Federal Register Vol. 80, No.126,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 126 (July 1, 2015)

Page Range37529-37919
FR Document

80_FR_126
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 37529 - Establishing the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker HealthPDF
80 FR 37735 - Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and as Acceptable Reinsuring CompaniesPDF
80 FR 37735 - Surety Companies Acceptable On Federal Bonds-Terminations: Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company; OneBeacon America Insurance Company OneBeacon Insurance Company; Pennsylvania Insurance CompanyPDF
80 FR 37559 - Regulations Governing United States Savings BondsPDF
80 FR 37641 - Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure CohortPDF
80 FR 37640 - Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure CohortPDF
80 FR 37582 - Public Availability of FY 2014 Service Contract InventoriesPDF
80 FR 37605 - Extension of Comment Period for the South Shore of Staten Island (SSSI) Draft Environmental Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 37540 - Regulated Navigation Area; 4th of July, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FLPDF
80 FR 37562 - Safety zone; Allegheny River Between Mile 0.0 and 1.4; Pittsburgh, PAPDF
80 FR 37587 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset ReviewsPDF
80 FR 37542 - Safety Zone; Three Rivers Regatta/Three River Regatta and Fireworks, Ohio River, Mile 0.5 to Mile 0.5 on the Allegheny River and Mile 0.5 on the Monongahela River; Pittsburgh, PAPDF
80 FR 37586 - Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) ReviewPDF
80 FR 37588 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
80 FR 37710 - Designation of Oceanic AirspacePDF
80 FR 37714 - Sixty-Sixth Meeting: Special Committee 135 (SC 135)PDF
80 FR 37712 - Sixth Meeting: Special Committee 231 (SC 231)PDF
80 FR 37713 - Fifth Meeting: Special Committee 229 (SC 229)PDF
80 FR 37644 - Oklahoma; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 37648 - Oklahoma; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 37539 - Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges; CorrectionsPDF
80 FR 37662 - Proposed License Renewal of License No. SNM-2506 for the Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
80 FR 37670 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Fukushima; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 37670 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 37667 - Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 37616 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 37608 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Powerex Corp.PDF
80 FR 37610 - Proposed Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index; Notice of Availability and Request for CommentPDF
80 FR 37618 - Access to Confidential Business Information by Eastern Research Group, Inc.PDF
80 FR 37617 - Access to Confidential Business Information by Vision Technologies, Inc., and Its Identified Subcontractor, Computer Sciences CorporationPDF
80 FR 37646 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 37608 - Access to Confidential Business Information by Science Applications International Corporation and Its Identified Subcontractor, Solutions by Design II, LLCPDF
80 FR 37644 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 37547 - Cuprous Oxide; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 37755 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 37756 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1127PDF
80 FR 37754 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue ProcedurePDF
80 FR 37714 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in Use of Aeronautical Property at Sumner County Regional Airport, Gallatin, TennesseePDF
80 FR 37712 - Notice of Release From Federal Grant Assurance Obligations for Elko Regional Airport (EKO), Elko, NevadaPDF
80 FR 37583 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
80 FR 37649 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Evaluation of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program, Phase IPDF
80 FR 37713 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request for a Temporary Change in Use To Accommodate Vehicular Parking on a Section of the Active Aircraft Parking Apron, at Albany International Airport, Albany, NYPDF
80 FR 37609 - Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Meeting-July 2015PDF
80 FR 37615 - Notification of Two Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of EPA's Draft Benzo[a]pyrene AssessmentPDF
80 FR 37651 - Land Acquisition; Ho-Chunk Nation of WisconsinPDF
80 FR 37640 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority HealthPDF
80 FR 37538 - Requests for Administrative Acknowledgment of Federal Indian TribesPDF
80 FR 37861 - Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian TribesPDF
80 FR 37734 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Atlanta, Fulton County, GAPDF
80 FR 37598 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Essential Fish Habitat Final 5-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 37598 - National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Smart Grid Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 37599 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
80 FR 37597 - Guidance on MBDA Applications for Federal FundingPDF
80 FR 37607 - Application to Export Electric Energy; Targray Americas Inc.PDF
80 FR 37606 - Electric Grid Resilience Self-Assessment Tool for Distribution SystemPDF
80 FR 37601 - Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan for Implementing Recommendations 14/15; Determining Types of Information and Operational Standards Related to Data CollectionPDF
80 FR 37555 - Hardwood Lumber and Hardwood Plywood Promotion, Research and Information Order; Extension of Comment Period on Supplemental NoticesPDF
80 FR 37729 - Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance (META) Program ForumPDF
80 FR 37730 - Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Open SeasonPDF
80 FR 37729 - Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement/Joint Planning Advisory Group Table Top ExercisePDF
80 FR 37531 - Cranberries Grown in States of Massachusetts, et al.; Revising Determination of Sales HistoryPDF
80 FR 37533 - Olives Grown in California; Increased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 37715 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 37732 - National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 37642 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal AgenciesPDF
80 FR 37639 - Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of AuthorityPDF
80 FR 37637 - Lists of Designated Primary Medical Care, Mental Health, and Dental Health Professional Shortage AreasPDF
80 FR 37604 - Army Science Board Partially Closed Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 37580 - Opportunity for Designation in the West Sacramento, CA; Frankfort, IN; and Richmond, VA Areas; Request for Comments on the Official Agencies Servicing These AreasPDF
80 FR 37654 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 37621 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10304, The First National Bank of Barnesville, Barnesville, GAPDF
80 FR 37620 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10466 Hometown Community Bank, Braselton, GAPDF
80 FR 37620 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10112, First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, MissouriPDF
80 FR 37583 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders SurveyPDF
80 FR 37621 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 37648 - Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 37555 - Nicotine Exposure Warnings and Child-Resistant Packaging for Liquid Nicotine, Nicotine-Containing E-Liquid(s), and Other Tobacco Products; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 37633 - Intent to Exempt Certain Unclassified, Class II, and Class I Reserved Medical Devices From Premarket Notification Requirements; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 37706 - Actions Subject to Intergovernmental ReviewPDF
80 FR 37705 - Action Subject to Intergovernmental Review Under Executive Order 12372PDF
80 FR 37705 - LaSalle Capital Group II-A, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of InterestPDF
80 FR 37565 - Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Debarment From ContractingPDF
80 FR 37672 - International Product Change-Global Expedited Package Services-Non-Published RatesPDF
80 FR 37567 - Rules of Practice Before the Judicial OfficerPDF
80 FR 37716 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
80 FR 37726 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
80 FR 37718 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 37638 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 37643 - Notice of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Quarterly Business MeetingPDF
80 FR 37669 - Information Collection: Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and MaterialPDF
80 FR 37708 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 37666 - Acceptance of Commercial-Grade Design and Analysis Computer Programs for Nuclear Power PlantsPDF
80 FR 37670 - Selection of Material Balance Areas and Item Control AreasPDF
80 FR 37622 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial DistributionPDF
80 FR 37635 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 37650 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 37625 - Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of Enterovirus D68; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 37582 - Designation for the Topeka, KS; Cedar Rapids, IA; Minot, ND; and Cincinnati, OH AreasPDF
80 FR 37581 - Opportunity for Designation in the Pocatello, ID; Evansville, IN; Salt Lake City, UT; and Columbia, SC Areas; Request for Comments on the Official Agencies Servicing These AreasPDF
80 FR 37709 - Agency Information on Public Availability of FY 2014 Service Contract InventoryPDF
80 FR 37648 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Civil Surgeon Designation Registration, Form I-910; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 37662 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
80 FR 37656 - Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof; Commission Decision to Review in Part a Final Initial Determination on Remand; Request for Written SubmissionsPDF
80 FR 37661 - Hand Trucks From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 37719 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
80 FR 37553 - Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of PassengersPDF
80 FR 37710 - Survey Renewal for FY 2015-Request for CommentPDF
80 FR 37655 - Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 37685 - Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging CompaniesPDF
80 FR 37605 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Student Messaging in GEAR UP DemonstrationPDF
80 FR 37654 - Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee: Notice of Nomination SolicitationPDF
80 FR 37552 - Amendments To Modernize and Clarify the Commission's Rules Concerning Construction, Marking and Lighting of Antenna StructuresPDF
80 FR 37603 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Southeast Region Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and Related RequirementsPDF
80 FR 37701 - Cash Trust Series, Inc., et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 37685 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Front-End Order Entry and Management Tools in Connection With Purchase of Livevol AssetsPDF
80 FR 37695 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Members' Schedule as Defined in the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of NYSE Amex Options LLC Dated as of May 14, 2014 in Order to Reflect Changes to the Capital Structure of the CompanyPDF
80 FR 37672 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order Disapproving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Adopt New Exchange Rule 1081, Solicitation Mechanism, To Introduce a New Electronic Solicitation MechanismPDF
80 FR 37700 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Floor Broker Due DiligencePDF
80 FR 37672 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Rules Governing the Trading of Options on the EDGX Options ExchangePDF
80 FR 37692 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 5.3.06PDF
80 FR 37690 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7260 To Extend, Through June 30, 2016, the Pilot Program That Permits Certain Classes To Be Quoted in Penny IncrementsPDF
80 FR 37698 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend and Restate Certain Rules That Govern the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities MarketPDF
80 FR 37807 - Medicare Program; End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, and Quality Incentive ProgramPDF
80 FR 37621 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 37620 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 37619 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 37728 - Notice of Intent To Grant a Buy America Waiver to the Rhode Island Department of Transportation and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for the Purchase of Two Turnouts and One CrossoverPDF
80 FR 37641 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 37619 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 37671 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 37538 - Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers: Ban on Third-Party Solicitation; Notice of Compliance DatePDF
80 FR 37537 - Amendments for Small and Additional Issues Exemptions Under the Securities Act (Regulation A); CorrectionPDF
80 FR 37611 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 37658 - Woven Electric Blankets From China; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 37568 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 31 PetitionsPDF
80 FR 37545 - Safety Zones; Fourth of July Fireworks Displays, Murrells Inlet and North Myrtle Beach, SCPDF
80 FR 37664 - Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2PDF
80 FR 37604 - Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 37733 - Hazardous Materials: Delayed ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 37536 - Commission Guidance Regarding the Definition of the Terms “Spouse” and “Marriage” Following the Supreme Court's Decision in United States v. WindsorPDF
80 FR 37897 - Member Business Loans; Commercial LendingPDF
80 FR 37757 - Proposed Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare and Advance Notice of Proposed RulemakingPDF
80 FR 37551 - Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz BandPDF

Issue

80 126 Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Cranberries Grown in Massachusetts, et al.: Revising Determination of Sales History, 37531-37533 2015-16177 Increased Assessment Rates: Olives Grown in California, 37533-37535 2015-16176 PROPOSED RULES Research and Information Orders: Hardwood Lumber and Hardwood Plywood Promotion, 37555 2015-16184 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

See

Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department

Army Army Department NOTICES Meetings: Army Science Board, 37604-37605 2015-16167 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey, 37583 2015-16158 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, and Quality Incentive Program, 37808-37860 2015-16074 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37621-37622 2015-16073 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Regulated Navigation Areas: 4th of July, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL, 37540-37542 2015-16261 Safety Zones: Fourth of July Fireworks Displays, Murrells Inlet and North Myrtle Beach, SC, 37545-37547 2015-15936 Three Rivers Regatta/Three River Regatta and Fireworks, Ohio River, Mile 0.5 to Mile 0.5 on the Allegheny River and Mile 0.5 on the Monongahela River; Pittsburgh, PA, 37542-37545 2015-16251 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Allegheny River between mile 0.0 and 1.4; Pittsburgh, PA, 37562-37565 2015-16258 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

Minority Business Development Agency

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commission Fine Commission of Fine Arts NOTICES Meetings: Commission of Fine Arts, 37604 2015-15853 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Engineers Corps

Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Student Messaging in GEAR UP Demonstration, 37605-37606 2015-16107 Energy Department Energy Department NOTICES Application to Export Electric Energy: Powerex Corp., 37608 2015-16233 Applications to Export Electric Energy: Targray Americas, Inc., 37607-37608 2015-16187 Requests for Information: Electric Grid Resilience Self-Assessment Tool for Distribution System, 37606-37607 2015-16186 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: South Shore of Staten Island, 37605 2015-16262 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances; Exemptions: Cuprous Oxide, 37547-37551 2015-16224 PROPOSED RULES Greenhouse Gas Determinations: Emissions from Aircraft Cause or Contribute to Air Pollution that May Reasonably Be Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare, 37758-37806 2015-15192 NOTICES Access to Confidential Business Information: Eastern Research Group, Inc., 37618 2015-16229 Science Applications International Corp., Solutions by Design II, LLC, 37608-37609 2015-16226 Vision Technologies, Inc.; Computer Sciences Corp., 37617-37618 2015-16228 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Water Quality Standards Regulation, 37616-37617 2015-16234 Guidance: Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index, 37610-37611 2015-16232 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee, 37609-37610 2015-16199 Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of Draft Benzo[a]pyrene Assessment; Teleconferences, 37615-37616 2015-16197 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Methyl Bromide; Critical Use Exemption Applications, 37611-37615 2015-16044 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37619-37620 2015-16052 2015-16065 2015-16066 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES Changes in Use of Aeronautical Properties: Sumner County Regional Airport, Gallatin, TN, 37714 2015-16219 Designation of Oceanic Airspace, 37710-37712 2015-16246 Meetings: Special Committee 135, 37714 2015-16245 Special Committee 229, 37713 2015-16243 Special Committee 231, 37712-37713 2015-16244 Release from Federal Grant Assurance Obligations: Elko Regional Airport, Elko, NV, 37712 2015-16207 Requests for Temporary Changes in Use: Albany International Airport, Albany, NY; Vehicular Parking on Section of Active Aircraft Parking Apron, 37713-37714 2015-16201 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Construction, Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures, 37552-37553 2015-16100 Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure Devices in the 5 GHz Band, 37551-37552 2015-14806 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, 37620 2015-16159 First National Bank of Barnesville, Barnesville, GA, 37621 2015-16161 Hometown Community Bank, Braselton, GA, 37620 2015-16160 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Oklahoma; Amendment No. 6, 37644 2015-16242 Oklahoma; Amendment No. 7, 37648 2015-16241 Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 37644-37646 2015-16225 Flood Hazard Determinations; Proposals, 37646-37647 2015-16227 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37715-37716 2015-16166 2015-16175 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Lease and Interchange of Vehicles: Motor Carriers of Passengers, 37553-37554 2015-16111 NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 37716-37717, 37719-37727 2015-16112 2015-16139 2015-16140 Vision, 37718-37719 2015-16138 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Buy American Waivers: Rhode Island Department of Transportation, National Railroad Passenger Corporation for Purchase of Two Turnouts and One Crossover, 37728-37729 2015-16064 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 37621 2015-16157 Fiscal Fiscal Service PROPOSED RULES Regulations Governing United States Savings Bonds, 37559-37562 2015-16278 NOTICES Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Companies Holding Certificates of Authority, 37735-37754 2015-16280 Terminations: Harleysville Worcester Insurance Co., et al., 37735 2015-16279 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: 90-Day Findings on 31 Petitions, 37568-37579 2015-16001 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Nicotine Exposure Warnings and Child-Resistant Packaging for Liquid Nicotine, Nicotine-Containing E-Liquid(s), and Other Tobacco Products, 37555-37559 2015-16151 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: General Licensing Provisions; Biosimilar Applications, 37635-37637 2015-16128 Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution, 37622-37625 2015-16129 Emergency Use Authorizations: In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of Enterovirus D68, 37625-37633 2015-16125 Guidance: Intent to Exempt Certain Unclassified, Class II, and Class I Reserved Medical Devices from Premarket Notification Requirements, 37633-37635 2015-16150 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37650-37651 2015-16126 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Designation Opportunities: Pocatello, ID; Evansville, IN; Salt Lake City, UT; and Columbia, SC Areas, 37581-37582 2015-16123 West Sacramento, CA; Frankfort, IN; and Richmond, VA Areas, 37580-37581 2015-16163 Designations: Topeka, KS; Cedar Rapids, IA; Minot, ND; and Cincinnati, OH Areas, 37582 2015-16124 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort, 37640-37641 2015-16268 2015-16276 2015-16277 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Minority Health, 37640-37641 2015-16195
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37638-37639 2015-16136 Lists of Designated Primary Medical Care, Mental Health, and Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas, 37637-37638 2015-16168 Statements of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority, 37639-37640 2015-16169 Historic Historic Preservation, Advisory Council NOTICES Meetings, 37643-37644 2015-16134 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

NOTICES Charter Renewals: Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, 37648 2015-16156
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program, Phase I, 37649-37650 2015-16202 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau RULES Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes, 37862-37895 2015-16193 Requests for Administrative Acknowledgment of Federal Indian Tribes, 37538-37539 2015-16194 NOTICES Land Acquisitions: Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, 37651-37654 2015-16196 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37754-37756 2015-16220 2015-16221 2015-16222 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews, 37588-37597 2015-16248 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 37583-37586 2015-16203 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews, 37587-37588 2015-16257 Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Reviews, 37586-37587 2015-16250 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Hand Trucks from China; Five-Year Review, 37661-37662 2015-16115 Woven Electric Blankets from China, 37658-37661 2015-16006 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof, 37656-37658 2015-16116 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 37662 2015-16119 Labor Department Labor Department RULES Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges; Corrections, 37539-37540 2015-16239 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Meetings: Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance Program Forum, 37729 2015-16180 Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Joint Planning Advisory Group Table Top Exercise, 37729-37730 2015-16178 Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Open Season, 37730-37732 2015-16179 Minority Business Minority Business Development Agency NOTICES Meetings: Guidance on MBDA Applications for Federal Funding, 37597 2015-16188 National Credit National Credit Union Administration PROPOSED RULES Member Business Loans; Commercial Lending, 37898-37919 2015-15466 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council, 37732-37733 2015-16174 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Smart Grid Advisory Committee, 37598 2015-16190 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 37641-37642 2015-16063 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Southeast Region Vessel Monitoring System and Related Requirements, 37603-37604 2015-16092 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Essential Fish Habitat Final 5-Year Review, 37598-37599 2015-16191 Domestic Fisheries; General Provisions: Applications for Exempted Fishing Permits, 37599-37600 2015-16189 Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud: Action Plan for Implementing Recommendations; Determining Types of Information and Operational Standards Related to Data Collection, 37601-37603 2015-16185 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Council Establishment: Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council, 37655-37656 2015-16109 National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 37654-37655 2015-16162 Requests for Nominations: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, 37654 2015-16103 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material, 37669 2015-16133 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Proposed License Renewal, 37662-37664 2015-16238 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, 37664-37666 2015-15921 Guidance: Acceptance of Commercial-Grade Design and Analysis Computer Programs for Nuclear Power Plants, 37666-37667 2015-16131 Selection of Material Balance Areas and Item Control Areas, 37670-37671 2015-16130 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 37667-37668 2015-16235 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Fukushima, 37670 2015-16237 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures, 37670 2015-16236 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Special Permit Applications; Delays, 37733-37734 2015-15845 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 37671-37672 2015-16050 Postal Service Postal Service PROPOSED RULES Rules of Practice Before the Judicial Officer, 37567-37568 2015-16141 Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Debarment from Contracting, 37565-37567 2015-16143 NOTICES International Product Changes: Global Expedited Package Services: Non-Published Rates, 37672 2015-16142 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Committees; Establishment, Renewal, Termination, etc.: Toxic Substances and Worker Health, Advisory Board on; Establishment (EO 13699), 37529-37530 2015-16334 Procurement Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department NOTICES Fiscal Year 2014 Service Contract Inventories, 37582 2015-16266 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Commission Guidance Regarding the Definition of the Terms ‘Spouse’ and ‘Marriage’ Following the Supreme Court's Decision in United States v. Windsor, 37536-37537 2015-15506 Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers—Ban on Third-Party Solicitation; Notice of Compliance Date, 37538 2015-16048 Small and Additional Issues Exemptions under the Securities Act; Corrections, 37537-37538 2015-16045 NOTICES Applications: Cash Trust Series, Inc., et al., 37701-37704 2015-16091 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies, 37685 2015-16108 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 37690-37692 2015-16084 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 37685-37690, 37692-37695, 37700-37701 2015-16085 2015-16087 2015-16090 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 37672 2015-16086 NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 37698-37700 2015-16083 NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC, 37672-37685 2015-16088 NYSE MKT, LLC, 37695-37698 2015-16089 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Actions Subject to Intergovernmental Review, 37705-37708 2015-16145 2015-16149 Conflicts of Interests: LaSalle Capital Group II-A, L.P., 37705 2015-16144 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37708-37709 2015-16132 Special Counsel Special Counsel Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Survey Renewal for Fiscal Year 2015, 37710 2015-16110 Fiscal Year 2014 Service Contract Inventory, 37709-37710 2015-16121 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities: Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 37642-37643 2015-16172 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc.; Atlanta, Fulton County, GA, 37734 2015-16192 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Fiscal Service

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Civil Surgeon Designation Registration, 37648-37649 2015-16120 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 37758-37806 2015-15192 Part III Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 37808-37860 2015-16074 Part IV Interior Department, Indian Affairs Bureau, 37862-37895 2015-16193 Part V National Credit Union Administration, 37898-37919 2015-15466 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

80 126 Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 929 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0091; FV15-929-1 FR] Cranberries Grown in States of Massachusetts, et al.; Revising Determination of Sales History AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Cranberry Marketing Committee (Committee) to revise the determination of sales history provisions currently prescribed under the cranberry marketing order (order). The Committee, which consists of 13 growers and 1 public member, locally administers the order regulating the handling of cranberries grown in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York. Under the order, there are two different sales history calculations that have been established for this program. This action clarifies when the different methods for calculating sales history will be used. This action also removes the fresh fruit exemption from one of the calculations.

DATES:

Effective July 2, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 929, as amended (7 CFR part 929), regulating the handling of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

There are two sales history calculations in effect under two separate sections of the order. This final rule clarifies when the different methods for calculating sales history will be used. This final rule also removes the exemption for fresh fruit from the sales history calculation found in § 929.149. The Committee unanimously recommended these changes at meetings held on February 10 and August 20, 2014.

The order provides authority for volume control in the form of a producer allotment program. When in effect, this program limits the quantity of cranberries that handlers may purchase or handle on behalf of growers in years of oversupply. Each year, prior to determining if volume regulation is needed, grower sales histories are calculated. The sales history averages recent years' sales data using information submitted by each grower on a production and eligibility report filed with the Committee. If the Committee determines that volume regulation is needed, a producer allotment percentage is calculated. Each grower's allotment of cranberries eligible for handling is then calculated by multiplying the allotment percentage by the grower's sales history.

Section 929.48 of the order contains provisions for computing an annual grower sales history. Section 929.48 also provides that the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish alternative grower's sales history calculations as warranted. One such alternative calculation is established in § 929.149. This alternative calculation supplements the calculation found in § 929.48 by including an additional sales history for growers with new and renovated acreage. It also provides that the sales history be computed for processed fruit only, with fresh fruit sales deducted from the calculation. The alternative calculation method established in § 929.149 was developed for the 2001-02 marketing year, the last time volume regulation was implemented, and was recently revised so that it could be used for any season.

The Committee believes the provisions in the alternative sales history calculation are beneficial and provide equity to growers who have recently planted or renovated acreage. However, the alternative method for calculating sales history requires physical verification of the renovated or new acreage, thus resulting in additional costs to the Committee. When considering the costs and the benefits of both sales history calculation methods, the Committee concluded that the method in § 929.48 was adequate for annual calculations when volume regulation was not anticipated. However, due to the importance of a grower's sales history in the determination of that grower's allotment during years of volume regulation, the inclusion of new and renovated acreage is paramount. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the sales history calculation in § 929.149 should be used in all years when volume regulation is anticipated.

Consequently, at its February 10 and August 20, 2014, meetings, the Committee recommended that the alternative calculation method found in § 929.149 only apply during times when a producer allotment volume regulation is being implemented. When a producer allotment volume regulation is not being implemented, the Committee will calculate grower's sales history according to the provisions provided in § 929.48 of the order.

The Committee also recommended revising the alternative calculation method in § 929.149 by removing the exemption for fresh fruit sales. Committee members stated that automatically exempting fresh fruit from the sales history calculation provides the grower with an inaccurate representation of their total sales. Further, the exclusion of fresh fruit affects the industry's total sales history, which is used to determine the allotment percentage under a producer allotment program. The Committee believes if any exemptions to future producer allotment calculations are warranted, such exemptions should be considered and recommended to USDA as part of a proposed volume regulation. Removing the fresh exemption provision from the alternative calculation allows the Committee to determine, on an as-needed basis, whether or not volume regulation should apply to the fresh cranberry supply.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

There are approximately 1,300 cranberry growers in the regulated area and approximately 45 cranberry handlers who are subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to industry and Committee data, grower prices ranged between $15 and $47 per barrel for cranberries during the 2012-13 marketing year, and total sales were around 7.8 million barrels. Based on production data and grower prices, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Using Committee information and shipment data, 44 out of the 45 cranberry handlers could also be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. Therefore, the majority of cranberry growers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

This final rule revises the rules and regulations pertaining to the determination of sales history currently prescribed in § 929.149 of the order. There are two sales history calculations under two separate sections of the order. This action clarifies when the different methods for calculating sales history will be used. It also removes the exemption for fresh fruit from the calculation method found in § 929.149. These changes were unanimously recommended by the Committee at meetings held on February 10 and August 20, 2014. Authority for these changes is provided in § 929.48 of the order.

It is not anticipated that this action will impose any additional costs on the industry. Each year, the Committee is required to calculate a sales history for each grower. This rule clarifies that the alternative sales history calculation method established under § 929.149 will only apply when a producer allotment regulation is being implemented. The calculation method found in § 929.48 will be used when volume regulation is not being implemented.

Removing the fresh exemption provision from the calculation found in § 929.149 allows the Committee to determine, on an as-needed basis, whether or not volume regulation should apply to the fresh cranberry supply. It also provides growers, and the Committee, with a more accurate representation of their sales history. The benefits of this rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or lesser for small handlers or producers than for large entities.

The Committee considered the alternative of making no changes to the rules and regulations pertaining to the determination of sales history. However, the Committee recognized that this change would help the industry avoid the additional costs of acreage verification in years when volume regulation is not being implemented. Also, the Committee agreed that the current grower sales history tabulation exempting fresh fruit was not representative of the actual sales. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

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

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

As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this final rule.

In addition, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the cranberry industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the February 10 and August 20, 2014, meetings were public meetings, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22431). Copies of the rule were mailed or sent via facsimile to all Committee members and cranberry handlers. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 15-day comment period ending May 7, 2015, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received. Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed.

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

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

It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because the Committee is beginning discussions regarding establishing a producer allotment volume regulation for the coming season. As such, it is important to have these changes in place as the Committee moves forward with these discussions and potential implementation. Further, handlers are aware of this rule, which was recommended at a public meeting. Also, a 15-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 929

Cranberries, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 929 is amended as follows:

PART 929—CRANBERRIES GROWN IN THE STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS, RHODE ISLAND, CONNECTICUT, NEW JERSEY, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND LONG ISLAND IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 929 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

§ 929.149 [Amended]
2. In § 929.149, the words “when a producer allotment volume regulation is in effect” are added to the end of the introductory text, and paragraphs (e) and (f) are removed.
Dated: June 26, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16177 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 932 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0105; FV15-932-1 FR] Olives Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the California Olive Committee (committee) for an increase of the assessment rate established for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal years from $15.21 to $26.00 per assessable ton of olives handled. The committee locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and handlers of olives grown in California. Assessments upon olive handlers are used by the committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal year begins January 1 and ends December 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

DATES:

Effective July 2, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist or Martin Engeler, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California olive handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate issued herein will be applicable to all assessable olives beginning on January 1, 2015, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

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

This rule increases the assessment rate established for the committee for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal years from $15.21 to $26.00 per ton of assessable olives.

The California olive marketing order provides authority for the committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the committee are producers and handlers of California olives. They are familiar with the committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2014 and subsequent fiscal years, the committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal year to fiscal year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other information available to USDA.

The committee met on December 9, 2014, and unanimously recommended 2015 fiscal year expenditures of $1,374,072, and an assessment rate of $26.00 per ton of assessable olives. Olives are an alternate-bearing crop: A large crop followed by a smaller crop. Olive producers and handlers are accustomed to wide swings in crop yields, which necessarily result in fluctuations in the assessment rate from year to year. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,262,460. The assessment rate of $26.00 is $10.79 higher than the rate currently in effect.

The committee recommended the higher assessment rate because of a substantial decrease in assessable olive tonnage for the 2014 crop year. The olive tonnage available for the 2014 crop year was less than 40,000 tons, which compares to the 91,000 tons reported for the 2013 crop year, as reported by the California Agricultural Statistics Service (CASS).

The reduced crop is due to olives being an alternate-bearing fruit. The 2014 crop was what is called the “off” crop—the smaller of the two bearing-year crops.

In addition to the funds from handler assessments, the committee also plans to use available reserve funds to help meet its 2015 fiscal year expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2015 fiscal year include $259,231 for research, $450,000 for marketing activities, $122,000 for inspection equipment and electronic reporting development, and $393,500 for administration. The major expenditures for the 2014 fiscal year included $312,560 for research, $565,600 for marketing activities, $37,800 for inspection equipment and electronic reporting development, and $346,500 for administration.

Overall 2015 expenditures include an increase in inspection equipment and electronic reporting development expenses due to the need to purchase, test, install, and link new sizers to the electronic reporting system. Additionally, the research budget contains a contingency of $41,000 for new opportunities that may arise during the fiscal year, and the administrative budget includes a $31,000 contingency for unforeseen issues.

The assessment rate recommended by the committee resulted from consideration of anticipated fiscal year expenses, actual olive tonnage received by handlers during the 2014 crop year, and additional pertinent information. As reported by CASS, actual assessable tonnage for the 2014 crop year is under 40,000 tons or less than half of the 91,000 assessable tons in the 2013 crop year, which is a result of the alternate-bearing characteristics of olives.

Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the committee's authorized reserve will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal year's expenses (§ 932.40).

