and the Real Estate Assessment Center (PIH-REAC). This system's primary purpose is to provide a central system to monitor and manage the Public Housing Agency (PHAs) use of vouchers and expenditure of program funds, and is the base for budget formulation and budget implementation. The VMS collects PHAs' actual cost data that enables HUD to perform and control cash management activities; the costs reported are the base for quarterly HAP and Fee obligations and advance disbursements in a timely manner, and reconciliations for overages and shortages on a quarterly basis.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Public Housing Authorities.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,110.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 28,960.

    Frequency of Response: monthly.

    Average Hours per Response: 1.5.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 57,540.

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden hour per response Annual burden hours Hourly cost per response Annual cost
    Total 3,110 12 28,960 1.5 57,540 $30 $1,726,200
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

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

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

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

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 19, 2015. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15535 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5831-N-33] Notice of Emergency Approval Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB; Emergency Comment Request Pay for Success Demonstration Application AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HUD has requested from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) emergency approval of the information collection described in this notice.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-5535. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Pay for Success Demonstration Application.

    OMB Approval Number: 2506-New.

    Type of Request New collection.

    Form Number: SF 424, HUD SF 424 SUPP (if applicable), HUD-2993 (if applicable), HUD-96011 (if applicable), HUD-2880, SF-LLL.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The information to be collected will be used to rate applications, to determine eligibility for the PFS Demonstration and to establish grant amounts. Applicants, which must be public or private nonprofit organizations, will respond to narrative prompts to demonstrate their experience and expertise in PFS financing and to describe their intended program design, both for PFS Demonstration activities, such as conducting a feasibility assessment and structuring a PFS transaction, as well as deal implementation activities, such as administering a PSH intervention, tracking outcomes, and making success payments.

    Respondents (describe): Public or private nonprofit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9 applicants.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 9 applicants.

    Frequency of Response: 1 response per year.

    Average Hours per Response: 22.21 hours.

    Total Estimated Burdens: $194.68.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

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

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

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

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 19, 2015. Anna Guido, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15534 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5831-N-31] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Rent Reform Demonstration (Task Order 2) AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: July 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on April 14, 2015 at 80 FR 20008.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Rent Reform Demonstration.

    OMB Approval Number: 2528-0306.

    Type of Request: Revision of existing collection.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Department is conducting this study under contract with MDRC and its subcontractors (Branch Associates, The Bronner Group, Quadel Consulting Corporation, and the Urban Institute). The project is a random assignment trial of an alternative rent system. Families will be randomly assigned to participate either in the new/alternative rent system or to continue in the current system. For voucher holders, outcomes of the alternative system are hypothesized to be increases in earnings, employment and job retention, among others. Random assignment will limit the extent to which selection bias drives observed results. The demonstration will document the progress of a group of housing voucher holders, who will be drawn from current residents. The intent is to gain an understanding of the impact of the alternative rent system on the families as well as the administrative burden on Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). Four PHAs currently participating in the Moving to Work (MtW) Demonstration are participating in the demonstration:

    (1) Lexington Housing Authority (LHA), Lexington, Kentucky;

    (2) Louisville Metro Housing Authority (LMHA), Louisville, Kentucky;

    (3) San Antonio Housing Authority (SAHA), San Antonio, Texas; and

    (4) District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), Washington, DC.

    Data collection will include the families that are part of the treatment and control groups, as well as PHA staff. Data for this evaluation will be gathered through a variety of methods including informational interviews and discussions, direct observation, and analysis of administrative records. The work covered under this information request is for data collection proposed under the first of two required OMB submissions of the Task Order 2 of the Rent Reform Demonstration.

    Respondents: 156.

    This includes:

    • Public Housing Authority Staff: up to 44 (i.e., assuming up to 11 staff at up to 4 PHAs).

    • Families with housing vouchers participating in the Rent Reform Demonstration, up to 80.