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other available information. Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of committee meetings are available from the committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The committee's 2015 fiscal year budget and those for subsequent fiscal years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. There are approximately 1,000 producers of olives in the production area and 2 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.210).

Based upon information from the industry and CASS, the average producer price for the 2014 crop year was approximately $1,027 per ton, and total assessable volume was less than 40,000 tons. Based on production, producer prices, and the total number of California olive producers, the average annual producer revenue is less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of olive producers may be classified as small entities. Both of the handlers may be classified as large entities.

This rule will increase the assessment rate established for the committee and collected from handlers for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal years from $15.21 to $26.00 per ton of assessable olives. The committee unanimously recommended 2015 fiscal year expenditures of $1,374,072, and an assessment rate of $26.00 per ton. The higher assessment rate is necessary because assessable olive receipts for the 2014 crop year were reported by CASS to be less than 40,000 tons, compared to 91,000 tons for the 2013 crop year.

Income derived from the $26.00 per ton assessment rate, along with funds from the authorized reserve and interest income, should be adequate to meet this fiscal year's expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the committee for the 2015 fiscal year include $259,231 for research, $450,000 for marketing activities, $122,000 for inspection equipment development, and $393,500 for administration. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2014 were $312,560 for research, $565,600 for marketing activities, $37,800 for inspection equipment and electronic reporting development, and $346,500 for administration.

The committee deliberated many of the expenses, weighing the relative value of various programs or projects, and decreased their costs for research and marketing, while increasing their costs for inspection equipment and electronic reporting development, as well as their administrative expenses.

Prior to arriving at this budget, the committee considered information from various sources such as the committee's Executive, Marketing, Inspection, and Research Subcommittees. Alternate expenditure levels were discussed by these groups based upon the relative value of various projects to the olive industry and the reduced olive production. The assessment rate of $26.00 per ton of assessable olives was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the volume of assessable olives, and additional pertinent factors.

A review of preliminary information indicates that average producer prices for 2014 crop olives were approximately $1,027 per ton. Therefore, utilizing the assessment rate of $26.00 per ton, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2015 fiscal year as a percentage of total producer revenue would be approximately 2.5 percent.

This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived from the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout California's olive industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the December 9, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express views on this issue.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

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

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16590). Copies of the proposed rule were also provided to all olive handlers, as well as to all committee members. Finally, the proposal was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period, ending April 29, 2015, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. One comment was received.

The commenter noted that the net increase in the assessment rate is not proportional to the proposed increase in expenses for the committee, and the proposed rule did not explain how the magnitude of the proposed increase in the assessment rate was reached.

In response to the comment, the assessment rate is based upon several factors: The assessable production, the programs and costs the committee finds reasonable and necessary for the fiscal year (proposed budget of expenses), as well as the amount of funds available in the committee's financial reserve, if they choose to use such funds to offset their proposed expenses. The committee determines, based upon their experience with costs in their area and the types of marketing programs they propose, what their budget of expenses will be. Thus, they agreed that increasing the assessment rate to meet their program administration and marketing needs was acceptable, reasonable, and necessary to achieve their program administration and marketing goals. They also determined that an even larger assessment increase could be averted by utilizing funds from their financial reserves.

The commenter also noted that the proposed rule states that the assessment rate “would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other available information.” The commenter stated that such language seemed at odds to language in the rule indicating that the alternate-bearing characteristics of olives result in wide swings in production, causing frequent changes to the assessment rate.

In response to this comment, such language is necessary to ensure that the assessment rate established continues throughout the entire fiscal period and beyond, if necessary, thereby ensuring that assessments on olives continue uninterrupted. Should the committee find it necessary to change the assessment rate at any time, USDA would consider their recommendation and other available information.

Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed based on the comment received.

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

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because olive handlers have already received 2014-15 crop year olives from producers, the fiscal year began on January 1, 2015, and the assessment rate applies to all olives received during the 2014-15 crop year. Further, handlers are aware of this rule, which was recommended at a public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932

Olives, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is amended as follows:

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 932 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 932.230 is revised to read as follows:
§ 932.230 Assessment rate.

On and after January 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $26.00 per ton is established for California olives.

Dated: June 26, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16176 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 231, 241, 271, and 276 [Release Nos. 33-9850; 34-75250; IA-4122; IC-31684] Commission Guidance Regarding the Definition of the Terms “Spouse” and “Marriage” Following the Supreme Court's Decision in United States v. Windsor AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Interpretation.

SUMMARY:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing interpretive guidance to clarify how the Commission will interpret the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor.

DATES:

Effective July 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions should be referred to Benjamin Schiffrin, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 551-5003, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-9040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) is unconstitutional.1 Section 3 provides that in “determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States,” the “word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife,” and the “word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” 2 This section, the Court stated, “enacts a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statutes and the whole realm of federal regulations.” 3 The Court found that this directive “undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” and concluded that “no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.” 4 The Court thus held that Section 3 of DOMA was invalid.5

1 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).

2 1 U.S.C. 7.

3 133 S. Ct. at 2690.

4Id. at 2694, 2696.

5Id. at 2696.

In light of this decision, the Commission will read the terms “spouse” and “marriage,” where they appear in the federal securities statutes administered by the Commission, the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, releases, orders, and any guidance issued by the staff or the Commission, to include, respectively, (1) an individual married to a person of the same sex if the couple is lawfully married under state law, regardless of the individual's domicile, and (2) such a marriage between individuals of the same sex. This guidance is consistent with Windsor.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 231, 241, 271, and 276

Securities.

Amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations

For the reasons set out above, the Commission is amending Title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 231—INTERPRETATIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER 1. Part 231 is amended by adding Release No. 33-9850 to the list of interpretive releases as follows: Subject Release No. Date Fed. Reg. Vol. and Page *         *         *         *         *         *         * Commission Guidance Regarding the Definition of the Terms “Spouse” and “Marriage” Following the Supreme Court's Decision in United States v. Windsor 33-9850 June 19, 2015 80 FR [Insert FR Page Number] PART 241—INTERPRETATIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER 2. Part 241 is amended by adding Release No. 34-75250 to the list of interpretive releases as follows: Subject Release No. Date Fed. Reg. Vol. and Page *         *         *         *         *         *         * Commission Guidance Regarding the Definition of the Terms “Spouse” and “Marriage” Following the Supreme Court's Decision in United States v. Windsor 34-75250 June 19, 2015 80 FR [Insert FR Page Number] PART 271—INTERPRETATIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER 3. Part 271 is amended by adding Release No. IC-31684 to the list of interpretive releases as follows: Subject Release No. Date Fed. Reg. Vol. and Page *         *         *         *         *         *         * Commission Guidance Regarding the Definition of the Terms “Spouse” and “Marriage” Following the Supreme Court's Decision in United States v. Windsor IC-31684 June 19, 2015 80 FR [Insert FR Page Number] PART 276—INTERPRETATIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER 4. Part 276 is amended by adding Release No. IA-4122 to the list of interpretive releases as follows: Subject Release No. Date Fed. Reg. Vol. and Page *         *         *         *         *         *         * Commission Guidance Regarding the Definition of the Terms “Spouse” and “Marriage” Following the Supreme Court's Decision in United States v. Windsor IA-4122 June 19, 2015 80 FR [Insert FR Page Number] Dated: June 19, 2015.

By the Commission.

Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15506 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 232 [Release Nos. 33-9741C; 34-74578C; 39-2501C; File No. S7-11-13] RIN 3235-AL39 Amendments for Small and Additional Issues Exemptions Under the Securities Act (Regulation A); Correction AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

This document contains corrections to the final regulations (SEC Rel. No. 33-9741), which were published in the Federal Register of Monday, April 20, 2015 (80 FR 21806). The regulations related to Amendments for Small and Additional Issues Exemptions under the Securities Act (Regulation A).

DATES:

This correction is effective July 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Cullen, Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections were revisions to Item 101(a) of Regulation S-T (§ 232.101(a) of the chapter) on the effective date of the Amendments for Small and Additional Issues Exemptions under the Securities Act (Regulation A) to reflect the mandatory electronic filing of all issuer initial filing and ongoing reporting requirements under Regulation A (§§ 230.251-230.262 of the chapter).

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulations contain errors which need to be corrected.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Accordingly, 17 CFR part 232 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c), 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 232.101 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(xvi) and (xvii); and b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(xviii).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 232.101 Mandated electronic submissions and exceptions.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(xvi) Form ABS-15G (as defined in § 249.1400 of this chapter);

(xvii) Documents filed with the Commission pursuant to section 13(n) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(n)) and the rules and regulations thereunder, including Form SDR (17 CFR 249.1500) and reports filed pursuant to Rules 13n-11(d) and (f) (17 CFR 240.13n-11(d) and (f)) under the Exchange Act; and

(xviii) Filings made pursuant to Regulation A (§§ 230.251 through 230.262 of this chapter).

Dated: June 25, 2015. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16045 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 275 [Release No. IA-4129; File No. S7-18-09] RIN 3235-AK39 Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers: Ban on Third-Party Solicitation; Notice of Compliance Date AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Notice of compliance date.

SUMMARY:

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) previously set and extended the compliance date for the ban on third-party solicitation until nine months after the compliance date of a final rule adopted by the Commission by which municipal advisors must register under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“final municipal advisor registration rule”) and indicated that notice with respect thereto would be provided in the Federal Register. This notice of compliance date is being published to provide the notice of the compliance date.

DATES:

The compliance date for the ban on third-party solicitation under 17 CFR 275.206(4)-5 [rule 206(4)-5] is July 31, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sirimal R. Mukerjee, Senior Counsel, or Sarah A. Buescher, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6787 or [email protected], Investment Adviser Regulation Office, Division of Investment Management, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission adopted rule 206(4)-5 [17 CFR 275.206(4)-5] (“Pay to Play Rule”) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b] to prohibit an investment adviser from providing advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the adviser or certain of its executives or employees (“covered associates”) make a contribution to certain elected officials or candidates.1 Rule 206(4)-5 also prohibits an adviser and its covered associates from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any third-party for a solicitation of advisory business from any government entity on behalf of such adviser, unless such third-party is a “regulated person” (“third-party solicitor ban”).2 Rule 206(4)-5 defines a “regulated person” as an SEC-registered investment adviser,3 a registered broker or dealer subject to pay to play restrictions adopted by a registered national securities association,4 or a registered municipal advisor subject to pay to play restrictions adopted by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”).5 In addition, the Commission must find, by order, that these pay to play rules: (i) Impose substantially equivalent or more stringent restrictions on broker-dealers or municipal advisors than the Pay to Play Rule imposes on investment advisers; and (ii) are consistent with the objectives of the Pay to Play Rule.6

1Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers, Investment Advisers Act Rel. No. 3043 (July 1, 2010) [75 FR 41018 (July 14, 2010)] (“Pay to Play Release”).

2See id. at Section II.B.2.(b). See also 17 CFR 275.206(4)-5(a)(2)(i)(A).

3See 17 CFR 275.206(4)-5(f)(9)(i).

4See 17 CFR 275.206(4)-5(f)(9)(ii). While rule 206(4)-5 applies to any registered national securities association, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) is currently the only registered national securities association under section 19(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78s(b)]. As such, for convenience, we will refer directly to FINRA in this notice of compliance date when describing the exception for certain broker-dealers from the third-party solicitor ban.

5See 17 CFR 275.206(4)-5(f)(9)(iii). On June 22, 2011, the Commission amended the Pay to Play Rule to add municipal advisors to the definition of “regulated persons.” See Rules Implementing Amendments to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Investment Advisers Act Rel. No. 3221 (June 22, 2011) [76 FR 42950 (July 19, 2011)] (“Municipal Advisor Addition Release”). The Commission adopted final rules with respect to the registration of municipal advisors on September 20, 2013. See Registration of Municipal Advisors, Exchange Act Release No. 70462 (Sept. 20, 2013) [78 FR 67468 (Nov. 12, 2013)] (“Municipal Advisor Registration Release”).

6See 17 CFR 275.206(4)-5(f)(9).

Rule 206(4)-5 became effective on September 13, 2010 and the compliance date for the third-party solicitor ban was set to September 13, 2011.7 When the Commission added municipal advisors to the definition of regulated person, the Commission also extended the third-party solicitor ban's compliance date to June 13, 2012.8 In the absence of a final municipal advisor registration rule, the Commission extended the third-party solicitor ban's compliance date from June 13, 2012 to nine months after the compliance date of the final rule,9 which is July 31, 2015.10

7See Pay to Play Release at section III.

8See Municipal Advisor Addition Release at section II.D.1.

9See Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers: Ban on Third-Party Solicitation; Extension of Compliance Date, Investment Advisers Act Rel. No. 3418 (June 8, 2012) [77 FR 35263 (June 13, 2012)] (“Extension Release”).

10 The final date on which a municipal advisor must file a complete application for registration was October 31, 2014. See Municipal Advisor Registration Release at section V.

This notice of compliance date is technical in nature and serves solely to fulfill the Commission's commitment to provide the notice for the compliance date it previously set.11

11See the Extension Release.

Dated: June 25, 2015. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16048 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs 25 CFR Part 83 [156A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] Requests for Administrative Acknowledgment of Federal Indian Tribes AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION:

Policy guidance.

SUMMARY:

This policy guidance establishes the Department's intent to make determinations to acknowledge Federal Indian tribes within the contiguous 48 states only in accordance with the regulations established for that purpose at 25 CFR part 83. This notice directs any unrecognized group requesting that the Department acknowledge it as an Indian tribe, through reaffirmation or any other alternative basis, to petition under 25 CFR part 83 unless an alternate process is established by rulemaking following the effective date of this policy guidance.

DATES:

This policy guidance is effective July 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs, (202) 273-4680; [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Prior to the establishment of the regulatory process for establishing that an American Indian group exists as an Indian tribe in 1978 (“the Part 83 process”), the Department used an informal process for the Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes. The Part 83 regulations formalized the process by which the Department reviewed requests and the criteria required of groups to obtain Federal acknowledgment. The Department has resolved over 50 petitions using the Part 83 process.

However, even after the promulgation of the Part 83 regulations in 1978, there have been a range of requests by unrecognized groups to use other administrative processes to obtain Federal acknowledgment. The Department has utilized those processes in limited circumstances. For example, the Department has “reaffirmed” some tribes and reorganized some half-blood communities as tribes under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA).

Over the past couple of years, the Department has undertaken a comprehensive review and evaluation of the process and criteria by which it federally acknowledges Indian tribes under 25 CFR part 83. As part of that review of the proposed revisions to Part 83, we also received comments related to the other administrative processes that have occasionally been used by the Department for acknowledgment. For example, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and Stand Up for California requested that the Department utilize only the Part 83 process to acknowledge tribes.

We recognize the concerns expressed in comments about the use of administrative approaches for acknowledgment other than Part 83. Having worked hard to make the Part 83 process more transparent, timely and efficient, while maintaining Part 83's fairness, rigor, and integrity, the Department has decided that, in light of these reforms to improve the Part 83 process, that process should be the only method utilized by the Department to acknowledge an Indian tribe in the contiguous 48 states.1 The Department has determined that it will no longer accept requests for acknowledgement outside the Part 83 process. Rather, the Department intends to rely on the newly reformed Part 83 process as the sole administrative avenue for acknowledgment as a tribe.

1 With regard to Alaska, under 473a, Congress has specifically provided: “that groups of Indians in Alaska not recognized prior to May 1, 1936, as bands or tribes, but having a common bond of occupation, or association, or residence within a well-defined neighborhood, community, or rural district, may organize to adopt constitutions and bylaws and to receive charters of incorporation and Federal loans under sections 470, 476, and 477 of this title.”

Of course, the basis for the policy shift being announced today is the Department's reform and improvement of the Part 83 process. The recently revised Part 83 regulations promote fairness, integrity, efficiency and flexibility. No group should be denied access to other mechanisms if the only administrative avenue available to them is widely considered “broken.” Thus, this policy guidance is contingent on the Department's ability to implement Part 83, as reformed. If in the future the newly reformed Part 83 process is not in effect and being implemented, this policy guidance is deemed rescinded.

To conclude, any group within the contiguous 48 states seeking Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe administratively must petition under 25 CFR part 83 from this date forward. The decision to use only the recently reformed Part 83 process from this point forward does not affect the validity of any determination made prior to the institution of this policy guidance; while the Department exercised its discretionary authority to use those methods of acknowledgment in the past, it no longer will.

Dated: June 26, 2015. Kevin K. Washburn, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-16194 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary 29 CFR Part 18 RIN 1290-AA26 Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges; Corrections AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Labor.

ACTION:

Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

This document contains corrections to the final regulations which were published in the Federal Register of May 19, 2015 (80 FR 28768). Those regulations relate to rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges.

DATES:

Effective on July 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Smyth at the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, 800 K Street NW., Suite 400-North, Washington, DC 20001-8002; telephone (202) 693-7300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections became effective on June 18, 2015. The regulations constitute the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges.

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulations contain four internal cross-reference errors, and a typographical error in the title of 29 CFR 18.33(e).

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 18

Administrative practice and procedure, Labor.

Accordingly, 29 CFR part 18 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

PART 18—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 551-553; 5 U.S.C. 571 note; E.O. 12778; 57 FR 7292.

2. Revise paragraph (c) of § 18.32 to read as follows:
§ 18.32 Computing and extending time.

(c) Additional time after certain kinds of service. When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under § 18.30(a)(2)(ii)(C) or (D), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under paragraph (a) of this section.

3. Revise paragraph (e) of § 18.33 to read as follows:
§ 18.33 Motions and other papers.

(e) Motions made at hearing. A motion made at a hearing may be stated orally unless the judge determines that a written motion or response would best serve the ends of justice.

4. Revise paragraph (d)(1) and the introductory text of paragraph (d)(3) of § 18.51 to read as follows:
§ 18.51 Discovery scope and limits.

(d) Hearing preparation: Experts—(1) Deposition of an expert who may testify. A party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial. If § 18.50(c)(2)(ii) requires a report from the expert the deposition may be conducted only after the report is provided, unless the parties stipulate otherwise.

(3) Hearing-preparation protection for communications between a party's representative and expert witnesses. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) under this section protect communications between the party's representative and any witness required to provide a report under § 18.50(c)(2)(ii), regardless of the form of the communications, except to the extent that the communications:

5. Revise paragraph (b) of § 18.53 to read as follows:
§ 18.53 Supplementing disclosures and responses.

(b) Expert witness. For an expert whose report must be disclosed under § 18.50(c)(2)(ii), the party's duty to supplement extends both to information included in the report and to information given during the expert's deposition. Any additions or changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party's prehearing disclosures under § 18.50(c)(3) are due.

Dated: June 17, 2015. Stephen R. Henley, Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 2015-16239 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-20-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0450] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; 4th of July, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a regulated navigation area on Biscayne Bay in Miami, Florida, for multiple 4th of July fireworks displays throughout the Miami area. This regulation is necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with boating traffic expected during 4th of July firework displays throughout the Miami area. To ensure the public's safety, all vessels within the regulated navigation area are: Required to transit the regulated navigation area at no more than 15 knots; subject to control by the Coast Guard members with law enforcement authority; and required to follow the instructions of all law enforcement officials in the area.

DATES:

This rule is effective from July 4 until July 5, 2015 and will be enforced from 7 p.m. on July 4 until 2 a.m. on July 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents indicated in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0450. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer John Jennings, Sector Miami Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (305) 535-4317, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking RNA Regulated Navigation Area I. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this temporary rule because information was recently received regarding the location of fireworks displays throughout the Miami area. As a result, it was impracticable to issue this rule with opportunity to comment because the Coast Guard did not receive notice of Fourth of July firework displays in time to publish a NPRM.

Historically, there is increased vessel traffic on the waters of Biscayne Bay during Fourth of July fireworks displays in the Miami area. Vessel congestion, especially where vessels cross navigational channels to return to their home marinas at high rates of speed has resulted in accidents that caused severe injury and death. This RNA is necessary to better protect the public on this congested waterway. Under these circumstances, it would be contrary to the public interest in maintaining safety in Biscayne Bay to delay the effective date of the temporary final rule.

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

II. Basis and Purpose

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

The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safe transit of vessels and to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment within the regulated navigation area during 4th of July festivities.

III. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

This temporary final rule will designate a regulated navigation area encompassing all waters within one nautical mile of the center of the Intracoastal Waterway to the east and 21/2 nautical miles to the west from Black Point extending 10 nautical miles north to the Rickenbacker Causeway Bridge; then encompassing all navigable waters of the Intracoastal Waterway between the Rickenbacker Causeway Bridge north to the Julia Tuttle Causeway Bridge, Miami, Florida. The regulated navigation area will be enforced from 7 p.m. July 4, 2015, until 2 a.m. July 5, 2015.

All vessels within the regulated navigation area are: (1) Required to transit the area at no more than 15 knots; (2) subject to control by the Coast Guard; and (3) required to follow the instructions of all law enforcement officials in the area.

The regulated navigation area is necessary to ensure the safety of the public during a time of heightened vessel traffic in the aforementioned areas. Each year numerous vessels congregate in the waters of Biscayne Bay during launching of the 4th of July fireworks displays. The close proximity and increased crossing situations of numerous vessels within the regulated navigation area during 4th of July poses a hazardous condition.

The regulated navigation area will result in vessels transiting at a reduced speed, thereby significantly reducing the threat of vessel collisions. Requiring vessels within the regulated navigation area to transit at no more than 15 knots will also enable law enforcement officials to identify, respond to, query, and stop operators who may pose a hazard to other vessels in the area. Nothing in this regulation alleviates vessel operators from their duty to comply with all other federal, state, and local laws in the area.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) the regulated navigation area will be enforced for only seven hours; (2) the regulated navigation area does not prohibit vessels from transiting the area; (3) vessels will still be able operate in surrounding waters that are not encompassed within the regulated navigation area without being subject to all the restrictions imposed by the regulated navigation area; and (4) advance notification of the regulated navigation area will be made to the local maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated navigation area from 7 p.m. July 4, 2015 until 2 a.m. July 5, 2015. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

D. Collection of Information

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

E. Federalism

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

F. Protest Activities

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

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

H. Taking of Private Property

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

I. Civil Justice Reform

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

J. Protection of Children

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

K. Indian Tribal Governments

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

L. Energy Effects

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

M. Technical Standards

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

N. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing a regulated navigation area to ensure the safe transit of vessels and to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment within the regulated navigation area for the 4th of July which will be enforced for seven hours. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Revise § 165.779 to read as follows:
§ 165.779 Regulated Navigation Area; 4th of July, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL.

(a) Regulated area. The regulated navigation area encompasses all waters of Biscayne Bay between the Julia Tuttle Causeway Bridge and Black Point contained within an imaginary line connecting the following points: beginning at Point 1 in position 25°48′38″ N., 80°10′40″ W.; thence east to Point 2 in position 25°48′38″ N., 80°10′30″ W.; thence southwest to Point 3 in position 25°46′41″ N., 80°10′54″ W.; thence southeast to Point 4 in position 25°46′17″ N., 80°10′43″ W.; thence southwest to Point 5 in position 25°45′05″ N., 80°10′50″ W.; thence southeast to Point 6 in position 25°44′47″ N., 80°10′44″ W.; thence southeast to Point 7 in position 25°43′29″ N., 80°09′37″ W.; thence southwest to Point 8 in position 25°42′39″ N., 80°10′35″ W.; thence southwest to Point 9 in position 25°31′11″ N., 80°13′06″ W.; thence northwest to Point 10 in position 25°31′31″ N., 80°17′48″ W.; thence northeast to Point 11 in position 25°43′25″ N., 80°13′17″ W.; thence northeast to Point 12 in position 25°43′59″ N., 80°12′04″ W.; thence northeast to Point 13 in position 25°44′46″ N., 80°11′23″ W.; thence northeast to Point 14 in position 25°46′10″ N., 80°10′59″ W.; thence northwest to Point 15 in position 25°46′20″ N., 80°11′04″ W.; thence northeast to Point 16 in position 25°46′44″ N., 80°10′59″ W.; thence northwest to Point 17 in position 25°47′15″ N., 80°11′06″ W.; thence northeast to Point 18 in position 25°47′24″ N., 80°11′00″ W.; thence north to Point 19 in position 25°47′36″ N., 80°11′00″ W.; thence back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

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

(c) Regulations. (1) All vessels within the regulated area are required to transit at no more than 15 knots, are subject to control by the Coast Guard, and must follow the instructions of designated representatives.

(2) At least 48 hours prior to the enforcement period, the Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Coast Guard will also provide notice of the regulated area by on-scene designated representatives.

(d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 7 p.m. on July 4, 2015 until 2 a.m. on July 5, 2015.

Dated: June 22, 2015. Scott A. Buschman, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-16261 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0436] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Three Rivers Regatta/Three River Regatta and Fireworks, Ohio River, Mile 0.5 to Mile 0.5 on the Allegheny River and Mile 0.5 on the Monongahela River; Pittsburgh, PA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone from mile 0.5 Ohio River up-bound to mile 0.5 on the Allegheny River and mile 0.5 on the Monongahela River, extending the entire width of the rivers. This action is necessary to ensure public safety due to the inherent hazards associated with launching fireworks from a barge and the explosive nature of the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective and will be enforced with actual notice on July 3, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., on July 4, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and on July 5, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0436. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Ariana Mohnke, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone (412) 221-0807, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

On June 11, 2015, we published a final rule entitled “Annual fireworks displays and other events in the Eighth Coast Guard District requiring safety zones” in the Federal Register (79 FR 222398). In that rulemaking, the Coast Guard established a permanent safety zone for the annual “Three Rivers Regatta/Three River Regatta and Fireworks”, listed in Table no. 1 to 33 CFR 165.801 at Line no. 43. On June 15, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Three Rivers Regatta/Three River Regatta and Fireworks” in the Federal Register. We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not using the NPRM process with respect to this rule because it is unnecessary and contrary to public interest.

On May 20, 2015, the sponsor notified the Coast Guard that it intended to hold the event on July 3-5, 2015 at a location from mile 0.5 Ohio River up-bound to mile 0.5 on the Allegheny River and mile 0.5 on the Monongahela River, extending the entire width of the rivers. According to Table no. 1 to 33 CFR 165.801, the event is to be held during two days the week of July 4th and is to be located at: Ohio River, Mile 0.0-0.5, Allegheny River, Mile 0.0-0.5, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-0.5. After full review of the event information and location, the Coast Guard determined that the published annual event differs from the intended dates and location for the event being held this year. A safety zone is necessary. Therefore, to mitigate the potential danger to spectators and participants, the Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone. Any delay or cancellation of the event in order to allow for a notice and comment period is contrary to the public interest in not having the event occur on the dates and in the location proposed by the sponsor and advertised to the public and could potentially interfere with contractual obligations. Completing the full NPRM process would be impracticable. Delaying this rule by completing the full NPRM process would unnecessarily delay the safety zone and be contrary to public interest because the safety zone is needed to protect transiting vessels, spectators, and the personnel involved in the display from the hazards associated with fireworks displays taking place over the waterway.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be unnecessary as this event is a recurring event and mariners familiar with the waterway are aware that the regatta and celebrations related to Independence Day activities occur yearly on this waterway. This year the event will occur over the course of three days, as opposed to the published time period of two days, as per the Federal Register. In addition, the event will take place very near to the published location, approximately 0.1 miles distant from the published location in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during the event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Also a delay or cancellation of the event in order to allow for publication in the Federal Register is contrary to the public's interest in having this event occur as scheduled. Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) and information sharing with the waterway users will update mariners of the restrictions, requirements, and enforcement times during this temporary situation.

B. Basis and Purpose

This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators and participants from hazards associated with and resulting from the 2015 Three Rivers Regatta/Three River Regatta and Fireworks events. Based on the inherent hazards associated with a fireworks show and an on-water regatta event, the COTP Pittsburgh has determined that a fireworks display and a marine regatta pose a significant risk to watercraft, participant safety, spectator safety, public safety and property. The combination of increased numbers of recreational vessels and potential debris falling on passing or anchored spectator vessels has the potential to result in serious injuries or fatalities. This regulation temporarily establishes a zone to restrict vessel movement through and around the location of the regatta and the fireworks display in order to reduce the risks associated with these events.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for the 2015 Three Rivers Regatta/Three River Regatta and Fireworks from mile 0.5 Ohio River up-bound to mile 0.5 on the Allegheny River and mile 0.5 on the Monongahela River, extending the entire width of the rivers. This temporary safety zone will be enforced with actual notice from 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on July 3-5, 2015, daily. Additionally, prior to the fireworks displays, there will be boat races and therefore, for the safety of those involved in the boat races as well as the general public attempting to transit through this location, a safety zone will be enforced. The public will be informed of the enforcement periods by local notice to mariners. Should there be any subsequent changes or shortening of enforcement periods, the public will be notified via broadcast notice to mariners.

This rule establishing a temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with the event.

Deviation from this temporary safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP Pittsburgh, or a designated representative. Deviation requests will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This rule is limited in scope and will be in effect for a limited time period. The temporary safety zone will be in effect for ten hours on each of three consecutive days. The Coast Guard expects minimum adverse impact to mariners from the zone's activation as the event has been advertised to the public. Also, mariners may request authorization from the COTP Pittsburgh or the designated representative to transit the zone. Notifications to the marine community will be made through local notice to mariners and broadcast notice to mariners. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit from mile 0.5 Ohio River up-bound to mile 0.5 on the Allegheny River and mile 0.5 on the Monongahela River, extending the entire width of the rivers from 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on July 3, 2015 and July 4, 2015 and July 5, 2015. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule is limited in scope, will only be in effect for a limited time period, and notifications to the marine community will be made to those that could be operating in the area during the event. Additionally, waterway users can use the portions of the channel not affected by the safety zone. Deviation from the rule may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the COTP or a designated representative.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from mile 0.5 Ohio River up-bound to mile 0.5 on the Allegheny River and mile 0.5 on the Monongahela River, extending the entire width of the rivers. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction an environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 2. A new temporary § 165.T08-0436 is added to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0436 Safety Zone; Three Rivers Regatta/Three River Regatta and Fireworks, Ohio River mile 0.5 to mile 0.5 on the Allegheny River and mile 0.5 on the Monongahela River; Pittsburgh, PA.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: Ohio River mile 0.5 to mile 0.5 on the Allegheny River and mile 0.5 on the Monongahela River.

(b) Effective date. This rule is effective, and will be enforced through actual notice, from July 3, 2015 through July 5, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m., daily.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the zone must request permission from the COTP Pittsburgh or a designated representative. The COTP Pittsburgh representative may be contacted at 412-221-0807.

(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Pittsburgh or their designated representative. Designated COTP representatives include United States Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, and petty officers.

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP Pittsburgh or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

Dated: June 15, 2015. L.N. Weaver, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 2015-16251 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0529] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Fourth of July Fireworks Displays, Murrells Inlet and North Myrtle Beach, SC AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones during Fourth of July Fireworks Displays on certain navigable waterways in Murrells Inlet and North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. These safety zones are necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective on July 4, 2015 and will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 9:50 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0529. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with thie rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary final rule, call or email CWO Christopher L. Ruleman, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive necessary information regarding the fireworks displays until June 5, 2015. As a result, the notice and opportunity procedures were impracticable because the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the fireworks displays. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the fireworks displays.

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

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The purpose of the rule is to protect the public from the hazards associated with launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States.

C. Discussion of Rule

Two fireworks displays are planned for Fourth of July celebrations in the vicinity of Myrtle Beach in the Captain of the Port Charleston Zone. The fireworks will be launched from piers. The fireworks will be aimed to explode over navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones for these Fourth of July fireworks displays.

1. Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. All waters within a 1,000 yard radius around Veterans Pier, from which the fireworks will be launched, located on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. This safety zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 9:50 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

2. North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. All waters within a 500 yard radius around Cherry Grove Pier, from which the fireworks will be launched, located on the Atlantic Ocean. This safety zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 9:50 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within either safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within either safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston via telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within either safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zones by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, and on-scene designated representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those orders. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of twenty minutes; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Based on its short duration, limited geographic area, and for the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). Based on our analysis, we concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety zones during Fourth of July Fireworks displays near Murrells Inlet and North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0529 to read as follows:
§ 165.T07-0529 Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks Displays, in vicinity of Myrtle Beach, Myrtle Beach, SC.

(a) Regulated Area. The following regulated areas are safety zones.

(1) Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. All waters within a 500 yard radius around Veterans Pier, from which the fireworks will be launched, located on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.

(2) North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. All waters within a 500 yard radius around Cherry Grove Pier, from which the fireworks will be launched, located on the Atlantic Ocean.

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

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

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

(d) Effective period. This rule will be effective on July 4, 2015 and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 9:50 p.m.

Dated: June 17, 2015. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2015-15936 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0865; FRL-9929-51] Cuprous Oxide; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation amends the tolerance exemption for copper in/on meat, milk, poultry, eggs, fish, shellfish, and irrigated crops when it results from the use of cuprous oxide embedded in polymer emitter heads used in irrigation systems for root incursion prevention. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of copper resulting from this use of cuprous oxide.

DATES:

This regulation is effective July 1, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 31, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0865, 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:

Jennifer McLain, Antimicrobials Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 308-0293; email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

Under Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0865 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 31, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0865, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22466) (FRL-9925-79), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 4F8324) by Cupron, Inc., 800 East Leigh St., Richmond, VA 23219. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1021 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of copper in/on meat, milk, poultry, eggs, fish, shellfish, and irrigated crops by including the use of cuprous oxide (also referred to as copper oxide) embedded in polymer emitter heads used in irrigation systems for agricultural crops or residential food commodities for algicidal or root incursion prevention. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Cupron, Inc., which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by cuprous oxide are discussed in this unit.

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by cuprous oxide, as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed adverse effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies, are discussed in the final rule published in the Federal Register of August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46106) (FRL-8085-3). Copper is ubiquitous in nature and is a necessary nutritional element for both animals (including humans) and plants. Copper is found naturally in the food we eat including fruits, vegetables, meats, and seafood. It is found in the water we drink, the air we breathe and in our bodies themselves. Some of the environmental copper is due to direct modification of the environment by humans such as mining and smelting of the natural ore. It is one of the elements found essential to life. The copper ion is present in the adult human body with nearly two-thirds of the body copper content located in the skeleton and muscle. The liver is the primary organ for the maintenance of plasma copper concentrations.

The 2006 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Copper compounds reviewed and summarized all toxicity studies submitted for copper and has determined that the toxicological database is sufficient to assess the hazard from pesticides containing copper. Copper generally has moderate to low acute toxicity based on acute oral, dermal, and inhalation studies in animals. All effects resulting from acute exposure to copper containing pesticides are due to acute body responses to minimize excessive absorption or exposure to copper. Current available data in animals do not show any evidence of upper limit toxicity level that warrant determining acute toxicity end points.

Based on available data summarized in the “2006 Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Coppers”, there is no evidence of any dietary, oral, and dermal or inhalation adverse effects warranting quantitative assessment of sub-chronic or chronic risk. Available short-term feeding studies with rats and mice indicate decreased food and water intake with increasing oral concentrations of copper. Irritation of the stomach was seen at higher copper concentrations. Longer-term feeding studies indicate decreased feed intake with reductions in body weight gains, and increased copper concentration of the liver. Available reproductive and developmental studies by the oral route of exposure generally indicate that the main concern in animals for reproductive and teratogenic effects of copper has usually been associated with the deficiency rather than the excess of copper.

Oral ingestion of excessive amounts of the copper ion from pesticidal uses including the proposed use is unlikely. Copper compounds are irritating to the gastric mucosa. Ingestion of large amounts of copper results in prompt emesis. This protective reflex reduces the amount of copper ion available for absorption into the human body. Additionally, at high levels humans are also sensitive to the taste of copper. Because of this organoleptic property, oral ingestion would also serve to limit high doses. Only a small percentage of ingested copper is absorbed, and most of the absorbed copper is excreted. The human body appears to have efficient mechanisms in place to regulate total body copper. The copper ion occurs naturally in food and the metabolism of copper is well understood.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

No endpoints of toxicological concern were identified for risk assessment purposes for copper oxide. Cuprous oxide readily hydrolyzes into the copper cation and oxygen anion. Copper is a required essential nutritional element for both plants and animals. Indeed, current available data and literature studies indicate that there is a greater risk from the deficiency of copper intake than from excess intake. Copper also occurs naturally in a number of food items including fruits, meats, seafood, and vegetables. In humans, as part of the utilization of copper as an essential nutrient, there is an effective homeostatic mechanism that is involved in the dietary intake of copper and that protects humans from excess body copper. Given that copper is ubiquitous, is an essential nutrient, and is routinely consumed as part of the daily diet, exposure to copper as a result of the use of copper oxide as a pesticide chemical would not be of toxicological concern.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

Copper is ubiquitous in nature and is necessary nutritional element for both animals (including humans) and plants. It is one of several elements found essential to life. The human body must have copper to stay healthy. In fact, for a variety of biochemical processes in the body to operate normally, copper must be part of our daily diet. Copper is needed for certain critical enzymes to function in the body. Actually, too little copper in the body can actually lead to disease.

1. Food. The main source of copper for infants, children, and adults, regardless of age, is the diet. Copper is typically present in mineral rich foods like vegetables (potato, legumes (beans and peas), nuts (peanuts and pecans), grains (wheat and rye), fruits (peaches and raisins), and chocolate in levels that range from 0.3 to 3.9 parts per million (ppm). A single day's diet may contain 10 milligram (mg) or more of copper. It is not likely that the approval of this petition would significantly increase exposure over that of existing levels of copper. In any event, given the lack of toxicity of copper, EPA does not expect any increased exposure resulting from approval of this petition to be unsafe.

2. Drinking water exposure. Copper is a natural element found in the earth's crust. As a result, most of the world's surface water and ground water that is used for drinking purposes contains copper. The actual amount varies from region to region, depending on how much is present in the earth, but in almost all cases the amount of copper in water is extremely low. Naturally occurring copper in drinking water is safe for human consumption, even in rare instances where it is at levels high enough to impart a metallic taste to the water. Residues of copper in drinking water are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. A Maximum Contaminant Level Goal of 1.3 ppm has been set by the Agency for copper. According to the National Research Council's Committee on Copper in Drinking Water, this level is “set at a concentration at which no known or expected adverse health effects occur and for which there is an adequate margin of safety.” The Agency believes that this level of protection would not cause any potential health problems, i.e. stomach and intestinal distress, liver, and kidney damage and anemia. It is not likely that the approval of this petition would significantly increase exposure over that of the existing levels of copper. In any event, given the lack of toxicity of copper, EPA does not expect any increased exposure resulting from approval of this petition to be unsafe.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

Copper compounds have many uses on crops (food as well as non-food) and ornamentals as a fungicide.

1. Dermal exposure. Given the prevalence of copper in the environment, no significant dermal exposure increase above current levels would be expected from this non-occupational use of cuprous oxide. In any event, given the lack of toxicity of copper, EPA does not expect any increased exposure resulting from approval of this petition to be unsafe.

2. Inhalation exposure. Air concentrations of copper are relatively low. A study based on several thousand samples assembled by EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory showed copper levels ranging from 0.003 to 7.32 micrograms per cubic meter. Other studies indicated that air levels of copper are much lower. The Agency does not expect the air concentrations of copper to be significantly affected by this use of cuprous oxide. In any event, given the lack of toxicity of copper, EPA does not expect any increased exposure resulting from approval of this petition to be unsafe.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found cuprous oxide to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and cuprous oxide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that cuprous oxide does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

Cuprous oxide is considered Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). EPA has also exempted various copper compounds from the requirement of a tolerance when used as herbicide and algicide (40 CFR 180.1021), including cuprous oxide when contained in antifouling coatings on submerged concrete or other (irrigation) structures (40 CFR 180.1021(a)(4)). Copper compounds including cuprous oxide are also exempt from the requirements of a tolerance when applied to growing crops when used as a plant fungicide in accordance with good agricultural practices (40 CFR 180.1021(b)).

1. U.S. population. Copper is a component of the human diet and an essential element. In addition, no acute or chronic dietary endpoints were selected because no endpoints of toxicological concern have been identified for risk assessment purposes. Use of cuprous oxide is not expected to increase the amount of copper in the diet as a result of its use on growing crops and post-harvest use.

2. Infants and children. Copper is also component of the diet of infants and children as is also an essential element of their diet. Since no endpoints have been identified, EPA has not conducted a quantitative risk assessment for cuprous oxide. The Agency has also determined that the special Food Quality Protection Act safety factor (FQPA SF) to protect infants and children was not needed since there are no toxicity endpoints or uncertainty surrounding exposure.

Based on the information in this preamble, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to residues. Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of cuprous oxide from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

VII. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

The Agency is establishing an exemption for cuprous oxide that differs slightly from the exemption that was requested. First, the Agency has removed the phrase “for agricultural crops or residential food commodities” because the current structure of section 180.1021(a) makes that language duplicative and potentially confusing. With today's exemption, residues of copper on any irrigated crop that result from uses of cuprous oxide in polymer emitter heads for irrigation are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance; it is not necessary to further clarify where the irrigation heads are intended to be used. Also, the term algaecidal was deleted from the proposed tolerance exemption expression because the product is not intended to act as an algaecide.

VIII. Conclusion

Based on the information contained in the document, EPA concludes that there is no reasonable certainty of harm from aggregate exposure to residues of cuprous oxide. Accordingly, EPA finds that the exemption for residues of copper in or on meat, milk, poultry, egg, fish, shellfish, and irrigated crops from use of cuprous oxide embedded in polymer emitter heads used in irrigation systems for root incursion prevention will be safe. Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of copper oxide embedded in polymer emitter heads used in irrigation systems for root incursion prevention.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

X. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Cuprous oxide.

Dated: June 18, 2015. Jennifer L. McClain, Acting Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

2. Add paragraph (a)(5) to § 180.1021 to read as follows:
§ 180.1021 Copper; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

(a) * * *

(5) Copper oxide embedded in polymer emitter heads used in irrigation systems for root incursion prevention.

[FR Doc. 2015-16224 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 15 [ET Docket No. 13-49; FCC 15-61] Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for waiver.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Commission has waived requirements of certain rules that the National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices must comply with. This action is in response to a request by a group of interested parties to extend this compliance deadline as part of a larger review of the transition provision adopted for the U-NII-3 band. In order to facilitate the new technical requirements, without unduly impairing the availability or cost of U-NII devices or imposing undue burdens on manufacturers or the public the Commission adopted transition provisions which are outlined in the Commission's rules. Doing so will give the Commission adequate time to consider the entire record, including the Joint Petitioners, as part of the reconsideration proceeding.

DATES:

Effective date: This rule is effective July 1, 2015. Applicability date: Applicable June 1, 2015, the requirements in § 15.37(h) are waived until December 2, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Aole Wilkins, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2406, email: [email protected], TTY (202) 418-2989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, ET Docket No. 13-49; FCC 15-61, adopted June 1, 2015, and released June 1, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.

Summary of Order

1. By this Order, the Commission waives until December 2, 2015 the requirement in § 15.37(h) of the Commission's rules that certain National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices must comply with its § 15.407 rules to be certified on and after June 2, 2015. This action is taken in response to a request by a group of interested parties (Joint Petitioners) to extend this compliance deadline as part of a larger review of the transition provisions the Commission recently adopted for the U-NII-3 band.This action is being taken without prejudice relative to the merits of the Joint Petitioners' filings in the docket.

2. On April 1, 2014, the Commission released a First Report and Order in the above-captioned proceeding. This First R&O increased the utility of the 5 GHz band where U-NII devices operate, and modified certain U-NII rules and testing procedures to ensure that U-NII devices do not cause harmful interference to authorized users of the band. The First R&O, inter alia, extended the upper edge of the 5.725-5.825 GHz U-NII-3 band to 5.85 GHz and consolidated the provisions applicable to digitally modulated devices from § 15.247 of the rules with the U-NII-3 rules in § 15.407 so that all the digitally modulated devices operating in the U-NII-3 band will operate under the same set of rules and be subject to the new device security requirement. Notably, the consolidated rules adopted require the more stringent out-of-band emissions limit formerly applicable only to U-NII-3 devices in order to protect Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) facilities from inference.

3. To facilitate the transition to the new technical requirements, without unduly impairing the availability or cost of U-NII devices or imposing undue burdens on manufacturers, or the public, the Commission adopted transition provisions which are outlined in § 15.37(h). These transition provisions require that the marketing, sale and importation into the United States of digitally modulated and hybrid devices designed to operate in the U-NII-3 band and certified under the old § 15.247 rules must cease by June 2, 2016. As an intermediate measure, they provide that after June 2, 2015, digital modulation devices and the digital modulation portion of hybrid devices designed to operate in the U-NII-3 band must meet the new § 15.407 U-NII-3 rules to be FCC certified. This waiver order exclusively addresses the June 2, 2015 certification requirement.

4. Petitions for reconsideration of the First R&O are still pending. While the petitioners have generally alleged that the current state of the technology inhibits the design of affordable products that could comply with the more stringent out-of-band emission limits for the U-NII-3 band, the alternatives they suggested have been wide-ranging and many of the parties could not agree on a single solution that would meet the needs of the varying industry segments. Significant information was, and continues to be, submitted into the record. In particular, on March 23, 2015, the Joint Petitioners filed a self-styled “Consensus Proposal.” This detailed filing included technical rules that would significantly modify the out-of- band emission limits adopted for the U-NII-3 Band in the First R&O. Shortly thereafter, the Joint Petitioners requested that the Commission waive § 15.37(h) of the rules.

5. In light of the recent activity in the docket, The Commission conclude that there is good cause to grant a waiver of the June 2, 2015 U-NII device certification date. Doing so will give the Commission adequate time to consider the entire record—including the Joint Petitioners' “Consensus Proposal”—as part of the reconsideration proceeding, and it will continue to certify U-NII-3 band devices meeting the requirements of the old § 15.427 until December 2, 2015. A brief extension of the intermediate transition deadline will not frustrate the ultimate U-NII-3 transition adopted in the First R&O, including the Commission's determinations regarding the marketing, importation, and sale of digitally modulated and hybrid devices. Grant of the waiver, however, will permit manufacturers to better plan their research and design activities to comply with the outcome of any further action we may take on reconsideration.

6. Pursuant to the authority in § 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, and sections 302, 303(e), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 302, 303(e) and 303(r), IT is ordered that the § 15.37(h) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 15.37(h) is waived to the extent discussed above until December 2, 2015.

7. The effective date of the Order is June 1, 2015, the date upon which this Order was released by the Commission.

Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14806 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 17 [WT Docket No. 10-88; FCC 14-117] Amendments To Modernize and Clarify the Commission's Rules Concerning Construction, Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; announcement of effective date.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, certain information collection requirements associated with the Commission's Report and Order regarding Amendments to Modernize and Clarify the Commission's rules concerning construction, marking and lighting of antenna structures. This document is being published pursuant to the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the revised information collection requirements.

DATES:

Amendments to 47 CFR 17.4, 17.48 and 17.49, published at 79 FR 56968, September 24, 2014, are effective on July 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathy Williams by email at [email protected] and telephone at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document announces that, on May 13, 2015, OMB approved certain information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 14-117, published in 79 FR 56968, September 24, 2014. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0645. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of these information collection requirements.

Synopsis

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 13, 2015, for the revised information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 17.4, 17.48 and 17.49. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0645.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0645.

OMB Approval Date: May 13, 2015.

OMB Expiration Date: May 31, 2018.

Title: Sections 17.4, 17.48 and 17.49, Antenna Structure Registration Requirements.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 20,000 respondents; 475,134 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .1-.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, 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 Sections 4 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

Total Annual Burden: 50,198 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $64,380.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: This collection of information does not affect individuals or households; thus, there are no impacts under the Privacy Act. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission requested OMB approval for a revision of this information collection in order to obtain the full three year approval pursuant to FCC 14-117. These revised information collection requirements, which implement and enforce the updated antenna structure notice, registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of part 17 of the Commission's rules, help improve efficiency, reduce regulatory burdens, and enhance compliance with antenna structure painting and lighting requirements, while continuing to ensure the safety of pilots and aircraft passengers nationwide. The revised information collection requirements are as follows:

Section 17.4 provides that the owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires notice of proposed construction to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) due to physical obstruction must register the structure with the Commission. Section 17.4(f) previously required antenna structure owners “to immediately provide a copy” of the antenna structure registration to each tenant. This rule has been revised so that it now requires that antenna structure owners either provide a copy or a link to the FCC antenna structure Web site, and that this notification may be done electronically or via paper mail.

Section 17.4(g) previously required antenna structure owners to display the Antenna Structure Registration Number a conspicuous place that is readily visible near the base of the antenna. This rule has been revised to require that the Antenna Structure Number be displayed so that it is conspicuously visible and legible from the publicly accessible area nearest the base of the antenna structure along the publicly accessible roadway or path. It has also been revised to provide that where an antenna structure is surrounded by a perimeter fence, or where the point of access includes an access gate, the Antenna Structure Registration Number should be posted on the perimeter fence or access gate. Where multiple antenna structures having separate Antenna Structure Registration Numbers are located within a single fenced area, the revised rule provides that the Antenna Structure Registration Numbers must be posted both on the perimeter fence or access gate and near the base of each antenna structure. If the base of the antenna structure has more than one point of access, the revised rule requires that the Antenna Structure Registration Number be posted so that it is visible at the publicly accessible area nearest each such point of access. The registration number is issued to identify antenna structure owners in order to enforce the Congressionally-mandated provisions related to the owners.

Sections 17.48 and 17.49 contain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Section 17.48(a) required that antenna structure owners promptly report outages of top steady burning lights or flashing antenna structure lights to the FAA. Upon receipt of the outage notification, the FAA issues a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), which notifies aircraft of the outage. However, the FAA cancels all such notices within 15 days. Previously, the Commission's rules did not require antenna structure owners to provide any notification to the FAA regarding the status of repairs other than the initial outage report and the resumption of normal operation. Thus, if the repairs to an antenna structure's lights required more than 15 days, the FAA may not have had any record of the outage from that 15th day to the resumption of normal operation.

This rule has been revised to require antenna structure owners to provide the FAA with regular updates on the status of their repairs of lighting outages so that the FAA can maintain notifications to aircraft throughout the entire period of time the antenna structure remains unlit. Consistent with the current FAA requirements, if a lighting outage cannot be repaired within the FAA's original NOTAM period, the revised rule requires the antenna structure owner to notify the FAA of that fact. In addition, the revised rule provides that the antenna structure owner must provide any needed updates to its estimated return-to-service date to the FAA. The revised rule also requires antenna structure owners to continue to provide these updates to the FAA every NOTAM period until its lights are repaired.

Section 17.49 previously required antenna structure owners to maintain a record of observed or otherwise known extinguishments or improper functioning of structure lights, but did not specify the time period for which such records must be maintained. This rule has been revised to require antenna structure owners to maintain a record of observed or otherwise known extinguishments or improper functioning of structure lights for two years and provide the records to the Commission upon request.

Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16100 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 390 [Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0103] RIN 2126-AB44 Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers AGENCY:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION:

Extension of deadline for filing petitions for reconsideration.

SUMMARY:

FMCSA announces an extension of the deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration of its May 27, 2015, final rule concerning the lease and interchange of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) by motor carriers of passengers. The final rule provides regulations governing the lease and interchange of passenger-carrying CMVs to identify the motor carrier operating a passenger-carrying CMV that is responsible for compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and ensure that a lessor surrenders control of the CMV for the full term of the lease or temporary exchange of CMVs and drivers. The American Bus Association (ABA) and United Motorcoach Association (UMA) filed a joint request for an extension of the June 26, 2015, deadline for the submission of petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. The Agency grants the request and extends the deadline for submission of petitions for reconsideration from June 26 until August 25, 2015.

DATES:

Petitions for reconsideration must be filed in accordance with 49 CFR 389.35 by close of business on August 25, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Loretta Bitner, (202) 385-2428, [email protected], Office of Enforcement and Compliance. FMCSA office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 27, 2015 (80 FR 30164), FMCSA published a final rule concerning the lease and interchange of passenger-carrying CMVs to identify the motor carrier operating a passenger-carrying CMV that is responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs and ensure that a lessor surrenders control of the CMV for the full term of the lease or temporary exchange of CMVs and drivers. The Agency indicated that the final rule is necessary to ensure that unsafe passenger carriers cannot evade FMCSA oversight and enforcement by entering into a questionable lease arrangement to operate under the authority of another carrier that exercises no actual control over those operations. This rule will enable the FMCSA, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and our Federal and State partners to identify motor carriers transporting passengers in interstate commerce and correctly assign responsibility to these entities for regulatory violations during inspections, compliance investigations, and crash investigations. It also provides the general public with the means to identify the responsible motor carrier at the time transportation services are provided.

The effective date of the final rule is July 27, 2015, and the compliance date is January 1, 2017, for motor carriers of passengers operating CMVs under a lease or interchange agreement.

ABA and UMA Request

On June 18, the ABA and UMA submitted a joint request for a 60-day extension of the deadline for petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. The associations stated:

“In the wake of publication of the Final Rule, our members have raised a number of significant questions regarding the practical and operational applications of the rule's requirements necessary for the successful implementation of the rule.

The diversity or our [members'] operations, some of which are addressed directly by this rule and some of which are indirectly addressed, we believe, has led to unintended consequences or possibly inaccurate interpretations. Therefore, before we consider filing a petition for reconsideration, we initially would like to work with the Agency and seek clarification.”

The associations indicated that they are currently in the process of coordinating meetings with FMCSA to provide clarification of the various provisions in the final rule but those meetings are not likely to be completed before the June 26, 2015, deadline for petitions for reconsideration.

FMCSA Decision

FMCSA has considered the ABA and UMA request and believes that granting an extension of the deadline is appropriate. The extension will enable the associations to work with their members to better understand the final rule, seek clarification or guidance from FMCSA if necessary, and determine subsequently whether there are indeed substantive issues to be addressed through a petition for reconsideration. The Agency extends the deadline for submission for an additional 60 days to August 25, 2015.

Issued on: June 24, 2015. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-16111 Filed 6-26-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
80 126 Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1211 [Document No. AMS-FV-11-0074; PR-A2 and PR-B2] RIN 0581-AD24 Hardwood Lumber and Hardwood Plywood Promotion, Research and Information Order; Extension of Comment Period on Supplemental Notices AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the comment period on a supplemental notice to amend the 2013 proposed rule for a Hardwood Lumber and Hardwood Plywood Promotion, Research and Information Order (Order) is extended. Under the proposed Order, assessments would be collected from hardwood lumber and plywood manufacturers and would be used to fund programs to promote hardwood lumber and plywood. The comment period is also extended for the supplemental notice to amend the 2013 proposed rule on procedures for conducting a referendum to determine whether issuance of a proposed Order is favored by manufacturers of hardwood lumber and hardwood plywood.

DATES:

Comments must be received by September 7, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or to the Promotion and Economics Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; facsimile: (202) 205-2800. All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection, including the name and address if provided, in the above office during regular business hours or can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia A. Petrella, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (301) 334-2891; or facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The proposed rules on the Order and the referendum procedures were published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68298 and 78 FR 67979, respectively). Those rules proposed the establishment of an industry-funded promotion, research and information program for hardwood lumber and hardwood plywood and referendum procedures. Those proposals provided for a 60-day comment period which ended on January 13, 2014. On January 16, 2014, a notice was published in the Federal Register that reopened and extended the comment period on the proposed Order until February 18, 2014 (79 FR 2805). A total of 939 comments were received during both comment periods. As a result of the extensive comments received, USDA published supplemental notices of proposed rulemaking on the proposed Order and the referendum procedures in the Federal Register on June 9, 2015 (80 FR 32493 and 80 FR 32488, respectively) to amend the 2013 proposed rules.

USDA received a request to extend the comment period to allow additional time for interested persons to review the proposals and submit comments. USDA is therefore extending the comment period an additional 60 days until September 7, 2015 to provide interested persons more time to review these rules, perform a complete analysis, and submit written comments.

Authority:

This notice is issued pursuant to the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).

Dated: June 26, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-16184 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 1100, 1140, and 1143 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1514] RIN 0910-AH24 Nicotine Exposure Warnings and Child-Resistant Packaging for Liquid Nicotine, Nicotine-Containing E-Liquid(s), and Other Tobacco Products; Request for Comments AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to obtain information related to the regulation of “tobacco products” subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), and restrictions regarding the sale and distribution of such tobacco products. Specifically, this ANPRM is seeking comments, data, research results, or other information that may inform regulatory actions FDA might take with respect to nicotine exposure warnings and child-resistant packaging for liquid nicotine and nicotine-containing e-liquid(s) that are made or derived from tobacco and intended for human consumption, and potentially for other tobacco products including, but not limited to, novel tobacco products such as dissolvables, lotions, gels, and drinks. In April 2014, FDA published a proposed rule seeking to deem products meeting the statutory definition of “tobacco product,” except accessories to proposed deemed tobacco products, to be subject to the FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act. Specifically, the proposed rule seeks to extend the Agency's “tobacco product” authorities to those products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product,” prohibiting the sale of “covered tobacco products” to individuals under the age of 18, and requiring the display of health warnings on certain tobacco product packages and in advertisements. The deeming rulemaking does not address the issues raised in this ANPRM.

DATES:

Submit either electronic or written comments by August 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

Written Submissions

Submit written submissions in the following ways:

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1514 for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number(s), found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryant M. Godfrey, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 1-877-CTP-1373, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Tobacco Control Act was enacted on June 22, 2009, amending the FD&C Act and providing FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco products (Pub. L. 111-31). Specifically, section 101(b) of the Tobacco Control Act amends the FD&C Act by adding a new chapter that provides FDA with authority over tobacco products. Section 901 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387a), as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, states that the new chapter in the FD&C Act (chapter IX—Tobacco Products) (21 U.S.C. 387 through 387u) applies to all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and any other tobacco products that the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation deems to be subject to this chapter. Accordingly, in the Federal Register of April 25, 2014 (79 FR 23142), FDA published a proposed rule seeking to deem all products meeting the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), except accessories to those products, to be subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act.

FDA has evaluated data and science (including all of the evidence submitted to the docket of the proposed “deeming” rule cited below) related to the risks, especially to infants and children, from accidental exposure to nicotine, including exposure to liquid nicotine and nicotine-containing e-liquid(s), which are primarily used with electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), such as electronic cigarettes. Recent increases in calls and visits to both poison control centers (see, e.g., CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6313a4.htm) and emergency rooms in the United States involving liquid nicotine poisonings and exposures has increased the public health concerns of these exposure risks. As a result of FDA's evaluation and these recent trends, FDA is considering whether, based on the acute toxicity of nicotine (up to and including nicotine poisoning), it would be appropriate for the protection of the public health to warn the public about the dangers of nicotine exposure, especially due to inadvertent nicotine exposure in infants and children, and/or require that some tobacco products be sold in child-resistant packaging. Comments submitted in response to FDA's proposed rule seeking to deem all tobacco products to be subject to the FD&C Act support such actions, and many request that FDA take prompt action to mitigate nicotine exposure risks (see Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0189, http://www.regulations.gov).

As previously discussed, the FD&C Act provides FDA with authority to regulate tobacco products. Sections 906(d)(1) and 910(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act provide FDA the authority to, by regulation or in a marketing authorization order, require restrictions on the sale and distribution of a tobacco product. The restrictions on the sale and distribution of a tobacco product may include restrictions on the access to, and the advertising and promotion of, the tobacco product, if FDA determines such restrictions would be appropriate for the protection of the public health. The FD&C Act also provides FDA with authority to adopt a tobacco product standard under section 907 of the FD&C Act if the Secretary finds that it is appropriate for the protection of the public health.

In making such a finding under either section 906(d)(1) or section 907 of the FD&C Act, the Secretary must consider: (1) The risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of tobacco products; (2) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such products; and (3) the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using such products.