    Information
  • collection
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses per annum Burden hour
  • per response
  • Annual burden hours Hourly
  • cost per
  • response
  • Annual cost
    Study Participant Interviews and/or Focus Groups 80 participants (20 participants * 4 sites) Once One 90 minutes, on average (1.5 hours) 120 (80 * 1.5) 1 8.13 $487.80 (40 employed sample members * $8.13 * 1.5 hours). PHA Staff Interviews 32 staff (8 staff 2 * 4 sites) Once One 90 minutes, on average (or 1.5 hours) 48 hours (32 * 1.50) 3 24.33 $1,167.84 (32 staff * $24.33 * 1.5 hours). Housing Authority Database Extraction Activities by PHA staff 4 staff (1 staff * 4 sites) 8 responses in the covered period (monthly through January 2015, then annually through 2018) Four in 2015, two in 2016, one in 2017, one in 2018 60 minutes, on average (or 1 hour) 16 hours (4 staff * 1 hour * 4 responses in 2015) 4 33.58 $537.28 (4 staff * $33.58 * 1 hour * 4 responses in 2015). Cost Study Data Collection Activities with PHA staff 8 staff (2 staff * 4 sites) Three times over the covered period One 120 minutes, on average (or 2 hours) 16 hours (8 staff * 2 hours) 33.58 $537.28 (8 staff * $33.58 * 2 hours). Interviews to understand implementation of new rent model. Includes meetings with PHA staff for technical assistance purposes 32 staff (8 staff * 4 sites) Four times Up to four times 30-60 minutes (or .5 to 1 hours) Incorporated into technical assistance, monitoring visits and follow-up 128 hours (4 one-hour meetings * 32 staff) 24.33 $2,983 (32 staff * $24.33 * 1 hour * 4 meetings). Total 156 328 $5,844.44. 1 Households participating in the Rent Reform Demonstration will range widely in employment position and earnings. We have estimated the hourly wage at the expected prevailing minimum wage, which is $7.25 per hour in Kentucky and Texas. The hourly minimum wage in the District of Columbia is expected to be $10.50 by Q3 of 2015. (Source: District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, http://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/page_content/attachments/DC%20Minimum%20Wage%20Increase%20-%20DC%20Register%20Public%20Notice.pdf.) Accordingly, we assume an hourly rate across all sites of $8.13 that represents an average of these two rates, weighted by the pledged sample at each site. (2,000 pledged participants in Washington, DC and 5,400 pledged in the remaining sites.) Moreover, we expect about 50 percent of the participants to be employed at the time of study entry. A recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, some 55 percent of non-elderly, non-disabled households receiving voucher assistance reported earned income in 2010. The typical (median) annual earnings for these families were $15,600, only slightly more than the pay from full-time, year-round minimum-wage work. (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3634). Based on this, we assumed 50% of tenants would be working at the federal minimum wage. 2 Number of PHA staff interviews could increase if the housing agency deploys more staff to work on activities related to Rent Reform implementation. 3 For program staff participating in interviews, the estimate uses the median hourly wages of selected occupations (classified by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes) was sourced from the Occupational Employment Statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Potentially relevant occupations and their median hourly wages are:
    Occupation SOC code Median hourly wage rate Community and Social Service Specialist 21-1099 $19.26 Social/community Service Manager 11-9151 29.40 4 For program staff supporting data extraction activities, the estimate uses the median hourly wages of selected relevant occupations in a manner similar to the above. A standard wage assumption of $33.58 was created by averaging median hourly wage rates for these occupations: Source: Occupational Employment Statistics, accessed online March 20, 2015 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm. To estimate cost burden to program staff respondents, we use an average of the occupations listed, or $24.33/hr. Occupation SOC code Median hourly wage rate Database Administrator 15-1141 $37.75 Social/community Service Manager 11-9151 29.40 Source: Occupational Employment Statistics, accessed online March 22, 2015 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm. B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