FDA intends to use the information submitted in response to this ANPRM to further inform its thinking about options for issuing potential regulations that would require nicotine exposure warnings and/or child-resistant packaging for some tobacco products, as articulated in this document. For the purposes of the questions in this ANPRM:

• “Liquid nicotine and nicotine-containing e-liquid(s) (liquid nicotine combined with colorings, flavorings, and/or potentially other ingredients)” are generally referred to as liquid nicotine.

• “Liquid nicotine” (as used throughout this document) refers to liquid nicotine that is made or derived from tobacco and intended for human consumption.

• “Novel tobacco products” (as used throughout this document) refers to products such as dissolvables, lotions, gels, and drinks.

II. Requests for Comments and Information

FDA is seeking comments, data, research results, and other information related to the following questions. Please explain your responses and provide any evidence or other information supporting your responses to the following questions:

A. Nicotine Exposure Warnings

1. Should FDA consider requiring nicotine exposure warning(s) text on liquid nicotine? If so, why?

2. Should FDA consider requiring nicotine exposure warning(s) text on tobacco products other than liquid nicotine, including, but not limited to, novel tobacco products? If so, which products and why?

3. On what basis (e.g., physical characteristics or appearance of the product or packaging, product risks, form of marketing, route of exposure, type of packaging) should FDA determine which products should be required to carry the warning(s)? What data or information would be helpful to demonstrate the need for a warning or warnings?

4. If FDA were to require nicotine exposure warning(s) text for liquid nicotine, what issues should the warning(s) address and what wording should be used? Please consider: (a) Whether the warning(s) should be broad, or directed at specific dangers; (b) whether the warning(s) should specifically address oral, ocular, and dermal exposure dangers; (c) whether the warning(s) should focus exclusively on the risks to children and youth, or include the risks to vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, adults with medical conditions, and pets; (d) whether the warning(s) should contain instructions to avoid the dangers altogether, such as “keep out of the reach of children”; (e) whether there are other dangers of liquid nicotine exposure that should be covered by the warning(s); and (f) whether information about what to do in the case of an accidental exposure to liquid nicotine should be included (e.g., when to seek medical attention, when to contact a Poison Control Center). Please submit data or evidence to support your position.

5. With preceding question 4 in mind, should there be multiple textual warnings that randomly display to convey different dangers, or should there be a single, consistent textual warning that covers all of the different dangers? Please submit data or evidence to support your position.

6. If FDA were to require nicotine exposure warning(s) text for tobacco products other than liquid nicotine, including, but not limited to, novel tobacco products, what issues should the warning(s) address and what wording should be used? Please consider: (a) Whether the warning(s) should be broad, or directed at specific dangers; (b) whether the warning(s) should specifically address oral, ocular, and dermal exposure dangers; (c) whether the warning(s) should focus exclusively on the risks to children and youth, or include the risks to vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, adults with medical conditions, and pets; (d) whether the warning(s) should contain instructions to avoid the dangers altogether, such as “keep out of the reach of children”; (e) whether there are other dangers of nicotine exposure that should be covered by the warning(s); and (f) whether information about what to do in the case of an accidental exposure to liquid nicotine should be included (e.g., when to seek medical attention, when to contact a Poison Control Center). Please submit data or evidence to support your position.

7. With preceding question 6 in mind, please respond to the following questions: Should there be multiple textual warnings that randomly display to convey different dangers, or should there be a single, consistent textual warning that covers all of the different dangers? Should different types of tobacco products carry different warnings? If so, which type(s) of tobacco products should carry what warning(s) and what is the reasoning for different warnings for different types of tobacco products? Please submit data or evidence to support your position.

8. If FDA were to require nicotine exposure warning(s) text for liquid nicotine, should FDA consider requiring color(s) or graphic elements, such as symbols, as part of the warning(s)? If so, what color or graphic elements should FDA consider?

(a) Are there data on graphic elements and/or colors that would be most effective in communicating the dangers associated with nicotine exposure? If so, please provide these data.

(b) Would a graphic element alone (as opposed to text alone or any combination of text, color, or graphic elements) be sufficient to effectively communicate the dangers associated with nicotine exposure? Please provide data or evidence to support your position.

(c) How could the warning(s) text and graphic image(s) add to or detract from each other?

9. If FDA were to require nicotine exposure warning(s) text for tobacco products other than liquid nicotine, including, but not limited to, novel tobacco products, should FDA consider requiring color(s) or graphic elements as part of the warning(s)? If so, what color or graphic elements should FDA consider?

(a) Are there data on graphics and/or colors that would be most effective in communicating the dangers associated with nicotine exposure? If so, please provide these data.

(b) Would a graphic image alone be sufficient to effectively communicate the dangers associated with nicotine exposure? Please provide data or evidence to support your position.

(c) How could the warning(s) text and graphic image(s) add to or detract from each other?

(d) Should different tobacco products carry different color or graphic elements? If so, what criteria should FDA use to determine which type of tobacco products should carry what color or graphic elements?

10. If FDA were to require a nicotine exposure warning(s) (text and any applicable color or graphic element) for liquid nicotine, should FDA adopt a different nicotine exposure warning(s) requirement based on the packaging/containers (e.g., a brief/abbreviated warning(s) for liquid nicotine in small packaging/containers, omit the warning(s) if the tobacco product is in a child-resistant package)? If so, how should the warning(s) differ? Please submit data or evidence to support your position.

11. With respect to tobacco products other than liquid nicotine, including, but not limited to, novel tobacco products, if FDA were to require a nicotine exposure warning(s) (text and any applicable color or graphic element), should FDA adopt a different nicotine exposure warning(s) requirement based on the packaging/containers (e.g., a brief/abbreviated warning(s) for tobacco products in small packaging, omit the warning(s) if the tobacco product is in a child-resistant package)? If so, how should the warning(s) differ? Please submit data or evidence to support your position.

12. Are you aware of data or information that would support any required font sizes, formatting, and display considerations for nicotine exposure warnings (textual and/or graphic)? If so, please provide that evidence.

13. Should FDA require the inclusion of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' telephone number on the container labeling and/or packaging of liquid nicotine and tobacco products other than liquid nicotine? Why or why not?

14. Are there any nicotine exposure warnings (textual and/or graphic) for liquid nicotine required by authorities at the local, State, or Federal (i.e., other agencies) level, or by foreign governments that you particularly would like to highlight? If so, which ones and why? Are there any data regarding the effectiveness or utility of these warnings? If so, please provide these data.

15. Are there any nicotine exposure warnings (textual and/or graphic) for tobacco products other than liquid nicotine required by authorities at the local, State, or Federal (i.e., other agencies) level, or by foreign governments that you particularly would like to highlight? If so, which ones and why? Are there any data regarding the effectiveness or utility of these warnings? If so, please provide these data.

16. Are you aware of any existing evidence regarding whether warnings (text and any applicable color or graphic element) are effective for mitigating the risks of nicotine exposure? If so, please provide that evidence.

B. Child-Resistant Packaging

1. Should FDA require child-resistant packaging for liquid nicotine? If so, why?

2. Should FDA require child-resistant packaging for liquid nicotine if the liquid nicotine product is not intended to be opened by the consumer (e.g., liquid nicotine in permanently sealed, prefilled, and/or disposable cartridges)? Please provide the reason for your response.

3. Should FDA consider requiring child-resistant packaging for tobacco products other than liquid nicotine, including, but not limited to, novel tobacco products? If so, which ones and why?

4. If FDA were to require child-resistant packaging for liquid nicotine (including for those products that are not intended to be opened by the consumer), what type of exposure risks (e.g., oral, ocular, dermal) should FDA seek to mitigate with the requirement?

5. If FDA were to require child-resistant packaging for tobacco products other than liquid nicotine, including, but not limited to, novel tobacco products, what risks (e.g., oral, ocular, dermal) should FDA seek to mitigate with the requirement?

6. If FDA were to require child-resistant packaging for liquid nicotine, how should the requirement be articulated? Please consider: (a) Whether the requirement should be based on mandated physical characteristics of the packaging (e.g., must have a squeeze-to-turn lid, flow restrictor); (b) whether the requirement should be performance based (e.g., unable to be opened by 80 percent or more of 5-year-olds who try to open the package, and more than 90 percent of adults on average between the ages of 50-70 can successfully open the package); or (c) whether the requirement should be based on a combination of (a) and (b), or is there some other basis for the requirement that FDA should consider? Is your proposal technically feasible? Please submit data or evidence to support your position.

7. If FDA were to require child-resistant packaging for tobacco products other than liquid nicotine, including, but not limited to, novel tobacco products, how should the requirement be articulated? Please consider: (a) Whether the requirement should be based on mandated physical characteristics of the packaging (e.g., must have a squeeze-to-turn lid, child-resistant cap, blister packaging); (b) whether the requirement should be performance based (e.g., unable to be opened by 80 percent or more of 5-year-olds who try to open the package, and more than 90 percent of adults on average between the ages of 50-70 can successfully open the package); or (c) whether the requirement should be based on a combination of (a) and (b), or is there some other basis for the requirement that FDA should consider? Is your proposal technically feasible? Please submit data or evidence to support your position.

8. Are there other factors FDA should consider to further prevent or discourage people (especially infants and children) from inadvertently consuming or being exposed to liquid nicotine? If so, please explain. Examples of other factors may include: attractiveness of the product or packaging (e.g., appealing images, fragrance, flavors), resemblance of packaging to food and drink items (e.g., candy, fruit), color of the product (e.g., resemblance to beverages such as juice), resemblance of packaging to that of medications (e.g., eye drops).

9. If FDA were to require child-resistant packaging, what should FDA consider and what actions should FDA take to mitigate the risk that users of products with child-resistant packaging will defeat the purpose of the packaging by leaving the packaging open, by disabling the protection mechanism, or by moving the product to a different container?

C. Other Actions and Considerations

1. With respect to liquid nicotine, should FDA require both nicotine exposure warnings (text and/or any applicable color or graphic element) and child-resistant packaging, or should only one and not the other be required? Please explain your reasoning and provide data or evidence to support your position.

2. With respect to tobacco products other than liquid nicotine, including, but not limited to, novel tobacco products, should FDA require both nicotine exposure warnings (text and/or any applicable color or graphic element) and child-resistant packaging, or should only one and not the other be required? Please explain your reasoning and provide data or evidence to support your position.

3. With respect to liquid nicotine and the dangers of nicotine poisoning, should FDA consider requiring any additional warnings beyond a nicotine exposure warning (text and/or any applicable color or graphic element)? If so, please describe the warning(s) (textual and/or graphic) and provide evidence or data to support your recommendation.

4. With respect to tobacco products other than liquid nicotine, including, but not limited to, novel tobacco products, and the dangers of nicotine poisoning, should FDA consider requiring any additional warnings beyond a nicotine exposure warning (text and/or any applicable color or graphic element)? If so, for which products? Also, please describe the warning(s) (textual and/or graphic) and provide evidence or data to support your recommendation.

5. Should FDA consider any additional measures to mitigate nicotine exposure risks for people (especially infants and children) beyond nicotine exposure warnings (text and any applicable color or graphic element) and child-resistant packaging? If so, what measures should FDA consider and why? Please provide evidence or data to support your recommendation.

III. Comments A. General Information About Submitting Comments

Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

B. Public Availability of Comments

Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. As a matter of Agency practice, FDA generally does not post comments submitted by individuals in their individual capacity on http://www.regulations.gov. This is determined by information indicating that the submission is written by an individual, for example, the comment is identified with the category “Individual Consumer” under the field entitled “Category (Required)”, on the “Your Information” page on http://www.regulations.gov; for this ANPRM, however, FDA will not be following this general practice. Instead, FDA will post on http://www.regulations.gov comments to this docket that have been submitted by individuals in their individual capacity. If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, please refer to 21 CFR 10.20.

C. Information Identifying the Person Submitting the Comment

Please note that your name, contact information, and other information identifying you will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov if you include that information in the body of your comments. For electronic comments submitted to http://www.regulations.gov, FDA will post the body of your comment on http://www.regulations.gov along with your State/province and country (if provided), the name of your representative (if any), and the category identifying you (e.g., individual, consumer, academic, industry). For written submissions submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post the body of your comments on http://www.regulations.gov, but you can put your name and/or contact information on a separate cover sheet and not in the body of your comments.

Dated: June 26, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-16151 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service 31 CFR Parts 315, 353, and 360 [Docket No.: FISCAL-2015-0002] RIN 1530-AA11 Regulations Governing United States Savings Bonds AGENCY:

Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, is proposing regulations governing United States savings bonds to address certain state escheat claims.

DATES:

Comment due date: August 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The Bureau of the Fiscal Service invites comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted through one of the following methods:

Electronic Submission of Comments: Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt, and enables the Department to make them available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public.

Mail: Send to Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Attn: Theodore Simms, 401 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20227-0001. In general, Treasury will post all comments to http://www.regulations.gov without change, including any business or personal information provided, such as names, addresses, email addresses, or telephone numbers. Treasury will also make such comments available for public inspection and copying. You can make an appointment to inspect comments by telephoning (202) 504-3710. All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, will be part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should only submit information that you wish to make publicly available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theodore C. Simms II, Senior Attorney, 202-504-3710 or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Department of the Treasury has issued savings bonds since 1935 to raise funds for the operation of the Federal government, and to encourage savings by small investors. From the beginning of the savings bond program, savings bonds have been registered securities. Treasury has authorized several forms of registration, including registration to individuals, co-owners, fiduciaries, institutions, and beneficiaries. See 31 CFR 315.7, 353.7, and 360.6. Savings bonds generally are not transferrable and are payable only to the registered owner, except as described in Treasury regulations. See 31 CFR 315.15, 353.15, and 360.15. Detailed regulations describe when payment will be made to a person or entity that is not the registered owner.

Ownership of a savings bond is determined by Treasury's savings bond regulations. Federal and state courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have upheld these ownership rights against challenges by parties asserting claims under state law. See, e.g., Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663 (1962). The rights of registered owners and others under Treasury regulations persist even for bonds that matured years ago, because Treasury does not require owners to redeem their paper savings bonds by a certain date.

In some cases, Treasury regulations determine who is entitled to payment based on state law. Treasury may look to state probate law, for example, to determine who is entitled to payment for savings bonds in a decedent's estate. See 31 CFR 315.71, 353.71, and 360.71. Treasury may also recognize certain state judicial proceedings that require payment to creditors, divorced spouses, and other claimants specifically listed in the regulations. See 31 CFR part 315, subpart E; Part 353, subpart E; part 360, subpart E. The touchstone for these claims, however, is Treasury's savings bond regulations.

Since at least 1952, Treasury has acknowledged circumstances when it will recognize a state's claim of title to savings bonds based on a judgment of escheat. “Escheat” describes a state's claim to property that has no owner. Many state probate laws allow a state to escheat the property of a person who dies without a will and without heirs. Treasury regulations do not specifically mention escheat, but they do provide that Treasury will pay a person entitled to the estate of a deceased savings bond owner in specified circumstances. When these circumstances are met, Treasury will pay a state that has title to savings bonds in the estate of a deceased owner. Like all claimants, the state must present the bonds to Treasury or otherwise meet Treasury's requirements for payment.

In recent years, states have submitted escheat claims to Treasury for savings bonds based on state unclaimed property laws, when there is no evidence that the savings bond owner has died. The first claims came from states whose escheat laws purported to give them custody, but not title, to certain unredeemed savings bonds. In 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld Treasury's position that states are not entitled to payment for savings bonds held only in their custody, because such claims interfere with the rights of registered owners and others under Treasury regulations. New Jersey v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 684 F.3d 382 (3rd Cir. 2012).

More recently, the State of Kansas submitted an escheat claim based upon a state court judgment that purported to convey title over certain unredeemed savings bonds. Kansas sought to redeem savings bonds in its possession, which had been turned over to the state as unclaimed property, and to redeem a much larger class of savings bonds that it did not possess. In this class are matured, unredeemed savings bonds that were registered to an owner with an address in Kansas, generally more than thirty years ago. Kansas cannot identify who owns these bonds, where the owners currently reside, or whether the owners intend to redeem their bonds in the future. The physical bonds themselves may be in their owners' possession. Kansas asserted that Treasury was bound to accept its claim because the state court judgment was a valid judicial proceeding, citing 31 CFR 315.20.

The savings bond regulations do not require Treasury to recognize the Kansas escheat judgment. However, Treasury does acknowledge that a savings bond can be abandoned, with no one entitled to payment under Treasury regulations. Treasury agreed to redeem the savings bonds that Kansas possessed using Treasury's waiver authority under 31 CFR 315.90, after reviewing evidence showing that the bonds had been abandoned, and determining that redemption would not impair any existing rights or subject the United States to any substantial expense or liability. In addition to other facts presented by the state, Kansas's possession of the bonds was evidence of abandonment, as well as a guarantee that no one else could submit the bonds for payment.

Treasury did not redeem the broad class of savings bonds that Kansas did not possess. Because Treasury regulations do not require a savings bond owner to redeem bonds by a certain date, a bond is not abandoned merely because it has not been redeemed. Treasury's standard procedures for redeeming savings bonds allow the registered owner to present a matured bond for payment at any time, irrespective of state law. Recognizing Kansas's escheat claim to bonds that it does not possess, and cannot establish are abandoned, would impair the rights of registered owners and others under Treasury regulations, and expose Treasury to claims for double payment.

Kansas sued Treasury in the United States Court of Federal Claims, seeking payment for all matured, unredeemed savings bonds with registration addresses in Kansas that were issued between 1935 and 1974, as well as other relief. At issue in the ongoing litigation is whether Treasury's savings bond regulations at 31 CFR 315.20 require Treasury to recognize the Kansas escheat judgment. Although the regulations do not require Treasury to recognize a state escheat judgment for unclaimed property, especially a judgment that interferes with existing rights, Treasury is proposing to amend 31 CFR 315.20 and other sections to address issues that arise from state escheat claims.

II. This Proposed Rule

Treasury proposes to amend its savings bond regulations to explicitly address state escheat claims to unclaimed savings bonds. The amendments would be published at part 315, subparts E and O; part 353, subparts E and O; and part 360, subparts E and M.

One group of amendments further defines the scope of the judicial proceedings covered by subpart E in parts 315, 353, and 360. The proposed amendments explicitly provide that escheat proceedings will not be recognized under subpart E.

A second group of amendments establishes a new procedure for states to submit escheat claims under their unclaimed property statutes for Treasury's consideration. The proposed regulations provide Treasury with discretion to recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a state with title to a definitive savings bond that has reached the final extended maturity date and is in the state's possession, when the state presents evidence satisfactory to Treasury that the bond has been abandoned by all persons entitled to payment under Treasury regulations. Escheat judgments that purport to vest a state with title to bonds that the state does not possess will not be recognized.

The proposed regulations would require a state to demonstrate, at a minimum, that it made reasonable efforts to provide actual and constructive notice of the escheat proceeding to all persons listed on the face of the bond and all persons who may have an interest in the bond. The state must also demonstrate that those persons had an opportunity to be heard before the escheat judgment was entered. The steps normally required in a state escheat proceeding may be adequate to establish abandonment, but Treasury is not bound by these proceedings. Because state escheat rules may vary and state escheat proceedings are often uncontested, Treasury reserves the right to require additional evidence of abandonment. Under the proposed regulations, if a state seeks to redeem bonds in its possession to which it has obtained title via escheat, the proceeding must have provided notice and an opportunity to be heard to those who the state claims have abandoned their right to payment. Treasury may also require a bond of indemnity, with or without surety, in any case for the protection of the United States' interests. See 31 CFR 315.91, 353.91, and 360.91.

The proposed regulations make explicit that Treasury will not recognize escheat judgments that convey custody, but not title, to a state. This principle is well established in Federal case law and has been incorporated into the proposed regulation.

Treasury proposes to recognize escheat judgments regarding bonds in a state's possession as a discretionary matter, because the breadth of state escheat laws is not within Treasury's control. In exercising discretion, Treasury will consider whether a state's escheat claim impairs any existing rights under Treasury regulations and will assess the risk to Treasury of duplicative payment claims. Requiring states to possess the bonds that they seek to redeem protects these interests, and enables Treasury to locate records of the bonds for which the state seeks payment.

The proposed regulations on escheat claims to unclaimed property do not apply when a state claims title to a definitive savings bond as the heir to a deceased owner. Treasury has long recognized circumstances in which a state may obtain title to a savings bond by escheat when the bond owner has died. These escheat claims will be considered under existing savings bond regulations that pertain to the estates of deceased owners, co-owners, and beneficiaries. See 31 CFR part 315, subpart L; part 353, subpart L; and part 360, subpart L.

III. Procedural Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Because this proposed rule relates to United States securities, which are contracts between Treasury and the owner of the security, this rulemaking falls within the contract exception to the APA at 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Treasury, however, is voluntarily seeking public comment to assist the agency in giving full consideration to the matters discussed in the proposed rule.

B. Congressional Review Act (CRA).

This proposed rule is not a major rule pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. It is not expected to lead to any of the results listed in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This proposed rule may take immediate effect after we submit a copy of it to Congress and the Comptroller General.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

There is no new collection of information contained in this proposed rule that would be subject to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under the PRA, 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 OMB control number.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., does not apply to this rulemaking because, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), issuance does not require notice and opportunity for public comment. Nonetheless, this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking primarily affects states and is not expected to have a direct impact on any small entities. The proposed rule formally states Treasury's existing interpretation of the savings bond regulations as they apply to escheat claims, and proposes a new procedure through which states can submit claims to Treasury. Treasury is voluntarily seeking public comment in order to give thorough consideration to a range of views on state escheat claims before issuing the final rule.

E. Executive Order 12866.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action pursuant to Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 315

Government securities, Savings bonds.

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 353

Government securities, Savings bonds.

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 360

Government securities, Savings bonds.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury proposes to amend 31 CFR part 315 subparts E and O; part 353 subparts E and O; and part 360 subparts E and M to read as follows:

PART 315—REGULATIONS GOVERNING U.S. SAVINGS BONDS, SERIES A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, AND K, AND U.S. SAVINGS NOTES 1. The authority citation for part 315 continues to read as follows: Authority:

31 U.S.C. 3105 and 5 U.S.C. 301.

2. Amend § 315.20 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 315.20 General

(b) The Department of the Treasury will recognize a claim against an owner of a savings bond and conflicting claims of ownership of, or interest in, a bond between coowners or between the registered owner and the beneficiary, if established by valid, judicial proceedings specifically listed in this subpart. Escheat proceedings will not be recognized under this subpart. Section 315.23 specifies the evidence required to establish the validity of the judicial proceedings.

3. Redesignate subpart O as subpart P and add a new subpart O to read as follows: Subpart O—Escheat and Unclaimed Property Claims by States Sec. 315.88 Payment to a State claiming title to abandoned bonds.
§ 315.88 Payment to a State claiming title to abandoned bonds.

(a) General. The Department of the Treasury may, in its discretion, recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a State with title to a definitive savings bond that has reached the final extended maturity date and is in the State's possession, when the State presents evidence satisfactory to Treasury that the bond has been abandoned by all persons entitled to payment under Treasury regulations. A State claiming title to a definitive savings bond as the heir to a deceased owner must comply with the requirements of subpart L, and not this section. Treasury will not recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a State with title to a bond that has not reached its final extended maturity date. Treasury also will not recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a State with title to a bond that the State does not possess, or a judgment that purports to grant the State custody of a bond, but not title.

(b) Due Process. At a minimum, a State requesting payment under this section must demonstrate to Treasury's satisfaction that it made reasonable efforts to provide actual and constructive notice of the escheat proceeding to all persons listed on the face of the bond and all persons who may have an interest in the bond, and that those persons had an opportunity to be heard before the escheat judgment was entered.

(c) Fulfillment of Obligation. Payment to a State claiming title under this section fulfills the United States' obligations to the same extent as if payment had been made to the registered owner.

PART 353—REGULATIONS GOVERNING DEFINITIVE UNITED STATES SAVINGS BONDS, SERIES EE AND HH 1. The authority for this part continues to read: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 12 U.S.C. 391; 31 U.S.C. 3105, 3125.

2. Amend § 353.20 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 353.20 General .

(b) The Department of the Treasury will recognize a claim against an owner of a savings bond and conflicting claims of ownership of, or interest in, a bond between coowners or between the registered owner and the beneficiary, if established by valid, judicial proceedings specifically listed in this subpart. Escheat proceedings will not be recognized under this subpart. Section 353.23 specifies the evidence required to establish the validity of the judicial proceedings.

3. Redesignate subpart O as subpart P and add a new subpart O to read as follows: Subpart O—Escheat and Unclaimed Property Claims by States Sec. 353.88 Payment to a State claiming title to abandoned bonds.
§ 353.88 Payment to a State claiming title to abandoned bonds.

(a) General. The Department of the Treasury may, in its discretion, recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a State with title to a definitive savings bond that has reached final maturity and is in the State's possession, when the State presents evidence satisfactory to Treasury that the bond has been abandoned by all persons entitled to payment under Treasury regulations. A State claiming title to a definitive savings bond as the heir to a deceased owner must comply with the requirements of subpart L, and not this section. Treasury will not recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a State with title to a bond that has not reached its final maturity. Treasury also will not recognize escheat judgments that purport to vest a State with title to a bond that the State does not possess, or judgments that purport to grant the State custody of a bond, but not title.

(b) Due Process. At a minimum, a State requesting payment under this section must demonstrate to Treasury's satisfaction that it made reasonable efforts to provide actual and constructive notice of the escheat proceeding to all persons listed on the face of the bond and all persons who may have an interest in the bond, and that those persons had an opportunity to be heard before the escheat judgment was entered.

(c) Fulfillment of Obligation. Payment to a State claiming title under this section fulfills the United States' obligations to the same extent as if payment had been made to the registered owner.

PART 360—REGULATIONS GOVERNING DEFINITIVE UNITED STATES SAVINGS BONDS, SERIES I 1. The authority for this part continues to read: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 3105 and 3125.

2. Amend § 360.20 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 360.20 General

(b) The Department of the Treasury will recognize a claim against an owner of a savings bond and conflicting claims of ownership of, or interest in, a bond between coowners or between the registered owner and the beneficiary, if established by valid, judicial proceedings specifically listed in this subpart. Escheat proceedings will not be recognized under this subpart. Section 360.23 specifies the evidence required to establish the validity of the judicial proceedings.

3. Redesignate subpart M as subpart N and add a new subpart M to read as follows: Subpart M—Escheat and Unclaimed Property Claims by States Sec. 360.77 Payment to a State claiming title to abandoned bonds.
§ 360.77 Payment to a State claiming title to abandoned bonds.

(a) General. The Department of the Treasury may, in its discretion, recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a State with title to a definitive savings bond that has stopped earning interest and is in the State's possession, when the State presents evidence satisfactory to Treasury that the bond has been abandoned by all persons entitled to payment under Treasury regulations. A State claiming title to a definitive savings bond as the heir to a deceased owner must comply with the requirements of subpart L of this part, and not this section. Treasury will not recognize an escheat judgment that purports to vest a State with title to a bond that is still earning interest. Treasury also will not recognize escheat judgments that purport to vest a State with title to a bond that the State does not possess, or judgments that purport to grant the State custody of a bond, but not title.

(b) Due Process. At a minimum, a State requesting payment under this section must demonstrate to Treasury's satisfaction that it made reasonable efforts to provide actual and constructive notice of the escheat proceeding to all persons listed on the face of the bond and all persons who may have an interest in the bond, and that those persons had an opportunity to be heard before the escheat judgment was entered.

(c) Fulfillment of Obligation. Payment to a State claiming title under this section fulfills the United States' obligations to the same extent as if payment had been made to the registered owner.

Dated: June 26, 2015. David A. Lebryk, Fiscal Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16278 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AS-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0332] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety zone; Allegheny River Between Mile 0.0 and 1.4; Pittsburgh, PA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone on the Allegheny River mile 0.0 to mile 1.4 from 5:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. on August 8, 2015 and August 9, 2015. This safety zone is needed to protect persons participating in the Pittsburgh Triathlon. Entry into this zone will be prohibited to all vessels, mariners, and persons unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

DATES:

Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:

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

(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (412) 221-0807, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking SAR Search and Rescue A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0332] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0332) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

3. Privacy Act

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard has a long history working with local, state, and federal agencies in areas to improve emergency response, to prepare for events that call for swift action, and to protect our nation. The Coast Guard is proposing to establish this safety zone on the waters of the Allegheny River for the Pittsburgh Triathlon. The marine event is scheduled to take place from 5:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. on August 8, 2015 and August 9, 2015. This proposed rule is necessary to protect the safety of the participants, spectators, commercial traffic, and the general public on the navigable waters of the United States during the event.

C. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis and authorities for this proposed rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define safety zones. The purpose of this proposed safety zone is to protect the participants of the Pittsburgh Triathlon during the swim portion of the event from the hazards of other vessels in the water.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

This proposed rule is necessary to establish a safety zone that will encompass all waters of the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The proposed safety zone regulations would be enforced from approximately 5:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. for approximately 3 hours on August 8, 2015 and August 9, 2015. As proposed, the safety zone would be a complete closure on the Allegheny River from mile 0.0 to mile 1.4 from 5:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. on August 8, 2015 and August 9, 2015. All persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the triathlon and those vessels enforcing the areas, would be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the proposed safety zone area.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas by contacting the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh by telephone at (412) 221-0807, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The temporary safety zone listed in this proposed rule will restrict vessel traffic from entering, transiting, or anchoring within a portion of the Allegheny River. The effect of this proposed regulation will not be significant for several reasons: (1) The amount of time the Allegheny River will be closed (2) the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal because notifications to the marine community will be made through local notice to mariners (LNM) and broadcast notice to mariners (BNM). Therefore, these notifications will allow the public to plan operations around the proposed safety zone and its enforcement times.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Allegheny River from mile 0.0 to mile 1.4 effective from 5:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. on August 8, 2015 and August 9, 2015. This proposed safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this proposed rule will impede navigational traffic for a short period of time. Traffic in this area is almost entirely limited to recreational vessels and commercial towing vessels. Notifications to the marine community will be made through BNMs and electronic mail. Notices of changes to the proposed safety zone and scheduled effective times and enforcement periods will also be made. Deviation from the proposed restrictions may be requested from the COTP or designated representative and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rulemaking would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone. The safety zone will be on the Allegheny River mile 0.0 to mile 1.4 from 5:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. on August 8, 2015 and August 9, 2015. This action is necessary to protect persons and property during the Pittsburgh Triathlon. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. A new temporary § 165.T08-0332 is added to subpart F, under the undesignated center heading Eighth Coast Guard District, to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0332 Safety Zone; Allegheny River between mile 0.0 and 1.4; Pittsburgh, PA.

(a) Locations. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters on the Allegheny River mile 0.0 to mile 1.4.

(b) Effective date and time. The safety zone listed in section (a) is effective from 5:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. on August 8, 2015 and August 9, 2015.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

(2) Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the safety zones at a minimum safe speed, but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede participants or official patrol vessels.

(3) Vessels requiring entry into or passage through the safety zones must request permission from the COTP Pittsburgh or a designated representative. They may be contacted by telephone at (412) 412-0807.

(4) All vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Pittsburgh and designated personnel. Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.

(d) Informational Broadcasts: The Captain of the Port, Pittsburgh or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners (BNM) of the effective period for the safety zone and of any changes in the effective period, enforcement times, or size of the safety zones.

Dated: June 10, 2015. L. N. Weaver, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2015-16258 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 957 Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to Debarment From Contracting AGENCY:

Postal Service.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

This document requests comments regarding a revision of the rules for proceedings in which the Judicial Officer Department conducts fact-finding relative to debarments. The revised rules of procedure would completely replace and supersede the prior rules.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

Judicial Officer Department, United States Postal Service, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Associate Judicial Officer Gary E. Shapiro, (703) 812-1910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The rules governing the Judicial Officer's role regarding Postal Service debarments are set forth in 39 CFR part 957. The proposed rules would completely replace the former rules of this part.

In 2007, the Postal Service changed its procurement regulations regarding suspension and debarment from contracting. See 72 FR 58252 (October 15, 2007). Whereas prior to that change, the Judicial Officer conducted hearings and rendered final agency decisions regarding suspension and debarment from contracting, the revised procurement regulations at 39 CFR 601.113 eliminated any role of the Judicial Officer from suspensions, and reserved final agency action regarding debarments to the Vice President, Supply Management. The remaining role of the Judicial Officer relative to debarment from contracting is set forth in paragraphs (g)(2) and (h)(2) of § 601.113. Those paragraphs provide that the Vice President, Supply Management, may request the Judicial Officer to conduct fact-finding hearings to resolve questions of material facts involving a debarment, and will consider those findings when deciding the matter. Under paragraph (h)(2) of § 601.113, fact-finding hearings will be governed by rules of procedure promulgated by the Judicial Officer. These rules of procedure satisfy that requirement.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 957

Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service proposes to revise 39 CFR part 957 to read as follows:

PART 957—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO DEBARMENT FROM CONTRACTING Sec. 957.1 Authority for rules. 957.2 Scope of rules. 957.3 Definitions. 957.4 Authority of the Hearing Officer. 957.5 Case initiation. 957.6 Filing documents for the record. 957.7 Failure to appear at the hearing. 957.8 Hearings. 957.9 Appearances. 957.10 Conduct of the hearing. 957.11 Witness fees. 957.12 Transcript. 957.13 Proposed findings of fact. 957.14 Findings of fact. 957.15 Computation of time. 957.16 Official record. 957.17 Public information. 957.18 Ex parte communications. Authority:

39 U.S.C. 204, 401.

§ 957.1 Authority for rules.

The rules in this part are issued by the Judicial Officer of the Postal Service pursuant to authority delegated by the Postmaster General (39 U.S.C. 204, 401).

§ 957.2 Scope of rules.

The rules in this part apply to proceedings initiated pursuant to paragraphs (g)(2) or (h)(2) of § 601.113 of this chapter.

§ 957.3 Definitions.

(a) Vice President means the Vice President, Supply Management, or the Vice President's representative for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of § 601.113 of this chapter.

(b) General Counsel includes the Postal Service's General Counsel and any designated representative within the Office of the General Counsel.

(c) Judicial Officer includes the Postal Service's Judicial Officer, Associate Judicial Officer, and Acting Judicial Officer.

(d) Debarment has the meaning given by paragraph (b)(2) of § 601.113 of this chapter.

(e) Respondent means any individual, firm or other entity which has been served a written notice of proposed debarment pursuant to paragraph (h), or which previously has been debarred, as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of § 601.113 of this chapter.

(f) Hearing Officer means the judge assigned to the case by the Judicial Officer. The Hearing Officer may be the Judicial Officer, Associate Judicial Officer, Administrative Law Judge or an Administrative Judge who is a member of the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals.

(g) Recorder means the Recorder of the Judicial Officer Department of the United States Postal Service, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078. The Recorder's telephone number is (703) 812-1900, fax number is (703) 812-1901, and the Judicial Officer's Web site is http://www.about.usps.com/who-we-are/judicial/welcome.htm.

§ 957.4 Authority of the Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer's authority includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) Ruling on all motions or requests by the parties.

(b) Issuing notices, orders or memoranda to the parties concerning the hearing proceedings.

(c) Conducting conferences with the parties. The Hearing Officer will prepare a Memorandum of Conference, which will be transmitted to both parties and which serves as the official record of that conference.

(d) Determining whether an oral hearing will be conducted, and setting the place, date, and time for such a hearing.

(e) Administering oaths or affirmations to witnesses.

(f) Conducting the proceedings and the hearing in a manner to maintain discipline and decorum while ensuring that relevant, reliable and probative evidence is elicited, but irrelevant, immaterial or repetitious evidence is excluded. The Hearing Officer in his or her discretion may examine witnesses to ensure that a satisfactory record is developed.

(g) Establishing the record. The weight to be attached to evidence will rest within the discretion of the Hearing Officer. Except as the Hearing Officer may otherwise order, no proof shall be received in evidence after completion of a hearing. The Hearing Officer may require either party, with appropriate notice to the other party, to submit additional evidence on any relevant matter.

(h) Granting reasonable time extensions or other relief for good cause shown, in the Hearing Officer's sole discretion.

(i) Issuing findings of fact. The Hearing Officer will issue findings of fact to the Vice President within 30 days from the close of the record, to the extent practicable.

§ 957.5 Case initiation.

(a) Upon receipt of a request or referral from the Vice President, the Recorder will docket a case under this Part. Following docketing, the Judicial Officer will assign a Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer will establish the schedule for the proceeding, perform all judicial duties under this Part and render Findings of Fact. Whenever practicable, a hearing should be conducted within 30 days of the date of docketing.

(b) The request or referral from the Vice President shall include the notice of proposed debarment and the information or argument submitted by the Respondent pursuant to paragraphs (g) or (h) of § 601.113 of this chapter.

§ 957.6 Filing documents for the record.

The parties shall file documents, permitted by the rules in this part or required by the Hearing Officer, in the Judicial Officer Department's electronic filing system. The Web site for electronic filing is https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb. Documents submitted using that system are considered filed as of the date and time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Orders issued by the Hearing Officer shall be considered received by the parties on the date posted to the electronic filing system.

§ 957.7 Failure to appear at the hearing.

If a party fails to appear at the hearing, the Hearing Officer may proceed with the hearing, receive evidence and issue findings of fact without requirement of further notice to the absent party.

§ 957.8 Hearings.

Hearings ordinarily will be conducted in the Judicial Officer Department courtroom at 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078. However, the Hearing Officer, in his or her discretion, may order the hearing to be conducted at another location, or by another means such as by video.

§ 957.9 Appearances.

(a) An individual Respondent may appear in his or her own behalf, a corporation may appear by an officer thereof, a partnership or joint venture may appear by a member thereof, or any of these may appear by a licensed attorney.

(b) After a request for a hearing has been filed pursuant to the rules in this part, the General Counsel shall designate a licensed attorney as counsel assigned to handle the case.

(c) All counsel, or a self-represented Respondent, shall register in the electronic filing system, and request to be added to the case. Counsel also promptly shall file notices of appearance.

(d) An attorney for any party who has filed a notice of appearance and who wishes to withdraw must file a motion requesting withdrawal, explaining the reasons supporting the motion, and identifying the name, email address, mailing address, telephone number, and fax number of the person who will assume responsibility for representation of the party in question.

§ 957.10 Conduct of the hearing.

The Hearing Officer may approve or disapprove witnesses in his or her discretion. All testimony will be taken under oath or affirmation, and subject to cross-examination. The Hearing Officer may exclude evidence to avoid unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, undue delay, waste of time, or presentation of irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative evidence. Although the Hearing Officer will consider the Federal Rules of Evidence for guidance regarding admissibility of evidence and other evidentiary issues, he or she is not bound by those rules. The weight to be attached to evidence presented in any particular form will be within the discretion of the Hearing Officer, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the particular case. Stipulations of fact agreed upon by the parties may be accepted as evidence at the hearing. The parties may stipulate the testimony that would be given by a witness if the witness were present. The Hearing Officer may in any case require evidence in addition to that offered by the parties. A party requiring the use of a foreign language interpreter allowing testimony to be taken in English for itself or witnesses it proffers is responsible for making all necessary arrangements and paying all costs and expenses associated with the use of an interpreter.

§ 957.11 Witness fees.

Each party is responsible for the fees and costs for its own witnesses.

§ 957.12 Transcript.

Testimony and argument at hearings shall be reported verbatim, unless the Hearing Officer otherwise orders. Transcripts of the proceedings will be made available or provided to the parties.

§ 957.13 Proposed findings of fact.

(a) The Hearing Officer may direct the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and supporting explanations within 15 days after the delivery of the official transcript to the Recorder who shall notify both parties of the date of its receipt. The filing date for proposed findings shall be the same for both parties.

(b) Proposed findings of fact shall be set forth in numbered paragraphs and shall state with particularity all evidentiary facts in the record with appropriate citations to the transcript or exhibits supporting the proposed findings.

§ 957.14 Findings of fact.

The Hearing Officer shall issue written findings of fact, and transmit them to the Vice President. Copies will be sent to the parties.

§ 957.15 Computation of time.

A designated period of time under the rules in this part excludes the day the period begins, and includes the last day of the period unless the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the close of business on the next business day.

§ 957.16 Official record.

The transcript of testimony together with all pleadings, orders, exhibits, briefs, and other documents filed in the proceeding shall constitute the official record of the proceeding.

§ 957.17 Public information.

The Postal Service shall maintain for public inspection copies of all findings of fact issued under this Part, and make them available through the Postal Service Web site. The Recorder maintains the complete official record of every proceeding.

§ 957.18 Ex parte communications.

The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 551(14), 556(d), and 557(d) prohibiting ex parte communications are made applicable to proceedings under these rules of practice.

Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-16143 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Parts 961, 966 Rules of Practice Before the Judicial Officer AGENCY:

Postal Service.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

This document proposes to amend the rules of practice prescribed by the Judicial Officer relative to debt collection proceedings against current and former postal employees. These amendments are necessary to implement a new electronic filing system.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

Postal Service Judicial Officer Department, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Associate Judicial Officer Gary E. Shapiro, (703) 812-1910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The Judicial Officer Department recently implemented an electronic filing system. Changes to the rules of practice concerning debt collection proceedings against current and former postal employees (39 CFR parts 961 and 966, respectively) are necessary to accommodate the new system, and to establish rules relative to that system. No other changes to the rules are proposed.

B. Explanation of Changes Amendments to 39 CFR Part 961

In § 961.4, concerning filing a petition:

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

• Paragraph (b) is amended to indicate that a sample petition is available through the electronic filing system.

In § 961.6, concerning the filing, docketing and serving of documents, paragraph (a) is amended to indicate when documents submitted by parties are considered received, and to indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

Amendments to 39 CFR Part 966

In § 966.4, concerning filing a petition:

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

• Paragraph (d) is amended to indicate that a sample petition is available through the electronic filing system.

In § 966.6, concerning the filing, docketing and serving of documents, paragraph (a) is amended to indicate when documents submitted by parties are considered received, and to indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

List of Subjects 39 CFR Part 961

Claims, Government employees, Wages.

39 CFR Part 966

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Government employees, Wages.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service proposes to amend 39 CFR parts 961 and 966 as follows:

PART 961—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 961 continues to read as follows: Authority:

39 U.S.C. 204, 401; 5 U.S.C. 5514.

2. In § 961.4, revise the first sentence of paragraph (a), and add a sentence at the beginning of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 961.4 Employee petition for a hearing.

(a) If an employee desires a hearing, prescribed by section 5 of the Debt Collection Act, to challenge the Postal Service's determination of the existence or amount of a debt, or to challenge the involuntary repayment terms proposed by the Postal Service, the employee must file a written petition electronically at https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb, or by mail at Recorder, Judicial Officer Department, United States Postal Service, 2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078, on or before the fifteenth (15th) calendar day following the receipt of the Postal Service's “Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets Under the Debt Collection Act.” * * *

(b) A sample petition is available through the Judicial Officer Electronic Filing Web site (https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb).* * *

3. Revise paragraph (a) of § 961.6 to read as follows:
§ 961.6 Filing, docketing and serving documents; computation of time; representation of parties.

(a) Filing. After a petition is filed, all documents relating to the Debt Collection Act hearing proceedings must be filed using the electronic filing system unless the Hearing Official permits otherwise. Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours (Normal Recorder office business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., Eastern Time). If both parties are participating via the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail on the opposing party, noting on the document filed, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been so furnished.

PART 966—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFSETS INITIATED AGAINST FORMER EMPLOYEES OF THE POSTAL SERVICE 4. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 966 continues to read as follows: Authority:

31 U.S.C. 3716; 39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 2601.

5. In § 966.4, revise paragraph (c), and add a sentence at the beginning of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 966.4 Petition for a hearing and supplement to petition.

(c) Within thirty (30) calendar days after the date of receipt of the Accounting Service Center's decision upon reconsideration, after the expiration of sixty (60) calendar days after a request for reconsideration where a reconsideration determination is not made, or following an administrative offset taken without prior notice and opportunity for reconsideration pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the former employee must file a written petition electronically at https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb, or by mail at Recorder, Judicial Officer Department, United States Postal Service, 2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078.

(d) A sample petition is available through the Judicial Officer Electronic Filing Web site (https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb).* * *

6. Revise paragraph (a) of § 966.6 to read as follows:
§ 966.6 Filing, docketing and serving documents; computation of time; representation of parties.

(a) Filing. After a petition is filed, all documents required under this part must be filed using the electronic filing system unless the Hearing Official permits otherwise. Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours (Normal Recorder office business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., Eastern Time). If both parties are participating via the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail on the opposing party, noting on the document filed, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been so furnished.

Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-16141 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [4500030115] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 31 Petitions AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on various petitions to list 30 species and one petition that describes itself as a petition to reclassify one species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that eight petitions do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we find that one petition does not present substantial information that the petitioned entity may be a listable entity under the Act, and we find that one petition does not present substantial information that the petitioned entity may be a listable entity under the Act and does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and we are not initiating status reviews in response to these petitions. We refer to these as “not-substantial petition findings.” Based on our review, we find that 21 petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we are initiating a review of the status of each of these species to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding these species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings on the petitions, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES:

To allow us adequate time to conduct the status reviews, we request that we receive information on or before August 31, 2015. Information submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

ADDRESSES:

Not-substantial petition findings: The not-substantial petition findings announced in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see Table 1, below). Supporting information in preparing these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Table 1—Not-Substantial Petition Findings Species Docket No. Docket link Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander FWS-R4-ES-2015-0042 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0042 Caddo Mountain salamander FWS-R4-ES-2015-0043 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0043 California giant salamander FWS-R8-ES-2015-0044 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0044 Colorado checkered whiptail FWS-R6-ES-2015-0048 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R6-ES-2015-0048 Distinct population segment of North American wild horse FWS-R8-ES-2015-0049 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0049 Gray wolf, excluding Mexican wolf, in the conterminous U.S. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0072 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0072 Olympic torrent salamander FWS-R1-ES-2015-0056 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R1-ES-2015-0056 Pigeon Mountain salamander FWS-R4-ES-2015-0058 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0058 Weller's salamander FWS-R4-ES-2015-0065 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0065 Wingtail crayfish FWS-R4-ES-2015-0067 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0067

Status reviews: You may submit information on species for which a status review is being initiated (see Table 2, below) by one of the following methods:

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see Table 2, below). Then click the Search button. You may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see table below]; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information section, below, for more details).

Table 2—Substantial Petition Findings Species Docket number Docket link Alligator snapping turtle FWS-R4-ES-2015-0038 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0038 Apalachicola kingsnake FWS-R4-ES-2015-0039 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0039 Arizona toad FWS-R2-ES-2015-0040 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R2-ES-2015-0040 Blanding's turtle FWS-R3-ES-2015-0041 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R3-ES-2015-0041 Cascade Caverns salamander FWS-R2-ES-2015-0045 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R2-ES-2015-0045 Cascades frog FWS-R1-ES-2015-0046 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R1-ES-2015-0046 Cedar Key mole skink FWS-R4-ES-2015-0047 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0047 Foothill yellow-legged frog FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050 Gopher frog FWS-R4-ES-2015-0051 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0051 Green salamander FWS-R4-ES-2015-0052 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0052 Illinois chorus frog FWS-R3-ES-2015-0053 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R3-ES-2015-0053 Kern Canyon slender salamander FWS-R8-ES-2015-0054 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0054 Key ringneck snake FWS-R4-ES-2015-0055 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0055 Oregon slender salamander FWS-R1-ES-2015-0057 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R1-ES-2015-0057 Relictual slender salamander FWS-R8-ES-2015-0059 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0059 Rim Rock crowned snake FWS-R4-ES-2015-0060 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0060 Rio Grande cooter FWS-R2-ES-2015-0061 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R2-ES-2015-0061 Silvery phacelia FWS-R1-ES-2015-0062 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R1-ES-2015-0062 Southern hog-nosed snake FWS-R4-ES-2015-0063 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2015-0063 Spotted turtle FWS-R5-ES-2015-0064 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R5-ES-2015-0064 Western spadefoot toad FWS-R8-ES-2015-0066 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2015-0066 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Species Contact information Alligator snapping turtle Andreas Moshogianis; (404) 679-7119 Apalachicola kingsnake Andreas Moshogianis; (404) 679-7119 Arizona toad Michelle Shaughnessy; (505) 248-6920 Blanding's turtle Laura Ragan; (612) 713-5350 Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander Susan Cameron; (828) 258-3939, ext. 224 Caddo Mountain salamander Andreas Moshogianis; (404) 679-7119 California giant salamander Dan Russell; (916) 414-6647 Cascade Caverns salamander Michelle Shaughnessy; (505) 248-6920 Cascades frog Paul Henson; (503) 231-6179 Cedar Key mole skink Andreas Moshogianis; (404) 679-7119 Colorado checkered whiptail Leslie Ellwood; (303) 236-4747 Distinct population segment of North American wild horse Doug Krofta; (703) 358-2527 Foothill yellow-legged frog Dan Russell; (916) 414-6647 Gopher frog Andreas Moshogianis; (404) 679-7119 Gray wolf, excluding Mexican wolf, in the conterminous U.S Don Morgan; (703) 358-2444 Green salamander Andreas Moshogianis; (404) 679-7119 Illinois chorus frog Laura Ragan; (612) 713-5350 Kern Canyon slender salamander Dan Russell; (916) 414-6647 Key ringneck snake Andreas Moshogianis; (404) 679-7119 Olympic torrent salamander Eric Rickerson; (360) 753-9440 Oregon slender salamander Paul Henson; (503) 231-6179 Pigeon Mountain salamander Andreas Moshogianis; (404) 679-7119 Relictual slender salamander Dan Russell; (916) 414-6647 Rim Rock crowned snake Andreas Moshogianis; (404) 679-7119 Rio Grande cooter Michelle Shaughnessy; (505) 248-6920 Silvery phacelia Paul Henson; (503) 231-6179 Southern hog-nosed snake Andreas Moshogianis; (404) 679-7119 Spotted turtle Wende Mahaney; (207) 866-3344 Weller's salamander Susan Cameron; (828) 258-3939, ext. 224 Western spadefoot toad Dan Russell; (916) 414-6647 Wingtail crayfish Patty Kelly; (850) 769-0552, x 228

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Information

When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on alligator snapping turtle, Apalachicola kingsnake, Arizona toad, Blanding's turtle, Cascade Caverns salamander, Cascades frog, Cedar Key mole skink, foothill yellow-legged frog, gopher frog, green salamander, Illinois chorus frog, Kern Canyon slender salamander, Key ringneck snake, Oregon slender salamander, relictual slender salamander, Rim Rock crowned snake, Rio Grande cooter, silvery phacelia, southern hog-nosed snake, spotted turtle, and western spadefoot toad from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:

(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:

(a) Habitat requirements;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;

(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and

(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:

(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);

(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);

(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);

(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or

(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).

(3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat.

(4) If, after the status review, we determine that listing is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the Act for those species that fall within the jurisdiction of the United States, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also specifically request data and information for the 21 species for which we are conducting status reviews on:

(a) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range occupied by the species;

(b) Where these features are currently found;

(c) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;

(d) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species”; and

(e) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.

Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information or analysis, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding will be available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal business hours at the appropriate lead U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.

Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which we will subsequently summarize in our 12-month finding.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see (2) under Request For Information, above).

In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as an “endangered species” or a “threatened species,” as those terms are defined in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient for us to find that the information in the petition and our files is substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an “endangered species” or “threatened species” under the Act.

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Alligator Snapping Turtle as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0038 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii; previously Macroclemys temminckii); Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from The Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the alligator snapping turtle, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii; previously Macroclemys temminckii) based on Factors A, B, C and D. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the alligator snapping turtle, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Apalachicola Kingsake as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0039 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Apalachicola kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula meansi); Florida

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from The Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Apalachicola kingsnake, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Apalachicola kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula meansi) based on Factor A. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Apalachicola kingsnake, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Arizona Toad as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0040 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Arizona toad (Anaxyrus microscaphus); Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Arizona toad, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Arizona toad (Anaxyrus microscaphus) based on Factor E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Arizona toad, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Blanding's Turtle as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2015-0041 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii); Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, United States; Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia, Canada.

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Blanding's turtle, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) based on Factors A, B, C, D, and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Blanding's turtle, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Blue Ridge Gray-Cheeked Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0042 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander (Plethodon amplus); North Carolina

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of amphibians and reptiles, including the Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not provide substantial information indicating that listing the species may be warranted. We are not initiating a status review of this species in response to the petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0042 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander salamander or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Caddo Mountain Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0043 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Caddo Mountain salamander (Plethodon caddoensis); Arkansas

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of amphibians and reptiles, including the Caddo Mountain salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are not initiating a status review of this species in response to the petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0043 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Caddo Mountain salamander or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the California Giant Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0044 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

California giant salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus); California

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the California giant salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are not initiating a status review of this species in response to the petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0044 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the California giant salamander or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Cascade Caverns Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0045 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Cascade Caverns salamander (Eurycea latitans); Texas

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012 from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Cascade Caverns salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Cascade Caverns salamander (Eurycea latitans) based on Factor A. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Cascade Caverns salamander, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Cascades Frog as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0046 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Cascades frog (Rana cascadae); California, Oregon, and Washington

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Cascades frog, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) based on Factors A, C, and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Cascades frog, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Cedar Key Mole Skink as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0047 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Cedar Key mole skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis); Florida

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Cedar Key mole skink, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Cedar Key mole skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis) based on Factors A, B, and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Cedar Key mole skink, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Colorado Checkered Whiptail as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0048 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Colorado checkered whiptail (Aspidoscelis neotesselata); Colorado

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of amphibians and reptiles, including the Colorado checkered whiptail, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are not initiating a status review of this species in response to the petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0048 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Colorado checkered whiptail or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Distinct Population Segment of North American Wild Horse as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0049 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

North American wild horse (population of the species Equus caballus); U.S. Federal public lands

Petition History

On June 17, 2014, we received a petition, dated June 10, 2014, from Friends of Animals and The Cloud Foundation, requesting that the distinct population segment (DPS) of North American wild horses on all U.S. federal public lands be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner(s), as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an October 3, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition warranted an emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not provide substantial information indicating the petitioned entity may qualify as a DPS and, therefore, a listable entity under section 3(16) of the Act. The petition does not present substantial information supporting the characterization of North American wild horses on all U.S. Federal public lands as a DPS, because the discreteness criteria were not met. Therefore, this population is not a valid listable entity under section 3(16) of the Act, and we are not initiating a status review in response to the petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0049 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the North American wild horse or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii); Oregon and California

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the foothill yellow-legged frog, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the foothill yellow-legged frog, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Gopher Frog as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0051 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Gopher frog (Lithobates capito); Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the gopher frog, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the gopher frog (Lithobates capito) based on Factors A, C, D, and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the gopher frog, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To Reclassify the Gray Wolf, Excluding Mexican Wolf, in the Conterminous U.S. as a Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0072 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Gray wolf, excluding the Mexican wolf (population of the species Canis lupus); conterminous United States.

Petition History

On January 27, 2015, we received a petition dated January 27, 2015, from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and twenty-two undersigned petitioners (The Center for Biological Diversity, The Fund for Animals, Born Free USA, Friends of Animals and Their Environment, Help Our Wolves Live, The Detroit Zoological Society, Midwest Environmental Advocates, Predator Defense, National Wolfwatcher Coalition, Northwoods Alliance, Wisconsin Federated Humane Societies, Minnesota Humane Society, Howling for Wolves, Detroit Audubon Society, Sault Sainte Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Wildlife Public Trust and Coexistence, Minnesota Voters for Animal Protection, Friends of the Wisconsin Wolf, Wolves of Douglas County Wisconsin, Justice for Wolves, and Wildwoods (Minnesota)), requesting that the gray wolf, excluding the Mexican wolf subspecies, be reclassified as threatened throughout the conterminous United States (U.S.) under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). On March 10, 2015, we received electronic copies of the published references cited in the January, 27, 2015 petition from HSUS. In a March 27, 2015, letter to HSUS, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition warranted an emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition, we find the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned entity may qualify as a DPS and, therefore, a listable entity under section 3(16) of the Act. Although any further evaluation of the petition was unnecessary because this is a sound basis for a not-substantial finding, due to the level of controversy surrounding the legal status of gray wolf under the Act and the high interest in this petition specifically we further evaluated the petition by analyzing the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1). Based on our review of the petition, sources cited in the petition, and our files we find the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that gray wolves, excluding Mexican wolves, in the coterminous U.S. may be likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future (a threatened species) due to any one of the five listing factors. We come to the same conclusion when we consider whether collective information presented in the petition represents substantial information. The petitioner's information with respect to unoccupied suitable habitat is based on a misinterpretation of the Act. Moreover, despite making allegations with respect to disease, and small population size, the petitioners provided no information to support their claim. Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms are not an independent source of threat, but relate to amelioration of threats under the other factors. Therefore, the petition only provides information with respect to possible overutilization from recreational hunting and trapping, and the information is not substantial. Thus the petition provides no information to combine with the information regarding possible overutilization from recreational hunting and trapping. In any case, even if the petition had presented information with respect to other sources of mortality, the existing state plans regulating take of wolves only allow take above certain population thresholds, such that if the other causes of mortality increased above certain levels, hunting and trapping would be reduced to prevent the population from dipping below those thresholds. So those plans have a built-in response to possible concerns relating to cumulative impacts. Accordingly, we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition.

Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0072 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the gray wolf or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Green Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0052 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Green salamander (Aneides aeneus); Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of amphibians and reptiles, including the green salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the green salamander (Aneides aeneus) based on Factors A, B, C, D, and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the green salamander, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Illinois Chorus Frog as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2015-0053 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris illinoensis or Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis); Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Illinois chorus frog, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris illinoensis or Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Illinois chorus frog, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Kern Canyon Slender Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0054 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Kern Canyon slender salamander (Batrachoseps simatus); California

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of amphibians and reptiles, including the Kern Canyon slender salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Kern Canyon slender salamander (Batrachoseps simatus) based on Factors A, D, and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Kern Canyon slender salamander, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Key Ringneck Snake as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0055 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Key ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus acricus); Florida

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of amphibians and reptiles, including the Key ringneck snake, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Key ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus acricus) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Key ringneck snake, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Olympic Torrent Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0056 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Olympic torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton olympicus); Washington

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Olympic torrent salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are not initiating a status review of this species in response to the petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0056 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Olympic torrent salamander or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Oregon Slender Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0057 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Oregon slender salamander (Batrachoseps wrighti; previously B. wrightorum); Oregon

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Oregon slender salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Oregon slender salamander (Batrachoseps wrighti) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Oregon slender salamander, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Pigeon Mountain Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0058 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Pigeon Mountain salamander (Plethodon petraeus); Georgia

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of amphibians and reptiles, including the Pigeon Mountain salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are not initiating a status review of this species in response to the petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0058 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Pigeon Mountain salamander or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Relictual Slender Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0059 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Relictual slender salamander (Batrachoseps relictus); California

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of amphibians and reptiles, including the relictual slender salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the relictual slender salamander (Batrachoseps relictus) based on Factors A, D, and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the relictual slender salamander, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Rim Rock Crowned Snake as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0060 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Rim Rock crowned snake (Tantilla oolitica); Florida

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from The Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Rim Rock crowned snake, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Rim Rock crowned snake (Tantilla oolitica) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Rim Rock crowned snake, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Rio Grande Cooter as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0061 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Rio Grande cooter or Western River cooter (Pseudemys gorzugi); Texas and New Mexico, United States; Coahuila, Neuvo Leon, and Tamaulipas, Mexico

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from The Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the Rio Grande cooter, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Rio Grande cooter (Pseudemys gorzugi) based on Factors A, B, and D. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the Rio Grande cooter, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List Silvery Phacelia as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0062 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Silvery phacelia (Phacelia argentea); Oregon and California

Petition History

On March 7, 2014, we received a petition dated March 7, 2014, from The Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Wild, Friends of Del Norte, Oregon Coast Alliance, The Native Plant Society of Oregon, The California Native Plant Society, The Environmental Protection Information Center, and Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (the petitioners), requesting that silvery phacelia be listed as an endangered or threatened species and, if applicable, critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the silvery phacelia (Phacelia argentea) based on Factors A and D. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the silvery phacelia, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Southern Hog-Nosed Snake as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0063 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Southern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon simus); North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from The Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the southern hog-nosed snake, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the southern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon simus) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the southern hog-nosed snake, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Spotted Turtle as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2015-0064 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata); Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the spotted turtle, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) based on Factors A, B, D, and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the spotted turtle, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Weller's Salamander as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0065 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Weller's salamander (Plethodon welleri, 1931); North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that 53 species of amphibians and reptiles, including the Weller's salamander, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are not initiating a status review of this species in response to the petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0065 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Weller's salamander or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Western Spadefoot Toad as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2015-0066 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii or Scaphiopus hammondii); California, United States; Northwestern Baja California, Mexico

Petition History

On July 11, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that 53 species of reptiles and amphibians, including the western spadefoot toad, be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii or Scaphiopus hammondii) based on Factors A and E. However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species.