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

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

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

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15536 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLORW00000.L16100000.DP0000.LXSSH0930000.15XL1109AF.HAG 15-0169] Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee (MAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The MAC will meet on Wednesday, July 8, 2015, from 10:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m. at the Grace Episcopal Church, 70 Sunrise Rd., Lopez, WA 98261. There will be two public comment periods: 10:45-11:15 and 4:45-5:30. This meeting will focus on recreation, visual resource management, special designations such as Areas of Environmental Concern and lands with wilderness characteristics, and trails and travel management. The BLM resource lead will be present to share the breadth of considerations and opportunities in the generation of alternatives for separate areas, or zones and a discussion of public engagement to assist in defining reccommended recreation resources. The committee will also review legal constraints and definitions to the formulation of alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marcia deChadenèdes, San Juan Islands National Monument Manager, P.O. Box 3, 37 Washburn Ave., Lopez Island, Washington 98261, (360) 468-3051, or [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1 (800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The twelve member San Juan Islands MAC was chartered to provide information and advice regarding the development of the San Juan Islands National Monument's Resource Management Plan. Members represent an array of stakeholder interests in the land and resources from within the local area and statewide. Planned agenda items include training on the Federal Advisory Committee Act, advisory committee procedures, the resource management plan process, MAC goal setting, and a collaborative project on public outreach. At each meeting, members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments to the MAC during a public comment period. All advisory committee meetings are open to the public. Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period should register in person with the BLM preceding that meeting day's comment period, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, the length of comments may be limited. The public may send written comments to the MAC at San Juan Islands National Monument, Attn. MAC, P.O. Box 3, 37 Washburn Ave., Lopez Island, Washington 98261. The BLM appreciates all comments.

    Jeffrey A. Rose, Spokane District Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15483 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Suellyn Rader Blymyer, individually and in her capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Lyle J. Rader, and Uptrail Group, LLC, No. 2:13-cv-01555 JCC, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 10, 2015.

    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Suellyn Rader Blymyer, individually and in her capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Lyle J. Rader, and Uptrail Group, LLC, (“Defendants”), pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1311, to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendants to restore the impacted areas, perform mitigation, and pay a civil penalty.

    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Kent E. Hanson, Senior Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044 and refer to United States v. Rader Blymyer, et al., DJ #90-5-1-1-19398.

    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Suite 2310, Seattle, WA 98101. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.

    Cherie L. Rogers, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15418 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 30, 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201502-1205-006 or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit information collection. This submission includes five program forms: (1) a reporting form, ETA-9058; (2) two processing forms, ETA-9061 English and Spanish versions and ETA-9062; (3) and two administrative forms, ETA-9063 and ETA-9065. A State Workforce Agency (SWA) prepares Form ETA-9058 to report information on processing WOTC certification requests by target groups to the ETA. An employer uses Form ETA-9061 or ETA-9062 together with Form IRS-8850 to request certification for new hires. A SWA uses information from the two forms to verify target group eligibility and process the employer's requests. A SWA uses Form ETA-9063 to issue a final certification to an eligible employer or its representative and ETA Form 9065 in an internal quarterly administrative audit.

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1205-0371.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2015 (80 FR 11231).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by July 30, 2015. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1205-0371. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

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

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

    Agency: DOL-ETA.

    Title of Collection: Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit.

    OMB Control Number: 1205-0371.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; State, Local, and Tribal Governments; and Private Sector—businesses or other for profits, farms, and not-for-profit institutions.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 990,052.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 2,420,624.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 847,445 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Dated: June 17, 2015. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15469 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FP-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION RIN 3133-AE16 Minority Depository Institution Preservation Program AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Final Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 13-1.

    SUMMARY:

    The NCUA Board is issuing a final Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement to establish a Minority Depository Institution Preservation Program for federally insured credit unions.

    DATES:

    This final Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement is effective July 24, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wendy A. Angus, Acting Director, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, at (703) 518-1650; or Cynthia Vaughn, Diversity Outreach Program Analyst, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, at (703) 518-1650.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In 1989, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) 1 in response to the failure of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), which insured the deposits of insolvent savings & loan institutions. Section 308 of FIRREA established goals for preserving and promoting minority depository institutions.2 When enacted, FIRREA § 308 applied only to the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), successor to FSLIC.3 Those agencies developed various initiatives, such as training, technical assistance and educational programs, aimed at preserving federally insured banks and savings institutions that meet FIRREA's definition of a minority depository institution (MDI).4

    1 Public Law 101-73, 103 Stat. 183 (Aug. 9, 1989).

    2Id. Title III, § 308, 103 Stat. 353 note re “Preserving Minority Ownership of Minority Financial Institutions,” 12 U.S.C. 1463 note.

    3 Id. § 1463 note (a). OCC and the Fed also initiated MDI programs to comply with the spirit of FIRREA § 308, even though neither was originally required to do so. OTS became part of OCC on July 21, 2011. OCC now administers the OTS MDI Program.