Thus, for the western spadefoot toad, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).

Evaluation of a Petition To List the Wingtail Crayfish as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act

Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0067 under the Supporting Documents section.

Species and Range

Wingtail crayfish (Procambarus (Leconticambarus) latipleurum); Florida

Petition History

On January 6, 2014, we received a petition dated January 6, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the wingtail crayfish be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a).

Finding

Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are not initiating a status review of this species in response to the petition. Our justification for this finding can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0067 under the “Supporting Documents” section. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the wingtail crayfish or its habitat at any time (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Conclusion

On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for the Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander, Caddo Mountain salamander, California giant salamander, Colorado checkered whiptail, the distinct population segment of North American wild horse, gray wolf, excluding Mexican wolf, in the conterminous U.S., Olympic torrent salamander, Pigeon Mountain salamander, Weller's salamander, and wingtail crayfish do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating status reviews for these species.

On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for alligator snapping turtle, Apalachicola kingsnake, Arizona toad, Blanding's turtle, Cascade Caverns salamander, Cascades frog, Cedar Key mole skink, foothill yellow-legged frog, gopher frog, green salamander, Illinois chorus frog, Kern Canyon slender salamander, Key ringneck snake, Oregon slender salamander, relictual slender salamander, Rim Rock crowned snake, Rio Grande cooter, silvery phacelia, southern hog-nosed snake, spotted turtle, and western spadefoot toad present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Because we have found that the petitions present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions under the Act are warranted. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue a 12-month finding in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not the Service believes listing is warranted.

It is important to note that the “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding as to whether the petitioned action may be warranted differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to the Service's determination in a 12-month finding as to whether a petitioned action is in fact warranted. A 90-day finding is not based on a status review. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the appropriate lead field offices (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Branch of Listing, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Authority

The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: June 22, 2015. Stephen Guertin, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16001 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
80 126 Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in the West Sacramento, CA; Frankfort, IN; and Richmond, VA Areas; Request for Comments on the Official Agencies Servicing These Areas AGENCY:

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

The designations of the official agencies listed below will end on September 30, 2015. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by these agencies to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agencies: California Agri Inspection Co., Ltd. (California-Agri), Frankfort Grain Inspection, Inc. (Frankfort), and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Virginia).

DATES:

Applications and comments must be received by July 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Submit applications and comments concerning this Notice using any of the following methods:

Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Eric J. Jabs, Deputy Director, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

Fax: Eric J. Jabs, 816-872-1257.

Email: [email protected]

Read Applications and Comments: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eric J. Jabs, 816-659-8408 or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for three years unless terminated by the Secretary, but may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

Areas Open for Designation California-Agri

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of California, is assigned to this official agency.

In California

Bounded on the North by the northern California State line east to the eastern California State line.

Bounded on the East by the eastern California State line south to the southern San Bernardino County line.

Bounded on the South by the southern San Bernardino and Orange County lines west to the western California State line.

Bounded on the West by the western California State line north to the northern California State line.

California Agri's assigned geographic area does not include the export port locations inside California Agri's area, which are serviced by GIPSA.

Frankfort

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of Indiana, is assigned to this official agency.

In Indiana

Bounded on the North by the northern Fulton County line.

Bounded on the East by the eastern Fulton County line south to State Route 19; State Route 19 south to State Route 114; State Route 114 southeast to the eastern Fulton and Miami County lines; the northern Grant County line east to County Highway 900E; County Highway 900E south to State Route 18; State Route 18 east to the Grant County line; the eastern and southern Grant County lines; the eastern Tipton County line; the eastern Hamilton County line south to State Route 32.

Bounded on the South by State Route 32 west to the Boone County line; the eastern and southern Boone County lines; the southern Montgomery County line.

Bounded on the West by the western and northern Montgomery County lines; the western Clinton County line; the western Carroll County line north to State Route 25; State Route 25 northeast to Cass County; the western Cass and Fulton County lines.

The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to: Titus Grain Inspection, Inc.: The Andersons, Delphi, Carroll County; Frick Services, Inc., Leiters Ford, Fulton County; and Cargill, Inc., Linden, Montgomery County, Indiana.

Virginia

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of Virginia.

In Virginia

The entire State of Virginia.

Opportunity for Designation

Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas is for the period beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2018. To apply for designation or for more information, contact Eric J. Jabs at the address listed above or visit GIPSA's Web site at http://www.gipsa.usda.gov.

Request for Comments

We are publishing this Notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the California-Agri, Frankfort, and Virginia official agencies. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicants. Submit all comments to Eric J. Jabs at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

Larry Mitchell, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-16163 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Opportunity for Designation in the Pocatello, ID; Evansville, IN; Salt Lake City, UT; and Columbia, SC Areas; Request for Comments on the Official Agencies Servicing These Areas AGENCY:

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), USDA.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

The designations of the official agencies listed below will end on September 30, 2015. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by these agencies to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agencies: Idaho Grain Inspection Service (Idaho); Ohio Valley Grain Inspection, Inc. (Ohio Valley); Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (Utah); and South Carolina Department of Agriculture (South Carolina).

DATES:

Applications and comments must be received by July 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Submit applications and comments concerning this Notice using any of the following methods:

• Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain

• An FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

• Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

• Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Eric J. Jabs, Deputy Director, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153

• Fax: Eric J. Jabs, 816-872-1257

• Email: [email protected]

Read Applications and Comments: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eric J. Jabs, 816-659-8408 or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for three years unless terminated by the Secretary, but may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

Areas Open for Designation Idaho

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of Idaho, is assigned to this official agency.

In Idaho

The southern half of the State of Idaho up to the northern boundaries of Adams, Valley, and Lemhi Counties.

Ohio Valley

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the States of Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee, is assigned to this official agency.

In Indiana

Daviess, Dubois, Gibson, Knox (except the area west of U.S. Route 41 (150) from Sullivan County south to U.S. Route 50), Pike, Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties.

In Kentucky

Caldwell, Christian, Crittenden, Henderson, Hopkins (west of State Route 109 south of the Western Kentucky Parkway), Logan, Todd, Union, and Webster (west of Alternate U.S. Route 41 and State Route 814) Counties.

In Tennessee

Cheatham, Davidson, and Robertson Counties.

Utah

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of Utah, is assigned to this official agency.

In Utah

The entire State of Utah.

South Carolina

Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the State of South Carolina, is assigned to this official agency.

In South Carolina

The entire State of South Carolina.

Opportunity for Designation

Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas for Idaho, Ohio Valley, and Utah is for the period beginning October 1, 2015, and ending September 30, 2018. Designation in the specified geographic area for South Carolina is for the period beginning October 1, 2015, and ending September 30, 2017. To apply for designation or for more information, contact Eric J. Jabs at the address listed above or visit GIPSA's Web site at http://www.gipsa.usda.gov.

Request for Comments

We are publishing this Notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Idaho, Ohio Valley, and Utah official agencies. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicants. Submit all comments to Eric J. Jabs at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

Larry Mitchell, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-16123 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Designation for the Topeka, KS; Cedar Rapids, IA; Minot, ND; and Cincinnati, OH Areas AGENCY:

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), USDA.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

GIPSA is announcing the designation of Kansas Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Kansas); Mid-Iowa Grain Inspection, Inc. (Mid-Iowa); Minot Grain Inspection, Inc. (Minot); and Tri-State Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Tri-State) to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended.

DATES:

Effective Date: July 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Eric J. Jabs, Deputy Director, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eric J. Jabs, 816-659-8408 or [email protected]

Read Applications: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the February 11, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR 7564), GIPSA requested applications for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas presently serviced by Kansas, Mid-Iowa, Minot, and Tri-State. Applications were due by March 13, 2015.

Kansas, Mid-Iowa, Minot, and Tri-State were the sole applicants for designation to provide official services in these areas. As a result, GIPSA did not ask for additional comments.

GIPSA evaluated the designation criteria in section 79(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that Kansas, Minot, and Tri-State are qualified to provide official services in the geographic area specified in the Federal Register on February 11, 2015. This designation action to provide official services in these specified areas is effective July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2018.

After completing an initial quality management review of Mid-Iowa, GIPSA determined that a follow-up review should be conducted. Accordingly, GIPSA is designating Mid-Iowa to provide services in this specified area for one year, effective July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. During this timeframe, such a review will be conducted.

Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting these agencies at the following telephone numbers:

Official agency Headquarters location and telephone Designation start Designation end Kansas Topeka, KS(785) 233-7063 7/1/2015 6/30/2018 Mid-Iowa Cedar Rapids, IA(319) 363-0239 7/1/2015 6/30/2016 Minot Minot, ND(701) 838-1734 7/1/2015 6/30/2018 Tri-State Cincinnati, OH(513) 251-6571 7/1/2015 6/30/2018

Section 79(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)).

Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than three years unless terminated by the Secretary; however, designations may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

Larry Mitchell, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-16124 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of Procurement and Property Management Public Availability of FY 2014 Service Contract Inventories AGENCY:

Office of Procurement and Property Management, Departmental Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture

ACTION:

Notice of public availability of FY 2014 Service Contract inventories

SUMMARY:

In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), U.S. Department of Agriculture is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2014 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information on FY 2014 service contract actions over $25,000. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010, by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on the Office of Procurement and Property Management homepage at the following link: http://www.dm.usda.gov/procurement/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Crandall Watson, Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPPM), at (202) 720-7529, or by mail at OPPM, MAIL STOP 9304, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9303. Please cite “2014 Service Contract Inventory” in all correspondence.

Signed in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2015. Lisa M. Wilusz, Director, Office of Procurement and Property Management.
[FR Doc. 2015-16266 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-TX-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey AGENCY:

U.S. Census Bureau, 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:

To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Mary Catherine Potter, U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Indicators Division, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Room 7K157, Washington, DC 20233-6913, (301) 763-4207, or(via the internet at [email protected])

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

The Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders (M3) survey collects monthly data on the value of shipments, inventories, and new and unfilled orders from manufacturing companies. The orders, as well as the shipments and inventory data, are valuable tools for analysts of business cycle conditions. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Counsel of Economic Advisors, the Federal Reserve Board, the Conference Board, and members of the business community such as the National Association of Manufacturers, Wall Street Journal, Market Watch, and Bloomberg business analysts, use the data.

The monthly M3 Survey estimates are based on a relatively small sample that primarily reflects the month-to-month changes of large companies. There is a clear need for periodic benchmarking of the M3 estimates to reflect the manufacturing universe. The Economic Census covering the manufacturing sector and the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) provide annual benchmarks for the shipments and inventory data in this monthly survey. The Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey, the subject of this notice, provides an annual benchmark for unfilled orders.

The Census Bureau uses this data to develop universe estimates of unfilled orders as of the end of the calendar year and to adjust the monthly M3 data on unfilled orders to these levels on the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) basis. The benchmarked unfilled orders levels are used to derive estimates of new orders received by manufacturers. The survey data are also used to determine whether it is necessary to collect unfilled orders data for specific industries on a monthly basis; some industries are not requested to provide unfilled orders data on the M3 Survey.

There are no changes to the MA-3000 form.

II. Method of Collection

The Census Bureau will use mail out/mail back survey forms to collect the data with online reporting encouraged. Online response for the survey is typically just under 60 percent. Companies are asked to respond to the survey within 30 days of receipt. Letters encouraging participation are mailed to companies that have not responded by the designated time. Telephone follow-up is conducted to obtain response from delinquent companies.

III. Data

OMB Control Number: 0607-0561.

Form Number(s): MA-3000.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Manufacturing Businesses, large and small, or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,000.

Estimated Time per Response: .50 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,000.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondents Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 131, 182, 224 and 225.

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. 2015-16158 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

Background

Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

Respondent Selection

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after July 2015, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.

Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of July 2015,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in July for the following periods:

1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Department is closed.

Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings FINLAND: Carboxymethylcellulose, A-405-803 7/1/14-6/30/15 INDIA: Polyethylene Terephthalate (Pet) Film, A-533-824 7/1/14-6/30/15 IRAN: In-Shell Pistachios, A-507-502 7/1/14-6/30/15 ITALY: Certain Pasta, A-475-818 7/1/14-6/30/15 JAPAN: Clad Steel Plate, A-588-838 7/1/14-6/30/15 Polyvinyl Alcohol, A-588-861 7/1/14-6/30/15 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, A-588-845 7/1/14-6/30/15 MALAYSIA: Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe, A-557-815 1/7/14-6/30/15 NETHERLANDS: Carboxymethylcellulose, A-421-811 7/1/14-6/30/15 REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, A-580-834 7/1/14-6/30/15 RUSSIA: Solid Urea, A-821-801 7/1/14-6/30/15 SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM: Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe, A-552-816 1/7/14-6/30/15 TAIWAN: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, A-583-837 7/1/14-6/30/15 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, A-583-831 7/1/14-6/30/15 THAILAND: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, A-549-807 7/1/14-6/30/15 Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe, A-549-830 1/7/14-6/30/15 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, A-570-814 7/1/14-6/30/15 Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts, A-570-962 7/1/14-6/30/15 Certain Steel Grating, A-570-947 7/1/14-6/30/15 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe, A-570-910 7/1/14-6/30/15 Persulfates, A-570-847 7/1/14-6/30/15 Xanthan Gum, A-570-985 7/1/14-6/30/15 TURKEY: Certain Pasta, A-489-805 7/1/14-6/30/15 UKRAINE: Solid Urea, A-823-801 7/1/14-6/30/15 Countervailing Duty Proceedings INDIA: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, C-533-825 1/1/14-12/31/14 ITALY: Certain Pasta, C-475-819 1/1/14-12/31/14 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts, C-570-963 1/1/14-12/31/14 Certain Steel Grating, C-570-948 1/1/14-12/31/14 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe, C-570-911 1/1/14-12/31/14 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand, C-570-946 1/1/14-12/31/14 TURKEY: Certain Pasta, C-489-806 1/1/14-12/31/14 Suspension Agreements UKRAINE: Oil Country Tubular Goods, A-823-815 7/1/14-6/30/15

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) the Department clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

Further, as explained in Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013), the Department clarified its practice with regard to the conditional review of the non-market economy (NME) entity in administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders. The Department will no longer consider the NME entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless the Department specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.3 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, the Department will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity).

3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at http://access.trade.gov. 4 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

4See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of July 2015. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of July 2015, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

Dated: June 25, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-16203 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review AGENCY:

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating the five-year review (“Sunset Review”) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) orders listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Review which covers the same orders.

DATES:

Effective Date: July 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205-3193.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

Initiation of Review

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders:

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact A-570-951 731-TA-1163 PRC Woven Electric Blankets (1st Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. Filing Information

As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: “http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/.” All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

1See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

Revised Factual Information Requirements

This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all AD/CVD investigations or proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013.3 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

2See section 782(b) of the Act.

3See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”) (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)).

On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied.

Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation at 19 CFR 351.302(c) concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under part 351 of the Department's regulations expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

Information Required From Interested Parties

Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.4

4See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

Dated: June 15, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-16250 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY:

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

Background

Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

Upcoming Sunset Reviews for August 2015

The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in August 2015 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review (“Sunset Review”).

Department contact Antidumping Duty Proceedings Magnesia Carbon Bricks from China (A-570-954) (1st Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from China (A-570-952) (1st Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico (A-201-837) (1st Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan (A-583-844) (1st Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482-2312. Countervailing Duty Proceedings Magnesia Carbon Bricks from China (C-570-955) (1st Review) Jacqueline Arrowsmith (202) 482-5255. Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from China (C-570-953) (1st Review) David Goldberger (202) 482-4136. Suspended Investigations No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in August 2015

The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

Dated: June 15, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-16257 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with May anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.

DATES:

Effective Date: July 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with May anniversary dates.

All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

Notice of No Sales

If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

Respondent Selection

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the applicable review. Rebuttal comments will be due five days after submission of initial comments.

In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

Respondent Selection—Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), the Department intends to select respondents based on volume data contained in responses to Q&V questionnaires. Further, the Department intends to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued in the review based on CBP data for U.S. imports of aluminum extrusions from the PRC. The extremely wide variety of individual types of aluminum extrusion products included in the scope of the order on aluminum extrusions would preclude meaningful results in attempting to determine the largest PRC exporters of subject merchandise by volume. Therefore, the Department will limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued based on the import values in CBP data which will serve as a proxy for imported quantities. Parties subject to the review to which the Department does not send a Q&V questionnaire may file a response to the Q&V questionnaire by the applicable deadline if they desire to be included in the pool of companies from which the Department will select mandatory respondents. The Q&V questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The responses to the Q&V questionnaire must be received by the Department within 14 days of publication of this notice. Please be advised that due to the time constraints imposed by the statutory and regulatory deadlines for antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Department does not intend to grant any extensions for the submission of responses to the Q&V questionnaire. Parties will be given the opportunity to comment on the CBP data used by the Department to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued. We intend to release the CBP data under APO to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Department invites comments regarding CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record.

Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

2 Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.

3 Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.

For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

Initiation of Reviews

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than May 31, 2016.

Period to be
  • reviewed
  • Antidumping Duty Proceedings Canada: Citric Acid and Certain Citric Salts, A-122-853 5/1/14-4/30/15 Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc India: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tubes, A-533-502 5/1/14-4/30/15 Lloyds Metals & Engineers Limited and Lloyds Line Pipe Ltd Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd Jindal Pipes Limited Maharashtra Seamless Limited Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd India: Silicomanganese, A-533-823 5/1/14-4/30/15 Nava Bharat Ventures Limited Universal Ferro and Allied Chemicals, Ltd Japan: Diffusion-Annealed Nickel-Plated Flat-Rolled Steel Products, A-588-869 11/19/13-4/30/15 Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd Kazakhstan: Silicomanganese, A-834-807 5/1/14-4/30/15 Alloy 2000, S.A Aksu Ferroalloy Plant Considar, Inc Transnational Co. Kazuchrome Republic of Korea: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber, A-580-839 5/1/14-4/30/15 Toray Chemical Korea, Inc. (formerly known as Woongjin Chemical Company, Ltd.) Taiwan: Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents, A-583-848 5/1/14-4/30/15 Teh Fong Min International Co., Ltd Taiwan: Polyester Staple Fiber, A-583-833 5/1/14-4/30/15 Far Eastern New Century Corporation The People's Republic of China: Aluminum Extrusions, A-570-967 5/1/14-4/30/15 Acro Import and Export Co Activa International Inc Allied Maker Limited Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd Aluminicaste Fundicion de Mexico Atlas Integrated Manufacturing Ltd Belton (Asia) Development Ltd Birchwoods (Lin'an) Leisure Products Co., Ltd Bracalente Metal Products (Suzhou) Co., Ltd Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd Changzhou Changzheng Evaporator Co., Ltd Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co., Ltd China Zhongwang Holdings, Ltd Chiping One Stop Industrial & Trade Co., Ltd Classic & Contemporary Inc Clear Sky Inc Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd Danfoss Micro Channel Heat Exchanger (Jia Xing) Co., Ltd Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd Dongguan Dazhan Metal Co., Ltd Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd Dragonluxe Limited Dynamic Technologies China Ltd Dynabright Int'l Group (HK) Limited Ever Extend Ent. Ltd Fenghua Metal Product Factory First Union Property Limited FookShing Metal & Plastic Co. Ltd Foreign Trade Co. of Suzhou New & High-Tech Industrial Development Zone Foshan City Nanhai Hongjia Aluminum Alloy Co., Ltd Foshan Golden Source Aluminum Products Co., Ltd Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd Foshan Jinlan Aluminum Co. Ltd Foshan JMA Aluminum Company Limited Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd Foshan Shunde Aoneng Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd Foshan Yong Li Jian Aluminum Co., Ltd Fujian Sanchuan Aluminum Co., Ltd Genimex Shanghai, Ltd Global PMX Dongguan Co., Ltd Global Point Technology (Far East) Limited Gold Mountain International Development Limited Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc Gran Cabrio Capital Pte. Ltd Gree Electric Appliances GT88 Capital Pte. Ltd Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd Guangdong Jianmei Aluminum Profile Company Limited Guangdong JMA Aluminum Profile Factory (Group) Co., Ltd Guangdong Nanhai Foodstuffs Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd Guangdong Weiye Aluminum Factory Co., Ltd Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Ltd Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd Guangdong Yonglijian Aluminum Co., Ltd Guangdong Zhongya Aluminum Company Limited Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., Ltd Guangzhou Mingcan Die-Casting Hardware Products Co., Ltd Hangzhou Xingyi Metal Products Co., Ltd Hanwood Enterprises Limited Hanyung Alcoba Co., Ltd Hanyung Alcobis Co., Ltd Hanyung Metal (Suzhou) Co., Ltd Hao Mei Aluminum Co., Ltd Hao Mei Aluminum International Co., Ltd Hebei Xusen Wire Mesh Products Co., Ltd Henan New Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliances Sales Limited Honsense Development Company Hui Mei Gao Aluminum Foshan Co., Ltd IDEX Dinglee Technology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd IDEX Technology Suzhou Co., Ltd IDEX Health Innovative Aluminium (Hong Kong) Limited iSource Asia Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd Jiangmen Qunxing Hardware Diecasting Co., Ltd Jiangsu Changfa Refrigeration Co., Ltd Jiangyin Trust International Inc Jiangyin Xinhong Doors and Windows Co., Ltd Jiaxing Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd Jiaxing Taixin Metal Products Co., Ltd Jiuyan Co., Ltd JMA (HK) Company Limited Justhere Co., Ltd Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn. Bhd Kanal Precision Aluminum Product Co., Ltd Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd Kong Ah International Company Limited Kromet International, Inc Kunshan Giant Light Metal Technology Co., Ltd Liaoning Zhongwang Group Co., Ltd Liaoyang Zhongwang Aluminum Profile Co. Ltd Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd Metaltek Group Co., Ltd Metaltek Metal Industry Co., Ltd Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd Midea International Training Co., Ltd./Midea International Trading Co., Ltd Miland Luck Limited Nanhai Textiles Import & Export Co., Ltd New Asia Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd New Zhongya Aluminum Factory Nidec Sankyo (Zhejang) Corporation Nidec Sankyo Singapore Pte. Ltd Ningbo Coaster International Co., Ltd Ningbo Hi Tech Reliable Manufacturing Company Ningbo Ivy Daily Commodity Co., Ltd Ningbo Yili Import and Export Co., Ltd North China Aluminum Co., Ltd North Fenghua Aluminum Ltd Northern States Metals PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited Pengcheng Aluminum Enterprise Inc Permasteelisa Hong Kong Limited Permasteelisa South China Factory Pingguo Aluminum Company Limited Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd Popular Plastics Co., Ltd Press Metal International Ltd Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd Sanchuan Aluminum Co., Ltd Shangdong Huasheng Pesticide Machinery Co Shangdong Nanshan Aluminum Co., Ltd Shanghai Automobile Air-Conditioner Accessories Co., Ltd Shanghai Canghai Aluminum Tube Packaging Co., Ltd Shanghai Dongsheng Metal Shanghai Shen Hang Imp & Exp Co., Ltd Shanghai Tongtai Precise Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing Co., Ltd Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co. Ltd Shenzhen Hudson Technology Development Co Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd Sihui Shi Guo Yao Aluminum Co., Ltd Sincere Profit Limited Skyline Exhibit Systems (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Southwest Aluminum (Group) Co., Ltd Suzhou JRP Import & Export Co., Ltd Suzhou NewHongJi Precision Part Co., Ltd TAI-AO Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd Taizhou Lifeng Manufacturing Co., Ltd Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Tianjin Ganglv Nonferrous Metal Materials Co., Ltd Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology, Ltd Tianjin Xiandai Plastic & Aluminum Products Co., Ltd Tiazhou Lifeng Manufacturing Corporation/Taizhou Lifeng Manufacturing Corporation, Ltd Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd Traffic Brick Network, LLC Union Aluminum (SIP) Co Union Industry (Asia) Co., Ltd USA Worldwide Door Components (PINGHU) Co., Ltd Wenzhou Shengbo Decoration & Hardware Whirlpool (Guangdong) Whirlpool Canada L.P. Whirlpool Microwave Products Development Ltd WTI Building Products, Ltd Xin Wei Aluminum Co Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd Zahoqing China Square Industry Limited/Zhaoqing China Square Industry Limited Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Company Ltd Zhaoqing China Square Industrial Ltd Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang Aluminum Co., Ltd Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd Zhejiang Zhengte Group Co., Ltd Zhenjiang Xinlong Group Co., Ltd Zhongshan Daya Hardware Co., Ltd Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited Zhuhai Runxingtai Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd The People's Republic of China: Certain Activated Carbon 4, A-570-904 4/1/14-3/31/15 Jacobi Carbons Industry (Tianjin) The People's Republic of China: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts, A-570-937 5/1/14-4/30/15 Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd RZBC Co., Ltd RZBC Import & Export Co., Ltd RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd The People's Republic of China: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks 5, A-570-983 4/1/14-3/31/15 Zhuhai Kohler Kitchen & Bathroom Products Co., Ltd The People's Republic of China: Pure Magnesium, A-570-832 5/1/14-4/30/15 Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (“TMI”) Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd. (“TMM”) Turkey: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, A-489-501 5/1/14-4/30/15 Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari San ve Tic Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S Borusan Gemlik Boru Tesisleri A.S Borusan Iharcat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S Borusan Ithicat ve Dagitim A.S Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S Caryirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S Turkey: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube, A-489-815 5/1/14-4/30/15 Agir Haddecilik A.S United Arab Emirates: Certain Steel Nails, A-520-804 5/1/14-4/30/15 Dubai Wire FZE Oman Fasteners LLC Overseas Distribution Services Inc Overseas International Steel Industry LLC Precision Fasteners LLC Venezuela: Silicomanganese, A-307-820 5/1/14-4/30/15 FerroAtlantica S.A FerroAtlantica de Venezuela Hornos Electricos de Venezuela Countervailing Duty Proceedings The People's Republic of China: Aluminum Extrusions, C-570-968 1/1/14-12/31/14 A-Plus Industries Ltd Acro Import and Export Co Activa International Inc Allied Maker Limited Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd Aluminicaste Fundicion de Mexico Asia Pacific Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd Birchwoods (Lin'an) Leisure Products Co., Ltd Bracalente Metal Products (Suzhou) Co. Ltd Changshu Changsheng Aluminum Products Co., Ltd Changzhou Changzhen Evaporator Co., Ltd Changzhou Jinxi Machinery Co., Ltd Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co., Ltd China Zhongwang Holdings, Ltd Chiping One Stop Industrial & Trade Co., Ltd Classic & Contemporary Inc Clear Sky Inc Cosco (J.M.) Aluminum Co., Ltd Danfoss Micro Channel Heat Exchanger (Jia Xing) Co. Ltd Dongguan Aoda Aluminum Co., Ltd Dongguan Dazhan Metal Co., Ltd Dongguan Golden Tiger Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd Dragonluxe Limited Dynabright International Group (HK) Limited Dynamic Technologies China Ever Extend Ent. Ltd ETLA Technology (Wuxi) Co., Ltd Fenghua Metal Product Factory First Union Property Limited Foreign Trade Co. of Suzhou New & Hi-Tech Industrial Development Zone Foshan City Nanhai Hongjia Aluminum Alloy Co., Ltd Foshan Golden Source Aluminum Products Co., Ltd Foshan Guancheng Aluminium Co., Ltd Foshan Jinlan Aluminum Co. Ltd Foshan JMA Aluminum Company Limited Foshan Shanshui Fenglu Aluminum Co., Ltd Foshan Shunde Aoneng Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd Foshan Yong Li Jian Aluminum Co., Ltd Fujian Sanchuan Aluminum Co., Ltd Genimex Shanghai, Ltd Global Hi-Tek Precision Limited Global PMX Dongguan Co., Ltd Global Point Technology (Far East) Limited Gold Mountain International Development, Ltd Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc Gran Cabrio Capital Pte. Ltd Gree Electric Appliances GT88 Capital Pte. Ltd Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (HK) Ltd Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminum Co., Ltd Guangdong Jianmei Aluminum Profile Company Limited Guangdong JMA Aluminum Profile Factory (Group) Co., Ltd Guangdong Nanhai Foodstuffs Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd Guangdong Weiye Aluminum Factory Co., Ltd Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd Guangdong Xingfa Aluminum Co., Ltd Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd Guangdong Yonglijian Aluminum Co., Ltd Guangdong Zhongya Aluminum Company Limited Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., Ltd Guangzhou Mingcan Die-Casting Hardware Products Co., Ltd Hangzhou Xingyi Metal Products Co., Ltd Hanwood Enterprises Limited Hanyung Alcoba Co., Ltd Hanyung Alcobis Co., Ltd Hanyung Metal (Suzhou) Co., Ltd Hao Mei Aluminum Co., Ltd Hao Mei Aluminum International Co., Ltd Hebei Xusen Wire Mesh Products Co., Ltd Henan New Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliances Sales Limited Honsense Development Company Hui Mei Gao Aluminum Foshan Co., Ltd Idex Dinglee Technology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd Idex Health IDEX Technology Suzhou Co., Ltd Innovative Aluminum (Hong Kong) Limited iSource Asia Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd Jiangmen Qunxing Hardware Diecasting Co., Ltd Jiangsu Changfa Refrigeration Co., Ltd Jiangsu Susun Group (HK) Co., Ltd Jiangsu Zhenhexiang New Material Technology Co., Ltd Jiangsu Shengrun Industry Co, Ltd Jiangyin Trust International Inc Jiangyin Xinhong Doors and Windows Co., Ltd Jiaxing Jackson Travel Products Co., Ltd Jiaxing Taixin Metal Products Co., Ltd Jiuyan Co., Ltd JMA (HK) Company Limited Johnson Precision Engineering (Suzhou) Co Ltd Justhere Co., Ltd Kam Kiu Aluminum Products Sdn Bhd Kanal Precision Aluminum Product Co., Ltd Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd Kong Ah International Company Limited Kromet International Inc Kunshan Giant Light Metal Technology Co., Ltd Liaoning Zhongwang Group Co., Ltd Liaoyang Zhongwang Aluminum Profile Co. Ltd Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd Markem Imaje China (China) Co. Ltd Metaltek Group Co., Ltd Metaltek Metal Industry Co., Ltd Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd Midea International Training Co., Ltd./Midea International Trading Co., Ltd Miland Luck Limited Nanhai Textiles Import & Export Co., Ltd New Asia Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd New Zhongya Aluminum Factory Nidec Sankyo Singapore Pte. Ltd Nidec Sankyo (Zhejiang) Corporation Ningbo Coaster International Co., Ltd Ningbo Haina Machine Co., Ltd Ningbo Hi Tech Reliable Manufacturing Company Ningbo Innopower Tengda Machinery Co., Ltd Ningbo Ivy Daily Commodity Co., Ltd Ningbo Yili Import and Export Co., Ltd Ningbo Yinzhou Sanhua Electric Machine Factory North China Aluminum Co., Ltd North Fenghua Aluminum Ltd Northern States Metals PanAsia Aluminum (China) Limited Pengcheng Aluminum Enterprise Inc Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd Permasteelisa South China Factory Pingguo Aluminum Company Limited Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd Popular Plastics Company Limited Precision Metal Works LTD Press Metal International Ltd Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd Sanchuan Aluminum Co., Ltd Sapa Profiles (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Shangdong Huasheng Pesticide Machinery Co Shangdong Nanshan Aluminum Co., Ltd Shanghai Automobile Air-Conditioner Accessories Co., Ltd Shanghai Canghai Aluminum Tube Packaging Co., Ltd Shanghai Dongsheng Metal Shanghai Shen Hang Imp & Exp Co., Ltd Shanghai Tongtai Precise Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing Co., Ltd Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co., Ltd Shenzhen Hudson Technology Development Co., Ltd Shenzhen Jiuyuan Co., Ltd Shunhai International (HK) Limited Sihui Shi Guo Yao Aluminum Co., Ltd Sincere Profit Limited Summit Heat Sinks Metal Co., Ltd Skyline Exhibit Systems (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Suzhou JRP Import & Export Co., Ltd Suzhou New Hongji Precision Part Co Tai-Ao Aluminum (Taishan) Co. Ltd Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd Taizhou Lifeng Manufacturing Co., Ltd Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Tianjin Ganglv Nonferrous Metal Materials Co., Ltd Tianjin Jinmao Import & Export Corp., Ltd Tianjin Ruxin Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd Tianjin Xiandai Plastic & Aluminum Products Co., Ltd Tiazhou Lifeng Manufacturing Corporation/Taizhou Lifeng Manufacturing Co., Ltd Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd Traffic Brick Network, LLC Union Industry (Asia) Co., Ltd USA Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd Wenzhou Shengbo Decoration & Hardware Whirlpool (Guangdong) Whirlpool Canada Whirlpool Microwave Products Development Ltd WTI Building Products, Ltd Wuxi Huida Aluminum Co., Ltd Xin Wei Aluminum Co Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd Yongji Guanghai Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd Zahoqing China Square Industry Limited/Zhaoqing China Square Industry Limited Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Company Ltd Zhaoqing China Square Industrial Ltd Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang Aluminum Co., Ltd Zhejiang Dongfeng Refrigeration Components Co., Ltd Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminum Industry Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Zhengte Group Co., Ltd Zhenjiang Xinlong Group Co., Ltd Zhongshan Daya Hardware Co., Ltd Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminum Factory Ltd Zhongya Shaped Aluminum (HK) Holding Limited Zhuhai Runxingtai Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd The People's Republic of China: Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks 6, C-570-955 1/1/13-12/31/13 Fengchi Mining Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City The People's Republic of China: Citric Acid and Certain Salts, C-570-938 1/1/14-12/31/14 Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd RZBC Group Shareholding Co., Ltd RZBC Co., Ltd RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd Suspension Agreements None
    Duty Absorption Reviews

    During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

    4 The company listed above was inadvertently not included in the initiation notice that published on May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30041).

    5 The name of the company listed below was misspelled in the initiation notice that published on May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30041). The correct spelling of the company name is listed in this notice.

    6 The name of the company listed below was misspelled in the initiation notice that published on November 10, 2014 (79 FR 66694). The correct spelling of the company name is listed in this notice.

    Gap Period Liquidation

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

    Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.7 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 8 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    7See section 782(b) of the Act.

    8See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16248 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Minority Business Development Agency [Docket No: 150623548-5548-01] Guidance on MBDA Applications for Federal Funding AGENCY:

    Minority Business Development Agency, Department of Commerce

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) publishes this notice to announce a public meeting to be held during the MBDA National Training Conference on July 23, 2015. The public meeting will provide general information and an overview of the history of MBDA, MBDA's Federal Funding Opportunities, tips on writing grant applications, guidance on preparing budgets and budget justifications, and information regarding audit and compliance rules.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on Thursday, July 23, 2015; 1:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EST. The meeting will be available via webinar. Please submit your written questions to Nakita Y. Chambers (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than July 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at: The Westin Canal Place, 100 Rue Iberville, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130. Participants may register for the webinar online at www.mbda.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information please contact: Ms. Nakita Y. Chambers, Program Manager, Telephone (202) 482-0065, email [email protected] Anyone who requires special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Nakita Chambers no later than July 17, 2015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with Executive Order 11625, the Minority Business Development Agency is authorized provide federal financial assistance to public and private organizations so that they may render technical and business management services to minority business enterprises. MBDA provides federal financial assistance to organizations through grants and cooperative agreements. The purpose of the public meeting is to provide general information to prospective grant applicants interested in MBDA business development grant programs on writing a competitive grant application, preparing budgets and budget justifications, and generally reviewing single audit readiness and compliance regulations.

    This meeting is open to the public.

    Josephine Arnold, Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16188 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-21-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Smart Grid Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee), will meet in open session on Thursday, July 30, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Friday, July 31, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. This meeting was originally scheduled for March 10-11, 2015 and was rescheduled for administrative reasons. The primary purposes of this meeting are to discuss the Grid 3.0 Strategic Planning Effort and NIST Transactive Energy, Distributed Energy Resources, Microgrid, and Smart City activities. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the Smart Grid Web site at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid.

    DATES:

    The SGAC will meet on Thursday, July 30, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Friday, July 31, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Executive Conference Room, Building 101 (Administration), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2254, fax 301-948-5668; or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Committee is composed of nine to fifteen members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting Smart Grid deployment and operations. The Committee advises the Director of NIST in carrying out duties authorized by section 1305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140). The Committee provides input to NIST on Smart Grid standards, priorities, and gaps, on the overall direction, status, and health of the Smart Grid implementation by the Smart Grid industry, and on Smart Grid Interoperability Panel activities, including the direction of research and standards activities. Background information on the Committee is available at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/committee.cfm.

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NIST Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee) will meet in open session on Thursday, July 30, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Friday, July 31, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting will be open to the public and held in the Executive Conference Room, Building 101 (Administration) at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The primary purposes of this meeting are to discuss the Grid 3.0 Strategic Planning Effort and NIST Transactive Energy, Distributed Energy Resources, Microgrid, and Smart City activities. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the Smart Grid Web site at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid.

    Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda by submitting their request to Cuong Nguyen at [email protected] or (301) 975-2254 no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Friday, July 24, 2015. On Friday, July 31, 2015, approximately one-half hour will be reserved at the end of the meeting for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2254, fax 301-948-5668; or via email at [email protected]

    All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Friday, July 24, 2015, in order to attend. Please submit your full name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to Cuong Nguyen. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen's email address is [email protected] and his phone number is (301) 975-2254. Also, please note that under the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if issued by states that are REAL ID compliant or have an extension. NIST also currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please contact Mr. Nguyen or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

    Richard Cavanagh, Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16190 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD990 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Essential Fish Habitat Final 5-Year Review AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the availability of the Final Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 5-Year Review and intent to initiate an amendment to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to revise Atlantic HMS EFH descriptions and designations. The purpose of the Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review was to gather relevant new information and determine whether revisions to existing EFH descriptions and designations are warranted, in compliance with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations. NMFS has determined that revisions to EFH descriptions and designations are warranted, and an amendment to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP will be initiated.

    DATES:

    The Final Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review will be available on July 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of the Draft Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review may be obtained on the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/documents/2015_final_efh_review.pdf.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Cooper at 301-427-8503, or Jennifer Cudney at 727-824-5399.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) includes provisions concerning the identification and conservation of EFH (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). EFH is defined in 50 CFR 600.10 as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” NMFS must identify and describe EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH (§ 600.815(a)). EFH maps are presented online in the NMFS EFH Mapper (http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html). Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake actions that may adversely affect EFH must consult with NMFS, and NMFS must provide conservation recommendations to Federal and state agencies regarding any such actions (§ 600.815(a)(9)).

    In addition to identifying and describing EFH for managed fish species, a review of EFH must be conducted every 5 years, and EFH provisions must be revised or amended, as warranted, based on the best available scientific information. The EFH 5-Year Review evaluates published scientific literature, unpublished scientific reports, information solicited from interested parties, and previously unavailable or inaccessible data. NMFS announced the initiation of this review and solicited information for this review from the public in a Federal Register notice on March 24, 2014 (79 FR 15959). The initial public review/submission period ended on May 23, 2014. The draft EFH 5-Year Review was made available in March 2015 and public comments on the draft were solicited in a Federal Register notice on March 5, 2015 (80 FR 11981). The public comment period for the draft EFH 5-Year Review ended on April 6, 2015.

    The final EFH 5-Year Review for Atlantic HMS includes tunas (bluefin, bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack), oceanic sharks, swordfish, and billfishes (blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, roundscale spearfish, and longbill spearfish). The Atlantic HMS EFH 5-Year Review considers data regarding Atlantic HMS and their habitats that have become available since 2009 that were not included in Final Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS (Amendment 1; June 1, 2010, 75 FR 30484); Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (June 1, 2010, 75 FR 30484); and the interpretive rule that described EFH for roundscale spearfish (September 22, 2010, 75 FR 57698).

    NMFS analyzed the information gathered through the EFH review process in this final 5-year review and determined that revision of EFH is warranted, and an amendment to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP will be undertaken. In reviewing literature since 2009, new data emerged for certain Atlantic HMS that warrant revision to those species' EFH geographic boundaries. For other Atlantic HMS, new data were either unavailable or it was determined that the new data did not warrant revisions to their EFH geographic boundaries. However, in the upcoming amendment, new observer, survey, and tag/recapture data collected since 2009 will be used to revise EFH geographic boundaries for all species. The current EFH methodology to designate EFH geographic boundaries for Atlantic HMS was first applied in Amendment 1, and Atlantic HMS EFH geographic boundaries have not since been updated using this methodology. It is unknown how data that have been consistently collected since 2009 (e.g., observer, survey, tag/recapture) will impact EFH geographic boundaries. Therefore, all Atlantic HMS EFH geographic boundaries will be updated to see how these data will impact EFH geographic boundaries, even for species where there was limited or no new EFH data found in the literature review.

    The upcoming EFH amendment will consider all 10 EFH components, including individual species EFH descriptions, EFH conservation and enhancement recommendations for fishing and non-fishing effects on EFH, and identification of HAPCs, as well as scientific feedback and public comment.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq., and 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16191 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE021 Magnuson-Stevens 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 Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would allow eight commercial fishing vessels to fish outside of the limited access sea scallop regulations in support of a study on seasonal bycatch distribution and optimal scallop meat yield on Georges Bank.

    Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line “DA15-036 CFF Georges Bank Optimization 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 “DA15-036 CFF Georges Bank Optimization Study EFP.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NOAA awarded the Coonamesset Farm Foundation (CFF) a grant through the 2015 Atlantic sea scallop research set-aside program, in support of a project titled, “Optimizing the Georges Bank Scallop Fishery by Maximizing Meat Yield and Minimizing Bycatch.”

    CFF submitted a complete application for an EFP on June 4, 2015. The project would look primarily at seasonal distribution of bycatch in relation to sea scallop meat weight yield while minimizing impacts to other stocks. Additional objectives include continued testing of a modified dredge bag design to reduce flatfish bycatch and collecting biological samples to examine scallop meat quality and yellowtail flounder liver disease. CFF is requesting exemptions that would allow eight commercial fishing vessels be exempt from the Atlantic sea scallop days-at-sea (DAS) allocations at 50 CFR 648.53(b); Closed Area II scallop gear restrictions specified at § 648.81(b); access area program requirements at § 648.60(a)(4); crew size restrictions at § 648.51(c); and possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subsections B and D through O, for sampling purposes only.

    Eight vessels would conduct scallop dredging in a year-round seasonal study on a total of eight 7-day trips, for a total of 56 DAS. Each trip would complete approximately 70 paired tows per trip for an overall total of 560 tows for the project. Closed Area II tows would take place in the central portion situated below the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Closed Area II Rotational Closed Area. Open area tows would be conducted on the northern half of Georges Bank west of the boundary of Closed Area II. CFF proposed tow locations inside the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area. NOAA Fisheries does not believe that access to this area should be granted until a final outcome from the Omnibus Habitat Amendment II is determined, which is currently under development.

    NOAA Fisheries recognizes there is a potential for gear conflict with lobster gear in the central portion of CAII. In an effort to help mitigate gear interactions, the project coordinator would distribute the time and location of stations to the lobster industry, work only during daylight hours, post an extra lookout to avoid gear, and conduct fishing operations in a way that avoids tangling in stationary gear. The lobster industry in relation to other actions has also expressed concern about the potential harvest of egg-bearing female lobsters in this area during the months of June-October. We do not expect the DAS, crew size or possession limits and minimum size exemptions to generate any controversy or concern. We will send the EFP notice to the Offshore Lobster association to ensure they are provided adequate opportunity to provide comment.

    All tows would be conducted with two tandem 15-foot (4.57-meter) turtle deflector dredges for a duration of 30 minutes using an average tow speed of 4.8 knots. One dredge would be rigged with a 7-row apron and twine top hanging ratio of 2:1, while the other dredge would be rigged with a 5-row apron and 1.5:1 twine top hanging ratio. Both dredge frames would be rigged with identical rock and tickler chain configurations, 10-inch (25.4-cm) twine top, and 4-inch (10.16-cm) ring bag.

    For all tows the entire sea scallop catch would be counted into baskets and weighed. One basket from each dredge would be randomly selected and the scallops would be measured in 5-mm increments to determine size selectivity. All finfish catch would be sorted by species and then counted and measured. Weight, sex, and reproductive state would be determined for a random subsample (n=10) of yellowtail, winter, and windowpane flounders. Lobsters would be measured, sexed, and evaluated for damage and shell disease. Maximum catch estimates for lobster for the project would be approximately 283 individuals. With the exception of samples retained for further processing, no catch would be retained for longer than needed to conduct sampling and no catch would be landed for sale.

    Project Catch Estimates Species American Lobster Minimum lbs mt Maximum 283 individuals lbs mt Scallops 30,300 13.74 124,400 56.43 Yellowtail 2,900 1.32 5,300 2.40 Winter Flounder 1,700 0.77 2,700 1.22 Windowpane Flounder 4,000 1.81 4,900 2.22 Monkfish 12,600 5.72 18,400 8.35 Other Fish 3,000 1.36 3,300 1.50 Barndoor Skate 5,700 2.59 5,900 2.68 NE Skate Complex 81,200 36.83 106,900 48.49

    CFF needs these exemptions to allow them to conduct experimental dredge towing without being charged DAS, as well as deploy gear in areas that are currently closed to scallop fishing. Participating vessels need crew size waivers to accommodate science personnel and possession waivers will enable them to conduct finfish sampling activities.

    If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. 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 26, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16189 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD991 Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan for Implementing Recommendations 14/15; Determining Types of Information and Operational Standards Related to Data Collection AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Ocean Council Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (NOC Committee) is seeking public input on the minimum types of information necessary for an effective seafood traceability program to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, as well as the operational standards related to collecting, verifying and securing that data.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0090, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0090, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Melissa Beaudry, Quality Officer, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, 1315 East-West Highway, Suite 9511, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Beaudry, Quality Officer, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection; 301-427-8308.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 15, 2015, the Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task Force), co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, published its Action Plan for Implementing the Task Force Recommendations (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/taskforce.html).

    The Action Plan articulates the steps that Federal agencies will take to implement the recommendations the Task Force made to the President in December 2014 on a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The plan identifies actions that will strengthen enforcement, create and expand partnerships with state and local governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations, and create a risk-based traceability program to track seafood from harvest to point of entry into U.S. commerce, including the use of existing traceability mechanisms. The work initiated by the Task Force is now under the oversight of a National Ocean Council (NOC) Committee. The design of the traceability program will be led by an interagency working group.

    This notice is among the first steps in implementing Task Force Recommendations 14 and 15, specifically, developing types of information and operational standards related to data collection. The data collected will establish a foundation for the risk-based seafood traceability program to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud from harvest (wild-capture or aquaculture) to point of entry into U.S. commerce, as described in the Task Force Action Plan. This data is being collected for use by appropriate government officials.

    With this notice, the Committee is soliciting comments on the minimum types of information that should be collected and the operational standards to be applied to this data. The data collected should include, but is not limited to, the following information:

    (1) Who harvested or produced the fish?

    • Name of harvesting vessel;

    • Flag State of harvesting vessel;

    • Name of farm or aquaculture facility;

    • Name of processor; and

    • Type of fishing gear.

    (2) What fish was harvested and processed?

    • Species of fish;

    • Product description;

    • Name of product;

    • Form of the product; and

    • Quantity and/or weight of the product.

    (3) Where and when was the fish harvested and landed?

    • Area of wild-capture or aquaculture harvest;

    • Harvest date(s);

    • Name and location of aquaculture facility;

    • Point of first landing;

    • Date of first landing;

    The Committee also believes the following information logically should be considered:

    (4) What was the chain of custody of the fish or fish product through the supply chain to point of entry into U.S. commerce including:

    • Transshipment of product; and,

    • Processing, re-processing, or co-mingling of product

    The Committee seeks comment regarding the information needed to answer the four questions posed above, as well as any additional information necessary for the implementation of an effective risk-based seafood traceability program. An effective traceability system must be capable of capturing a complex supply chain which may involve reprocessing, mixed species, cold storage holding, trans-shipments, etc., as well as the simple harvest of a single species.

    Given the scope of the traceability system anticipated in the Action Plan, additional data required for fish harvested in U.S. domestic fisheries is minimal because domestically harvested fish enters U.S. commerce at its first point of landing and, to a large extent, relevant data are already generated and reported through existing state and federal permitting, catch monitoring, and landing reports implemented under federal and state fishery management plans. At-risk species that are harvested domestically, exported for reprocessing, and then re-imported to the U.S. may require traceability throughout that entire supply chain.

    The Operational standards to apply to the data collected may include, but are not limited to, the following:

    • How the data are to be collected;

    • Interoperability with existing traceability systems;

    • Who has responsibility for collecting the data;

    • How the data will be verified; and

    • Data security.

    Who harvested or produced the fish?

    This information establishes the starting point of the traceability process. Although this information is straightforward in many cases, operational characteristics of some fisheries present challenges. Traceability of an operation in which easily identified, individual vessels deliver directly to a buyer or processor may be relatively simple. However in a fishery with tender vessels taking deliveries from many smaller harvesting boats, collection of this information could become burdensome. In this instance, the Committee currently anticipates requiring only the name of the tender vessels making traceable deliveries to a buyer or processor. Comments are requested as to what information, if any, is necessary regarding the harvesting vessel name and flag state and authorization to harvest the species in question for the implementation of an effective traceability program.

    Aquacultured species are easier to trace back to a particular pond or region, and the Action Plan states that the traceability process shall start at the point of harvest. It is therefore unlikely that facility information for the raising of the breeders or the fingerlings, depending upon the fishery, will be included in the traceability program. Also, the body of water for a farm-raised species could have several aquaculture facilities in place by different companies. The Committee requests comments addressing the whether the aquaculture facility or the body of water is appropriate point of origin in a traceability system for aquacultured species.

    Processor and gear type are common elements in many fishery traceability systems. Processors may already be required to trace their products through some portion of the supply chain. The Committee considers information related to processing and/or reprocessing of product to be critical to tracking chain-of-custody, notes that this information is required for existing global traceability programs, and anticipates the requirement of such data as a part of this traceability program. This would include information about primary processors and secondary processors who maintained custody of the shipment prior to entering the United States.

    In the context of seafood traceability, gear information helps to link specific vessels to the fishery in which they participate and the species they harvest. The Committee intends to require gear type information for the proposed traceability system and requests comments as to whether and what gear type information should be collected for traceability.

    What fish was harvested and processed?

    A traceability system to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud requires certain minimal information, including the species of the fish, the quantity and/or weight of the catch, and the form of the product. The state of the shipment (live, raw/fresh, or frozen) and the type of product informs the calculation of the actual amount of fish harvested, as well as the potential risk for fraud associated with the product. The Committee therefore intends to request this information and seeks comments regarding its use for traceability purposes as well as suggestions for alternative approaches to trace fish and seafood products in various forms.

    The Committee is considering a range of options with respect to species identification, including scientific names, names on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved list, and common or market names. Use of scientific names may minimize confusion at the border. As common or market names tend to group similar species, requiring the scientific name could dramatically increase the number of species names listed, thereby increasing the possibility of reporting error. However, using common or market names could be used to mask the import of a species at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved list of fish names for labeling of fish in the United States may not cover all fish entering the United States and adding a market or common name to that list may take time. Comments are requested as to whether scientific names, common, usual, or market names, or some combination, should serve as the basis for species identification in the traceability program and be utilized for identifying imported product at the point of entry into U.S. commerce.

    Where and when was the fish harvested and landed?

    Collection of information identifying the area of harvest or the region in which an aquaculture facility is located, and the time at which the harvest took place, represents the initial “link” in the supply chain. It represents the action back to which the at-risk species entering U.S. commerce will be traced. For wild-capture fisheries, the Committee intends to identify area of harvest by FAO catch area designation or comparable designation of fresh-water sources. The Committee has identified area or body of water and facility as data required for establishing where and when fish was harvested from an aquaculture source. The Committee seeks comments on the adequacy of this information for identifying where and when fish is harvested, alternative data that may be useful in tracing product to time and place of harvest, and methods for verifying the accuracy of data used for this purpose.

    What was the chain of custody through the supply chain to point of entry into U.S. commerce?

    As described above, identifying the point of harvest within an area or aquaculture facility is relatively straightforward. However, the global market for fish and seafood products supports complex supply chains, including transshipment to one or more locations prior to entry into U.S. commerce. Shipments may be co-mingled with similar species from other locations, complicating the process of traceability to point of harvest. An effective traceability system will require information on each point of landing, transshipment and processing throughout the fish or seafood product's chain of custody to point of entry into U.S. commerce. This would include not only the harvest for each shipment, but information regarding any further processing and transshipment that occurred prior to entry into U.S. Commerce. Comments are requested as to the level of detailed information that should be required for country of harvest, transshipment, processing and re-processing, and co-mingling of product or species. The Committee requests comments regarding the appropriate data and standards for effective traceability at each stage of the supply chain from harvest to point of entry into U.S. commerce.

    How the data are to be collected?

    The Committee recommends use of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) as the data collection portal for imports of species identified as at-risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud. In an effort to streamline the import and export process, President Obama signed an Executive Order in February 2014 that requires ITDS to be completed and fully utilized by government agencies by December 2016. ITDS is a “single window” system which allows businesses to communicate with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its Partner Government Agencies (PGAs) when importing and exporting goods, eliminating the often duplicative and paper-based processes used previously. With ITDS, companies submit their information electronically, and the data elements can then be quickly and efficiently retrieved and used by the Federal agencies that require them. More information on ITDS can be found at www.itds.gov.

    Consistency Across Federal Agencies and Interoperability With Existing International, Federal, State, and Non-Governmental Information Systems

    Data at the border is currently collected both in electronic and hard copy formats. Hard copies are often scanned and then stored for future use. Use of the ITDS will not only simplify the collection of data by utilizing an electronic format, but interoperability of information is assured between all Federal agencies as only one data system is employed. The Committee anticipates the collection of data in electronic format using ITDS for ease of collection. With respect to interoperability of data captured and utilized by existing information systems, it is the Committee's intent to avoid, to the extent practicable, the establishment of redundant data collection processes or protocols that undermine the function and effectiveness of existing systems. While it is unlikely that ITDS will be capable of automatically “retrieving” data from existing databases, the Committee is interested in comments describing methods that will facilitate the use of existing systems to provide data identified in future traceability rule making. Comments are also requested regarding the proposed use of the ITDS, the potential use of other systems the Federal agencies should consider at the border, and if there are any barriers, known or perceived, in using the ITDS system.

    Who would collect the data?

    Use of the ITDS system to collect proposed data elements for imports of species identified as at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud would require the importer (or exporter to the USA) to enter the information along with any necessary supporting documentation. The importer would be responsible for ensuring that the necessary data elements are collected along the supply chain and provided to CBP through ITDS at the point of entry.

    How will the data be verified?

    A key element of these operational standards is data verification. The operational standards must provide relevant Federal agencies the ability to verify that documentation for at-risk seafood products is complete and accurate upon entry into U.S. commerce, and validate country-specific documents and certifications. The operational standards must also incorporate a system of data checks and periodic auditing. A system of trace-back audits would determine the quality and accuracy of the data submitted and identify missing information and discrepancies. Comments are requested regarding a system of audits of the documentation system for quality and accuracy.

    Data Security

    As the additional data elements will be submitted through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)/ITDS single window as part of an entry filing, the supplemental data will only be accessible to the entry filer, CBP, and Federal agencies with authorization to review entry filings for the designated commodities. Consequently, data security concerns are minimal. Comments regarding additional considerations with respect to data security are requested.

    Following the public comment period, the NOC Committee will take the input received into consideration while finalizing recommendations that will be sent forward for appropriate agency action by September 2015, as outlined in the implementation plan for Task Force Recommendations 14 and 15.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. John Henderschedt, Director, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16185 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Southeast Region Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and Related Requirements AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 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 Adam Bailey, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Ave. S, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, (727) 824-5305, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for revision and extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act authorizes the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) to prepare and amend fishery management plans for any fishery in Federal waters under their respective jurisdictions. NMFS and the Gulf Council manage the reef fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) under the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). NMFS and the South Atlantic Council manage the fishery for rock shrimp in the South Atlantic under the Shrimp FMP. The vessel monitoring system (VMS) regulations for the Gulf reef fish fishery and the South Atlantic rock shrimp fishery may be found at 50 CFR 622.28 and 622.205, respectively.

    The FMPs contains several area-specific regulations where fishing is restricted or prohibited in order to protect habitat or spawning aggregations, or to control fishing pressure. Unlike size, bag, and trip limits, where the catch can be monitored on shore when a vessel returns to port, area restrictions require at-sea enforcement. However, at-sea enforcement of offshore area restrictions is difficult due to the distance from shore and the limited number of patrol vessels, resulting in a need to improve enforceability of area fishing restrictions through remote sensing methods. In addition, all fishing gears are subject to some area fishing restrictions. Because of the sizes of these areas and the distances from shore, the effectiveness of enforcement through over flights and at-sea interception is limited. An electronic VMS allows a more effective means to monitor vessels for intrusions into restricted areas.

    The VMS provides effort data and significantly aids in enforcement of areas closed to fishing. All position reports are treated in accordance with NMFS existing guidelines for confidential data. As a condition of authorized fishing for or possession of reef fish or rock shrimp in or from the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or South Atlantic EEZ, respectively, vessel owners or operators subject to VMS requirements must allow NMFS, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and their authorized officers and designees, access to the vessel's position data obtained from the VMS.

    NMFS would like to move the collection of information requirement for VMS applicable to vessels with limited access endorsements for South Atlantic rock shrimp under OMB Control No. 0648-0205 to this collection. The burden estimates have changed due to inclusion of the applicable burden from OMB Control No. 0648-0205.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0544.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular (revision and extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 894.

    Estimated Time Per Response: Installation, 4 hours; installation and activation checklist, 15 minutes; power-down exemption requests, 5 minutes; transmission of fishing activity reports, 1 minute; and annual maintenance, 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,719.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,011,121 in start-up, transfer, operations, and maintenance costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16092 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 16 July 2015, at 9 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials.

    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing [email protected]; or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

    Dated: June 19, 2015, in Washington, DC. Thomas Luebke, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15853 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Army Science Board Partially Closed Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a partially closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 and title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Department of the Army announces a meeting of the Army Science Board.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Army Science Board, Designated Federal Officer, 2530 Crystal Drive, Suite 7098, Arlington, VA 22202; LTC Stephen K. Barker, the committee's Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at (703) 545-8652 or email: [email protected], or Mr. Paul Woodward at (703) 695-8344 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 102-3.140 through 160, the Department of the Army announces the following committee meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB) Summer Voting Session.

    Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015.

    Time: 0800-1630.

    Locations:

    Open portion: Antlers Hilton, Four South Cascade, Colorado Springs, CO 80903-1685 from 0830-1200.

    Closed portion: Fort Carson Colorado, Room 107, Building 1435, 6150 Wetzel Ave, Fort Carson, CO 80913 from 1400-1630.

    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for ASB members to review, deliberate, and vote on the findings and recommendations presented for the Board's five Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) studies.