    4 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (b).

    In 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd Frank Act).5 Section 367(4)(A) of the Dodd Frank Act amended FIRREA § 308 to require the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Fed) to take steps to preserve existing MDIs and encourage the establishment of new ones.6 In addition, Dodd Frank Act § 367(4)(B) requires these agencies, along with FDIC, to each submit an annual report to Congress describing actions it has taken to carry out FIRREA § 308.7

    5 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (July 21, 2010); 12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.

    6 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (a).

    7Id. § 1463 note (c).

    In 2013, the NCUA Board proposed an Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 13-1 (proposed IRPS) to establish a Minority Depository Institution Preservation Program (Program) to encourage the preservation of MDIs.8 As proposed, the MDI program would be administered by NCUA's Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) and would consist of outreach efforts, various forms of technical assistance and educational opportunities to benefit eligible credit unions.

    8 78 FR 46374 (July 31, 2013).

    NCUA received a total of nine comments on the proposed IRPS—eight from credit union trade associations and one from a community advocacy group. Seven commenters expressly supported the proposal; none opposed it.

    II. Summary of Comments on Proposed IRPS 1. “Minority Depository Institution” Definition

    Three commenters recommended defining MDIs by minority representation solely among current or potential members, without considering minority representation among credit union management officials. Two commenters believe extending the definition beyond minority representation among the membership would exceed the statutory mandate, and questioned whether including management officials within the scope of minority representation is necessary or would undermine the Program's goals. Another commenter opposed extending the minority representation requirement to management officials, contending that, if it were to encompass credit union staff, it would be burdensome for nearly one-half of the nation's federally insured credit unions that operate with five or fewer employees. This commenter also opposed requiring minority representation among members of the board of directors, supervisory and credit committee members because they are volunteers elected from and by the membership, and who should have the education, experience, and knowledge to manage a credit union regardless of minority status.

    In contrast, a commenter applauded NCUA for measuring minority representation among these officials to ensure that credit union leadership reflects the diversity of the communities and members an MDI serves. In addition, the same commenter wanted to limit the MDI definition to current members only, contending that having potential members who reside in an area having a mostly minority population is no assurance that an MDI would actually serve and invest in consumers of color within that community. Finally, the commenter suggested that minority representation should also encompass persons that identify as multi-racial/multi-ethnic, estimated at 9 million Americans by the U.S. Census Bureau.

    In the final Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 13-1 (final IRPS), the NCUA Board retains the proposed MDI definition with three significant modifications to ensure complete conformity with the statutory MDI definition of a mutual institution. Under that definition, a credit union qualifies as an MDI when “the majority of the Board of Directors, account holders, and the community which it services is predominantly minority.” 9 (Hereinafter, when minority representation is required to be “predominant” or to consist of a “majority,” i.e., greater than 50 percent in either case, it will be referred to as “>50%”).

    9 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (b)(1)(C).

    First, the proposed MDI definition combined both current and “eligible potential” credit union members to assess minority representation among a credit union's “account holders.” Recognizing that a potential member does not hold a credit union account nor enjoy the rights and benefits of membership, the final IRPS limits to current members the assessment of >50% minority representation among credit union “account holders.”

    Second, as several commenters contended, the proposed MDI definition assessed minority representation not only among a credit union's board of directors (BOD) as required, but more generally among its “current management officials,” consisting of members of the supervisory and credit committees and of the senior executive staff.10 Despite the NCUA Board's wish to emphasize the importance of minority representation within the leadership ranks of MDIs, the final IRPS limits to the BOD exclusively the assessment of >50% minority representation, consistent with the letter of the applicable statutory definition.

    10E.g., Chief executive officer, assistant chief executive officer, chief financial officer and branch managers. 78 FR 46374, 46375 (July 31, 2013)

    Third, the final IRPS clarifies that the MDI criterion requiring the community of a would-be MDI to be “predominantly minority” is not an alternative criterion for credit unions unable to meet the MDI criteria requiring >50% minority representation within its membership and on its BOD; it is an additional MDI criterion in and of itself.11 To assess whether the community of a would-be MDI is “predominantly minority,” the final IRPS designates a credit union's community according to its charter. To make this assessment, the final IRPS also permits credit unions to rely on the same methods and supporting data the proposed IRPS prescribed for use by credit unions to self-certify as an MDI (e.g., U.S. Census and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data).12

    11 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (b)(1)(C). In contrast to NCUA, the fact that FDIC oversees publicly-owned, privately-owned and mutual institutions may account for its policy permitting an institution that is unable to meet the 51 percent minority ownership criterion to instead rely on two of the mutual MDI >50% criteria, yielding a hybrid definition: “In addition to the institutions that meet the [51 percent] ownership test, for purposes of this Policy Statement, institutions will be considered [MDIs] if a majority of the [BOD] is minority and the community that the institution serves is predominantly minority.” 67 FR 18 618, 18620 (April 16, 2002). See also 67 FR 77, 79 (January 2, 2002).

    12 78 FR at 46376 and n. 14. In many cases the methods and data that establish >50% minority representation among a credit union's membership also will establish >50% minority representation within the community it services. The Board acknowledges this redundancy as necessary to conform this third criterion to the letter of the statutory MDI definition.

    In addition to the above modifications, the MDI definition in the final IRPS counts a person of multiple ethnicities who falls into at least one of the four minority categories designated by law,13 (or is multi-racial as defined in Table 1) as a single minority individual for purposes of minority representation.

    13 12 U.S.C. 1463 note (b)(2).

    2. Documentation To Support MDI Designation

    In order to receive the MDI designation, one commenter advocated requiring the majority of a credit union's members' deposits and/or loan products to be held by racial minorities. While striving to maximize flexibility and the options to determine and support an MDI designation, the NCUA Board is concerned that it would be too burdensome and restrictive to identify the race and/or ethnicity of all members with deposits and/or loan products. The final IRPS therefore does not adopt this suggestion as an MDI criterion.

    One commenter recommended that NCUA clarify which U.S. Census demographic data to rely upon to measure minority representation among members for purposes of MDI determination. The final IRPS clarifies that U.S. Census data includes the American Fact Finder's most recent census population data (e.g., 2010) for a particular geographic area, such as within members' zip codes or census tracts; and that minority composition 14 by census tracts, according to U.S. Census population data, can be found on the U.S. Census Bureau and the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Web sites.

    14 The minority composition represents the percentage of minorities divided by the entire referred population (e.g., total membership or within a geographic area such as a census tract or a Metropolitan Statistical Area).

    One commenter suggested providing a portal on NCUA's Web site for credit unions to access the sources of data relevant to self-certifying as an MDI, such as links to U.S. Census and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. NCUA currently provides links to access U.S. Census and FFIEC data on OMWI's Web page. To identify the ethnicity of its mortgage applicants, a credit union may rely on the home mortgage data it submits to comply with HMDA.

    One commenter opposed the notion of collecting data by any method that relies on members voluntarily identifying themselves as a minority, for two reasons. First, the practice may conflict with anti-discrimination laws; and second, maintaining the collected ethnicity data may expose credit unions to criticism that the practice is intrusive, and to the risk of legal action. The final IRPS permits collection of volunteered ethnicity data as an option, but not a requirement, for credit unions to determine and to support self-certification of MDI eligibility. Organizations that already collect volunteered ethnicity data from customers and members must take care to maintain the confidentiality of the collected data. Credit unions that elect this option to support self-certification should maintain the collected data separately from members' personal account files, and without personal identifiers (e.g., name, account or social security number, etc.).

    One commenter disagreed with the proposed requirement to annually review and update credit unions' MDI status, suggesting that NCUA require credit unions to follow a data review schedule that is consistent with the data each credit union relied upon to document its MDI certification. For example, when MDI eligibility is based on U.S. Census population data, the review and update would occur every 10 years. Due to frequent changes in a credit union's field of membership, and the composition of its board of directors due to annual elections, the final IRPS retains an annual schedule for the review and update of MDI self-certifications.

    3. MDI Program Costs, Resources & Funding

    Three commenters asked NCUA to perform a cost/benefit analysis of the new Program, detailing the new resources or processes that will be essential to realize NCUA's commitment to preserve MDIs, and how the Program will be funded. Another commenter sought further explanation of Program mechanics, funding details, the number of staff dedicated to Program implementation, the geographic distribution of Program beneficiaries, and the frequency of OMWI staff interaction with participating MDIs.

    The NCUA Board anticipates no additional costs or new resources attributable to the Program, due to reliance on existing agency programs and resources offered through NCUA's Office of Small Credit Union Initiatives (OSCUI), regional offices, and Office of Consumer Protection (OCP), thus avoiding overlaps with existing supervision, chartering, training, technical assistance, and educational programs. About 92 percent of MDIs already are eligible for OSCUI services that assist and educate credit unions designated either as low-income or as small. Examiners provide additional guidance to MDIs in between examinations to assist them in resolving substantial examination or viability concerns. OCP provides guidance to assist and educate MDIs and interested minority groups in chartering and in field of membership expansions. One OMWI staff member is responsible for managing the Program. OMWI's initial interaction and communications with MDIs will include OMWI's participation at events attended by MDIs, and OMWI's assistance provided upon request from MDIs.

    4. MDI Program Benefits

    One commenter favored an expansion of financial support to enable the Program to provide direct financial support to MDIs. Financial support to eligible MDIs will be offered through the existing grant and loan programs funded by NCUA's Community Development Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF).

    Two commenters encouraged NCUA to provide technical assistance to MDIs to avoid insolvency. One suggested two ways to strengthen the net worth of MDIs in response to unusual losses related to economic conditions outside the credit union's control: (1) Develop criteria and goals for access to assistance under section 208 of the Federal Credit Union Act (§ 208 assistance); 15 and (2) make CDRLF funding a source of secondary capital for low-income designated credit unions, especially MDIs.

    15 12 U.S.C. 1788(a). See also 12 U.S.C. 1790d(o)(2)(B).

    The NCUA Board emphasizes that the agency's role in preserving MDIs and providing technical support not only is to help MDIs survive, but to help them thrive as ongoing concerns. Section 208 assistance is available to all credit unions under at least one of three conditions: (1) To assist in the voluntary liquidation of a solvent credit union; (2) to avert the liquidation of a credit union that NCUA determines is in danger of insolvency; or (3) when NCUA determines it is needed to reduce the risk, or avert the threat, of a loss to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund.16

    16 12 U.S.C. 1788(a)(1)-(2).

    NCUA typically provides § 208 assistance to facilitate a sound merger or consolidation of an insured credit union in order to avert the liquidation of a credit union. Other than to avert the liquidation of a credit union that NCUA determines on a case-by-case basis is in danger of insolvency, regardless whether it is an MDI, § 208 assistance is not used solely to improve a credit union's capital position. The NCUA Board reserves the use of § 208 assistance for credit unions under the above three conditions. However, the agency plans to enhance its guidance to examiners to sensitize them about the availability of § 208 assistance for MDIs, as well as about the “General Preference Guidelines” for mergers, addressed below. In contrast, the purpose of CDRLF grants and loans is to support enhanced service to underserved communities, including those served by MDIs. Unlike § 208 assistance, CDRLF grants and loans generally are not provided solely for the purpose of improving capital to avoid insolvency.

    One commenter suggested making technical assistance and educational programs available on a variety of topics critical to preserving MDIs, including aid in achieving satisfactory levels of operations and regulatory performance. OSCUI currently provides technical guidance and educational programs to assist MDIs, as well as small credit unions, in achieving these objectives regardless of low-income designation and asset size. These programs include NCUA-sponsored videos, webinars, consulting services, newsletters, and other publications, including a Credit Union Leadership Resource Manual.

    One commenter advocated adopting a plan that combines targeted resources with supervisory authority in an effort to resolve material safety and soundness concerns among troubled MDIs. NCUA has no plans to make MDI preservation a part of the examination and/or supervision processes, although examiners are encouraged to provide additional guidance to MDIs in resolving material safety and soundness concerns whenever feasible. Also, OSCUI will continue to provide MDIs with technical assistance and educational and consulting services to assist them in resolving these concerns, thus improving their viability. OMWI will aid MDIs by facilitating and monitoring the assistance they receive, will report to Congress annually on these efforts to preserve MDIs and to create new MDIs, and will reevaluate and enhance the