    Agenda: The board will present findings and recommendations for deliberation and vote on the following five FY15 studies:

    Army Cyber at the Tactical Edge. This study is classified and will be presented in the closed meeting. The purpose of this study is to further identify the challenges, both technical and doctrinal, unique to Army tactical edge cyber operations at the Corps-level and below, and to propose what technical capabilities, new processes, training and policy changes are required to ensure the Army is postured to fight and win in cyber space from the tactical edge.

    Army Science & Technology for Army Aviation 2025-2040. This study contains classified and unclassified material and will be presented in the open and closed portions of the meeting. The objective of this study is to identify and assess Science and Technology (S&T) enhancements capable of being fielded during the 2025-2040 timeframe that will increase Army Aviation's expeditionary capabilities to support full-spectrum military operations and reduce its sustainment tails and logistics footprint.

    Strategies to Optimize Army Operating and Generating Forces for 2025 & Beyond. This study contains classified and unclassified material and will be presented in the open and closed portions of the meeting. The purpose of the study is to develop strategies for rebalancing the Army operating and generating force to retain or gain capabilities in the mid-term (2025) and beyond (2030-2040). This study will identify opportunities to improve the efficiency of operating force combat service support and generating force capabilities to help provide the means to invest in core operational capabilities.

    Human Interaction and Behavioral Enhancement. This study is not classified and will be presented in the open portion of the meeting. The purpose of this study is to identify and asses methods and techniques to understand, interact and influence human behavior in support of Army missions.

    Force 2025 and Beyond. This study is not classified and will be presented in the open portion of the meeting. This study will provide findings and recommendations for operational concepts and advanced technologies along with the associated force designs for improving and maintaining readiness, designing and conducting training, and aligning the required logistics investments.

    Filing Written Statement: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow the public to speak; however, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Board. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the DFO at the address listed above. Written statements not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting may not be considered by the Board prior to its scheduled meeting.

    The DFO will review all timely submissions with the Board's executive committee and ensure they are provided to the specific study members as necessary before, during, or after the meeting. After reviewing written comments, the study chairs and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter of the comments to orally present their issue during a future open meeting.

    The DFO, in consultation with the executive committee, may allot a specific amount of time for members of the public to present their issues for discussion.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 3.165, and the availability of space, the open portion of this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. The Antlers Hilton is fully handicapped accessible. For additional information about public access procedures, contact LTC Stephen Barker at the telephone number or email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16167 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Extension of Comment Period for the South Shore of Staten Island (SSSI) Draft Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; extension of review period.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, has prepared the South Shore of Staten Island (SSSI) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS No. 20150175). A notice of availability was published in the June 19, 2015, issue of the Federal Register (80 FR 35356). The New York District is extending the review period for an additional 30 days.

    DATES:

    Comments on the draft environmental impact statement are due by September 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District Planning Division-Environmental Brach (ATTN: Ms. Catherine Alcoba) 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278-0090. Comments may also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Frank Verga at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    None.

    Dated: June 24, 2015. Peter Weppler, Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch, Planning Division, New York District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16262 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2015-ICCD-0027] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Student Messaging in GEAR UP Demonstration AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 31, 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-0027 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 Marsha Silverberg, 202 208-7178.

    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: Student Messaging in GEAR UP Demonstration.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 5,360.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,386.

    Abstract: The Student Messaging in GEAR UP Demonstration, sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education (ED), is being conducted to test the effectiveness of a promising strategy to improve college-related outcomes in the federal college access program Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). The demonstration will use a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design to test the effectiveness of sending customized messaging to students, first during the summer after high school graduation, and then in the fall and spring of their expected first year of college. Students within high schools that volunteer for the demonstration will be randomly assigned to either receive the messages or not. This ICR requests clearance for the collection of GEAR UP student rosters and administration of a baseline survey. In addition to the baseline survey data that will be collected from students, college-related outcome data will be extracted from national datasets (National Student Clearinghouse Data (NSC) and the Federal Student Aid (FSA) database). Impact and descriptive analyses will be conducted to answer the study research questions. The evaluation plans call for two reports. The first, published in summer 2018, will be based on data collected through 2017 that will look at college advising received in high school and early college-related outcomes (i.e., college enrollment and FAFSA completion). The second report will be available in early 2020, and will investigate college persistence.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16107 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Electric Grid Resilience Self-Assessment Tool for Distribution System AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Request for Information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to inform the development of a pilot project concerning an interactive self-assessment tool to understand the relative resilience level of national electric grid distribution systems to extreme weather events. An interactive tool could be used by distribution utilities to identify opportunities for enhancing resilience with new technologies and/or procedures to support investment planning and related tariff filings. The focus of this Request for Information (RFI) is on the design and implementation of the interactive self-assessment resilience tool.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments can be submitted by any of the following methods and must be identified by “EGRtool”. By email: [email protected] . Include “EGRtool” in the subject line of the message. By mail: Dan Ton, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6E-092, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Note: Delivery of the U.S. Postal Service mail to DOE may be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. DOE, therefore, encourages those wishing to comment to submit comments electronically by email.

    For additional information, please contact Dan Ton, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-4618; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    With the release of Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21), the nation has started to focus in earnest on the resilience of our critical infrastructure. In the face of the increasing extreme weather events and other stresses or disturbances, the resilience of critical infrastructure, especially the energy infrastructure, has become paramount. Building upon the insights that have been gained through the development of the Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model, the Electricity Subsector Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model, and the Smart Grid Maturity Model, DOE-OE would like to build a complementary capability regarding the resilience of electric distribution infrastructure.

    For the purposes of this RFI, the definition of resilience is “the ability of an entity—e.g., asset, organization, community, region—to anticipate, resist, absorb, respond to, adapt to, and recover from a disturbance.” 1

    1 Carlson, L., et al., 2012, Resilience Theory and Applications, Argonne National Laboratory, Decision and Information Sciences Division, ANL/DIS-12-1, Argonne, Ill, USA, available at http://www.dis.anl.gov/pubs/72218.pdf (accessed April 9, 2015).

    This definition provides the framework for four domains that can be used to understand the current level of resilience of distribution system infrastructure. Through these domains, distribution utilities will be able to make informed decisions on strengthening resiliency, based on identifiable areas where future investments in new technologies and operating procedures could be made. The four domains are:

    Preparedness: Activities undertaken by an entity in anticipation of the threats/hazards, and the possible consequences, to which it is subject.

    Mitigation Measures: Characterize the facility's capabilities to resist a threat/hazard or to absorb the consequences from the threat/hazard.

    Response Capabilities: Immediate and ongoing activities, tasks, programs, and systems that have been undertaken or developed to respond and adapt to the adverse effects of an event.

    Recovery Mechanisms: Activities and programs designed to be effective and efficient in returning operating conditions to a level that is acceptable to the entity.

    Underneath all four domains lie questions that contains specific information for each of the domains. Examples of questions that can be asked with specific reference to resilience are:

    —What procedures are included in your emergency action plan? [Preparedness] —To date, what smart grid technologies have you incorporated into your distribution system? [Mitigation Measures] —Does the control and dispatch center use a distribution management system? [Response Capabilities] —What service restoration method(s) does the utility use? [Recovery Mechanisms]

    For each of these questions there will be a set of distinct answers. This method of construction allows consistent, objective information collection for all entities interested in using the model. In cooperation with the utility industry, a working group will be created to assist in determining the direction of the program.

    II. Request for Information

    In order to develop this pilot project, DOE would like input from resilience experts in the electric distribution industry to gauge the interest and usefulness of the proposed decision support tool. This RFI provides the public and industry stakeholders with the opportunity to provide their view on the development of a resilience tool. The intent of this RFI is to solicit information pertinent to the need and viability of the resilience assessment tool. The information obtained is meant to be used by DOE for tool design and strategy development purposes. In your comments, please reference the question(s) to which you are responding, as well as provide other pertinent information.

    A. Resilience Assessment Tool Need

    (1) Would a resilience assessment tool be of interest for electric distribution utilities?

    (2) What would you like to see in such a model should it exist (i.e., functionality, presentation, accessibility?)

    B. Resilience Tool Criteria/Domains

    There are four key domains proposed for resilience: preparedness, mitigation measures, response and recovery. Each of these components has subcomponents as detailed below:

    a. Preparedness: Awareness and Planning.

    b. Mitigation Measures: Extreme Weather Mitigation, Utility Mitigation, and Dependencies Mitigation.

    c. Response Capabilities: Internal Capabilities and External Capabilities.

    d. Recovery Mechanisms: Resource Restoration Agreements and Utility Service Restoration.

    (3) Do these components and subcomponents make sense as contributors to electric distribution system resilience?

    (4) What is missing, or should be taken away?

    C. Data Protection

    (5) What are your concerns about data protection if asked to submit anonymous aggregate data for a national average for electric distribution resilience?

    (6) Data protection is recognized as an important consideration for utility participation in such an assessment model. What are your opinions and recommendations on data protection?

    D. Working Group Participation

    (7) Would your utility be willing to participate in a working group intent on constructing the relative importance of the different components and subcomponents to the overall resilience of the system? Who would be the appropriate person within your utility to participate in such a working group?

    (8) Are there others who you would suggest to provide early feedback on tool development?

    (9) Is your utility interested in being part of a demonstration or pilot during early testing?

    E. Other Feedback

    Additional comments that may not be captured in replies these questions, but are considered relevant by respondents are highly encouraged.

    Authority:

    Presidential Policy Directive-21.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on June 25, 2015. Patricia A. Hoffman, Assistant Secretary, Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16186 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-411] Application to Export Electric Energy; Targray Americas Inc. AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Targray Americas Inc. (Targray) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

    On May 29, 2015, DOE received an application from Targray for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for five years using existing international transmission facilities.

    In its application, Targray states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. Targray states that it has applied for market-based rate authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to engage in the sale and purchase of electric energy to and from Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations. As such, the electric energy that Targray proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as power marketers, independent power producers, electric utilities, and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Targray have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning the Targray application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-411. An additional copy is to be provided directly to Ruta Kalvaitis Skucas, Pierce Atwood LLC, 900 17th St., NW., Suite 350, Washington, DC 20006 and to Karen Roberge, Targray Technology International Inc., 18105 Transcanadienne, Kirkland QC, H9J 3Z4 Canada.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected].

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 2015. Brian Mills, Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16187 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-171-D] Application To Export Electric Energy; Powerex Corp. AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Application.

    SUMMARY:

    Powerex Corp. (Applicant or Powerex) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

    On November 17, 2010, DOE issued Order No. EA-171-C to Powerex Corp., which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on November 17, 2015. On May 19, 2015, Powerex filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-171-C for an additional five-year term.

    In its application, Powerex states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that Powerex proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Powerex have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning Powerex's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-171-D. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Mike MacDougall and Karen McDonald, Powerex Corp., 666 Burrard Street, Suite 1300, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6C 2X8 and to both Deanna King and Tracey Bradley, Bracewell and Giuliani LLP, 2000 K Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected].

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 2015. Brian Mills, Director, Permitting and Siting Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16233 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9929-17] Access to Confidential Business Information by Science Applications International Corporation and Its Identified Subcontractor, Solutions by Design II, LLC AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has authorized its contractor, Science Applications International Corporation of McLean, VA, and its identified subcontractor, Solutions by Design II, LLC of Vienna, VA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

    DATES:

    Access to the confidential data occurred on or about March 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Scott Sherlock, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8257; email address: s[email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number GS-35F-486BA, order number EP-G15H-01095, contractor SAIC of 1701 SAIC Drive, McLean, VA; and Solutions by Design II, LLC of 1953 Gallows Road, Suite 870, Vienna, VA, are assisting OPPT in developing, enhancing, maintaining and operating a variety of EPA databases and applications. They will also assist in the interfaces and linkages to other applications.

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number GS-35F-486BA, order number EP-G15H-01095, SAIC and its subcontractor required access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. SAIC and its subcontractor's personnel were given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA has provided SAIC and its subcontractor access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract is taking place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until March 26, 2018. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

    SAIC and its subcontractor's personnel have signed nondisclosure agreements and were briefed on appropriate security procedures before they were permitted access to TSCA CBI.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: June 19, 2015. Pamela S. Myrick, Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16226 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365; FRL-9929-88-ORD] Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Meeting—July 2015 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting (via conference call) of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee.

    DATES:

    The conference call will be held on Monday, July 20, 2015, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. These times are approximate; the conference call may adjourn early if all business is finished or may adjourn late if additional time is needed. Written comments and requests for the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the meeting will be accepted up to one business day before the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    Participation in the conference call will be by teleconference only; meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the call from Tim Benner, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    Submitting Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: Send comments by electronic mail (email) to: [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365.

    Fax: Fax comments to: (202) 566-0224, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365.

    Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Docket, Mail Code: 2822T, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365. Note: this is not a mailing address. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0365. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Air, Climate, and Energy Subcommittee Docket, EPA/DC, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Tim Benner, Mail Code 8104R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564-6769; via fax at: (202) 565-2911; or via email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    General Information: The conference call is open to the public. Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft agenda, attending the conference call, or making a presentation during the conference call may contact Tim Benner, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes. Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following: presentation and discussion of the subcommittee's draft responses to the charge questions and approval of the final draft letter report prior to its submission to the BOSC Executive Committee.

    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tim Benner at (202) 564-6769 or [email protected] To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tim Benner, preferably at least ten days prior to the conference call, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: June 24, 2015. Fred S. Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16199 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0302; FRL-9929-42] Proposed Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index; Notice of Availability and Request for Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is announcing the availability of and requesting public comment on a proposed guidance document called the Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index (USI). The Agency developed this document to provide guidance about antimicrobial pesticide use sites and general antimicrobial pesticide use patterns. This guidance document is intended to assist antimicrobial pesticide applicants and registrants by helping them to identify the 40 CFR part 158 subpart W data requirements that are necessary to register their product(s), and will likewise be used by Agency staff evaluating pesticide applications.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0302, 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:

    Steven Weiss, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 308-8293; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be affected by this action if you are a producer of pesticide products (NAICS 32532), antifoulants (NAICS 32551), antimicrobial pesticides (NAICS 32561), or wood preservatives (NAICS 32519), importers of such products, or any person or company who seeks to register an antimicrobial, antifoulant coating, ballast water treatment, or wood preservative pesticide or to obtain a tolerance for such a pesticide. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected.

    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.

    C. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    A copy of the proposed guidance document is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0302.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    The Agency is making available for comment a proposed guidance document called the “Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index.” In the Federal Register on May 8, 2013 (78 FR 26936) (FRL-8886-5), the Agency published a final rule amending 40 CFR part 158, the section of the regulations setting forth the data requirements that support an application to register a pesticide product. The final rule, which is codified as 40 CFR part 158 subpart W (158W), contains the data requirements specifically applicable to antimicrobial pesticides. The rule became effective July 8, 2013.

    The proposed guidance document serves as a compilation of the specific use sites that are commonly listed on antimicrobial labels. The specific use sites are further organized into categories of twelve general use patterns. The general use patterns are broad designations and are used as columns in the antimicrobial data requirements tables to identify which data requirements might be pertinent to the particular pesticide use site. The Agency has developed the proposed guidance document to provide additional information about these use patterns. This guidance document is intended to assist antimicrobial pesticide applicants and registrants by helping them to identify the data requirements that are necessary to register their product(s), and will likewise be used by Agency staff evaluating antimicrobial pesticide applications.

    As a guidance document, the association of a particular antimicrobial use site with a general antimicrobial use pattern should be viewed as a recommendation only and is not to be construed as binding on either EPA or any outside parties. EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice.

    The posting of this proposed guidance document for public comment satisfies a condition of the March 2, 2015, settlement agreement between EPA and the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which followed ACC's July 2013 initiation of a legal challenge to the data requirements regulation (subpart 158W of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Under that settlement agreement, the Agency committed to taking comment on this proposed guidance document within 4 months of the effective date of the settlement agreement.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136-136y and 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: June 24, 2015. Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16232 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9929-86-OAR] Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Applications AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the process for submitting applications for critical use exemptions for 2018 and subsequent years. Critical use exemptions are exceptions to the phaseout of production and import of methyl bromide, a controlled class I ozone-depleting substance. Critical use exemptions must be permitted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and must also be in accordance with the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations. Applications received in response to this notice will be considered as the basis for submitting potential nominations for critical use exemptions to future Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Critical use exemptions allow production, import, and use of methyl bromide in the specific year for which the Parties to the Montreal Protocol permit the use. All entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption must provide EPA with the technical and economic information outlined in this notice to support a “critical use” claim by the deadline specified in this notice, even if they have applied for an exemption in previous years.

    DATES:

    Applications for critical use exemptions must be submitted to EPA no later than September 15 of the calendar year three years prior to the calendar year for which the exemption is sought. An application for a critical use exemption for calendar year 2018, for example, must be submitted by September 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Application forms are available at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html. EPA encourages users to submit applications electronically to [email protected] Users can also submit applications by U.S. mail to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Team, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    Confidentiality: Application materials that are confidential should be submitted under separate cover and be clearly identified as “confidential business information.” Information covered by a claim of business confidentiality will be treated in accordance with the procedures for handling such information under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, and will be disclosed only to the extent and by means of the procedures set forth in that subpart. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the submitter (40 CFR 2.203). EPA may place a copy of Worksheet 6 from the application in the public domain. Any information on Worksheet 6 shall not be considered confidential and will not be treated as such by the Agency.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    General Information: U.S. EPA Stratospheric Ozone Information inbox, [email protected]; also www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr.

    Technical Information: Bill Chism, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7503P), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 703-308-8136. Email: [email protected].

    Regulatory Information: Jeremy Arling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 202-343-9055. EPA encourages users to submit their applications electronically to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background on the Critical Use Exemption

    The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is the international agreement aimed at protecting the ozone layer by reducing and eliminating the production and consumption of stratospheric ozone-depleting substances. Methyl bromide was added to the Protocol as an ozone-depleting substance in 1992 through the Copenhagen Amendment.

    While the Protocol requires developed countries like the United States to phase out the production and consumption of Methyl Bromide in 2005, it also states that the Parties may exempt from that phaseout “the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses” (Art. 2H para 5). The Parties to the Protocol included this language in the treaty's methyl bromide phaseout provisions in recognition that alternatives might not be available by the 2005 phaseout date for certain uses agreed by the Parties to be “critical uses.”

    In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the Parties agreed to Decision IX/6, setting forth the following criteria for a “critical use” determination and an exemption from the production and consumption phaseout:

    (a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as “critical” only if the nominating Party determines that:

    (i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and

    (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.

    (b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for a critical use should be permitted only if:

    (i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide;

    (ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl bromide;

    (iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialize and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular nomination . . . Non-Article 5 Parties [which includes the U.S.] must demonstrate that research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes.

    In 1998, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require EPA to conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide to the provisions of the Protocol and to allow EPA to provide a critical use exemption. These amendments were codified in Section 604 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. Under EPA implementing regulations, the production and consumption of methyl bromide were phased out as of January 1, 2005. Section 604(d)(6), as added in 1998, allows EPA to exempt the production and import of methyl bromide from the phaseout for critical uses, to the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol. EPA has defined “critical use” at 40 CFR 82.3 based on the criteria in paragraph (a) of Decision IX/6.

    EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.4 prohibit the production and import of methyl bromide in excess of the amount of unexpended critical use allowances held by the producer or importer, unless authorized under a separate exemption. The use of methyl bromide that was produced or imported through the expenditure of production or consumption allowances prior to 2005, while not confined to critical uses under EPA's phaseout regulations, is subject to the labeling restrictions under FIFRA as specified in the product labeling.

    II. Critical Use Nomination Process

    Entities requesting critical use exemptions should send a completed application to EPA on the candidate use by September 15, three years prior to the year of the intended use. This timing is necessary for the U.S. Government to complete its consideration for nomination to the United Nations Environment Programme and the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in a timely manner; for the Parties to reach a decision on the nomination; and for EPA to undertake notice-and-comment rulemaking. For example, applications for the 2018 growing season must be submitted by September 15, 2015. Critical use exemptions are valid for only one year and do not automatically renew. All users wanting to obtain an exemption must apply to EPA annually even if they have applied for critical uses in prior years. Because of the potential for changes to registration status, costs, and economic aspects of producing critical use crops and commodities, applicants must fill out the application form completely.

    Upon receipt of applications, EPA will review the information and work with other interested Federal agencies as required in section 604 of the Clean Air Act to determine whether the candidate use satisfies Clean Air Act requirements, and whether it meets the critical use criteria adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and warrants nomination by the United States for an exemption.

    All Parties, including the United States, choosing to submit nominations to the UNEP Ozone Secretariat must do so by January 24 to be considered by the Parties at their annual meeting later that year. The UNEP Ozone Secretariat forwards nominations to the Montreal Protocol's Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC). The MBTOC and the TEAP review the nominations to determine whether they meet the criteria for a critical use established by Decision IX/6, and to make recommendations to the Parties for critical use exemptions. The Parties then consider those recommendations at their annual meeting before making a final decision. If the Parties determine that a specified use of methyl bromide is critical and permit an exemption from the Protocol's production and consumption phaseout for that year, EPA may then take domestic action to allow the production and consumption to the extent consistent with the Clean Air Act.

    III. Information Required for Critical Use Applications

    In prior years, EPA issued an annual notice requesting applications for critical use exemptions. Through this action, EPA provides the information necessary to enable applications to be submitted for critical use exemptions for methyl bromide for all future control periods (calendar years). Entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption must complete the application form available at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html.

    Applications requesting critical use allowances should include information that U.S. Government agencies and the Parties to the Protocol can use to evaluate the candidate use according to the criteria in Decision IX/6 described above. Applications that fail to include sufficient information may not be nominated.

    Specifically, applications should include the information requested in the current version of the TEAP Handbook on Critical Use Nominations. The handbook is available electronically at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/MBTOC/Handbook%20CUN-version5-27Nov06.pdf. EPA requests that applications contain the following information, as described in the handbook, in order for the U.S. to provide sufficient information to the Montreal Protocol's technical review bodies within the nomination:

    • A clear statement on the specific circumstances of the nomination which describe the critical need for methyl bromide and quantity of methyl bromide requested;

    • Data on the availability and technical and economic feasibility of alternatives to the proposed methyl bromide use;

    • A review of the comparative performance of methyl bromide and alternatives including control of target pests in research and commercial scale up studies; 1

    1 Where an alternative is not registered for use in a particular jurisdiction, growers in that jurisdiction need not address the performance of that particular alternative.

    • A description of all technically and economically feasible steps taken by the applicant to minimize methyl bromide use and emissions;

    • Data on the use and availability of stockpiled methyl bromide;

    • A description of efforts made to test, register, and commercially adopt alternatives;

    • Plans for phase-out of critical uses of methyl bromide; and

    • The methodology used to provide economic comparisons.

    EPA's Web site (www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/alts.html) contains a list of current and potential alternatives. To support the assertion that a specific use of methyl bromide meets the requirements of the critical use exemption, applicants must demonstrate that none of the listed alternatives are technically and economically feasible for that use. In addition, applicants should describe research plans which include the pest(s), chemical(s), or management practice(s) they will be testing to support their transition from methyl bromide.

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements contained in this notice under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0482.

    Since neither the Protocol nor the Clean Air Act establish a specific end date for Critical Use Exemptions, anyone interested in obtaining a critical use exemption may apply. However, the language and spirit of controls on ozone depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol envision a phaseout of methyl bromide and for the critical use exemption to be a “temporary derogation” from that phaseout. Over the last decade, the research, registration, and adoption of alternatives has allowed many sectors to successfully transition from methyl bromide. The number of sectors nominated has declined from seventeen for 2006 to one for 2017. Below is information on how the agency evaluated recent applications for specific uses when considering nominations for critical uses, as well as specific information needed for the United States to successfully defend any future nominations for critical uses.

    Commodities Such as Dried Fruit and Nuts

    Data reviewed by EPA for commodities such as dried fruit and nuts indicate that sulfuryl fluoride is effective against key pests. The industry has mostly converted to sulfuryl fluoride and no market disruption has occurred. Rapid fumigation is not a critical condition for this sector and therefore, products can be treated with sulfuryl fluoride or phosphine and be held for relatively long periods of time without a significant economic impact.

    To support a nomination, applicants should address potential economic losses due to pest pressures, changes in quality, changes in timing, and any other economic implications for producers when converting to alternatives. Alternatives for which such information is needed are: Sulfuryl fluoride, propylene oxide (PPO), phosphine, and controlled atmosphere/temperature treatment systems.

    Applicants should include the costs to retrofit equipment or design and construct new fumigation chambers for these alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants should provide: The amount of fumigant gas used (for both methyl bromide and alternatives, which may include heat), price per pound of the fumigant gas from the most recent use season, application rates, differences in time required for fumigation, differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages) associated with alternatives, the amount of commodity treated with each fumigant/treatment and the value of the commodity being treated/produced. Applicants should also provide information on changes in costs for any other practices or equipment used (e.g., sanitation and IPM) that are not needed when methyl bromide is used for fumigation, including information on the size of fumigation chambers where methyl bromide is used, the percent of commodity fumigated under tarps, the length of the harvest season, peak of the harvest season and duration, and volume of commodity treated daily at the harvest peak.

    Where applicable, also provide examples of specific customer requests regarding pest infestation and examples of any phytosanitary requirements of foreign markets (e.g., import requirements of other countries) that may necessitate use of methyl bromide accompanied by explanation of why the methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment (QPS) exemption may not be applicable for this purpose. In addition, include information on what pest control practices organic producers are using for their commodity. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

    Dried Cured Pork

    Applicants should list how many facilities have been fumigated with methyl bromide over the last three years; the rate, volume, and target concentration over time [CT] of methyl bromide at each location; volume of each facility; number of fumigations per year; and the materials from which the facility was constructed. It is important for applicants in this sector to specify research plans into alternatives and alternative practices that support the transition from methyl bromide, as well as information on the technical and economic feasibility of using recapture technologies. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide. This is particularly important for this sector given the low volume of methyl bromide usage.

    Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and Tomato

    EPA found in its review of applications for cucurbits, eggplant, pepper, and tomato that although no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, multiple year data indicates that the alternatives in various combinations provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. Several research studies show that the three-way mixture of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium can effectively suppress pathogens (P. capsici, F. oxysporum) and nematodes.

    To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the three-way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in place of metam, dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and any fumigationless system (if data are available).

    Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

    Strawberry Fruit

    Based on EPA's review of information as part of the 2016 nomination process, EPA believes alternatives are available as advances have been made: (1) In safely applying 100% chloropicrin, (2) in strategies to improve efficacy in applying 1,3-dichloropropene, or mixtures of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, (3) in using the three-way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in place of metam in states other than California, and (4) in transitioning from experimental to commercial use of non-chemical tools, such as steam, anaerobic soil disinfestations, and substrate production.

    To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: Straight chloropicrin, the mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the three-way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in place of metam in states other than California, or dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and any fumigationless system (if data are available).

    Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers and their region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

    Orchard Replant

    Data reviewed by EPA for orchard replant indicate that while no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, numerous field trials indicate alternatives to methyl bromide are effective. Therefore, EPA has concluded that transitioning to the alternatives is feasible without substantial losses. Registered alternatives are available for individual-hole treatments, and soil preparation procedures are available to enable effective treatment with alternatives even in soils with high moisture content.

    To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the three way-mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam.

    Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (for both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

    Ornamentals

    EPA found in its review of applications for ornamentals that while no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, multiple-year data indicate that the alternatives in various combinations provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. Research demonstrates that 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, the three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium, and dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin all show excellent results. To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in place of metam, dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam.

    Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers and their region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

    Nurseries

    In considering this sector in the 2016 nomination process, EPA noted that a Special Local Need label allows Telone II to be used in accordance with certification standards for propagative material.2

    2 EPA also noted that growers can use a combination of methyl bromide for quarantine situations and 1,3-D plus chloropicrin for non-quarantine situations to meet certification requirements.

    To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the three-way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in place of metam in states other than California, dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam.

    Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (for both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

    Golf Courses

    EPA has not found that a significant market disruption would occur in the golf industry in the absence of methyl bromide. To support a nomination, applicants should address potential changes to quality when converting to alternatives, including: Basamid, chloropicrin, 1,3-dichloropene, 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, metam sodium, or allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM), and steam. Non-fumigant alternatives currently in use (e.g., additional pesticides, fertilizers, different cultural practices, and increased management) should also be described.

    Applications should address regulatory and economic implications for growers using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment, applicants should provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; economic impact for the golf course from a transition to alternatives (e.g., downtime when resurfacing, years between fumigations); differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Supporting evidence could be included that would demonstrate that alternatives lead to more frequent resurfacing and therefore, greater adverse economic impacts. Applicants should also address their efforts to secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    Dated: June 23, 2015. Sarah Dunham, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16044 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9929-87-OA] Notification of Two Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of EPA's Draft Benzo[a]pyrene Assessment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of the Draft Benzo[a]pyrene Assessment (CAAC-Benzo[a]pyrene Panel) to discuss its draft report concerning EPA's draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene (September, 2014 External Review Draft).

    DATES:

    The public teleconferences will be held on Friday August 21, 2015 and Wednesday September 2, 2015. The teleconferences will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on both days.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public wishing further information concerning the teleconferences may contact Dr. Diana Wong, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-2049; or via email at [email protected] General information concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board can be found at the EPA SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDAA) codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB CAAC—Benzo[a]pyrene Panel will hold public teleconferences to discuss its draft report regarding the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene (September 2014 External Review Draft). The EPA SAB Staff Office augmented the SAB CAAC with subject matter experts to provide advice through the chartered SAB regarding this IRIS assessment.

    The SAB CAAC—Benzo[a]pyrene Panel held a public meeting on April 15-17, 2015. The purpose of that meeting was to develop responses to the peer review charge on the agency's draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene (September 2014 External Review Draft). The purpose of these public teleconferences is for the Panel to discuss its draft report peer reviewing the agency's draft toxicological review. The two public teleconferences will be conducted as one complete meeting, beginning on August 21, 2015 and if necessary, will continue on September 2, 2015.

    Availability of Meeting Materials: Additional background on this SAB activity, the teleconference agenda, draft report, and other materials for the teleconferences will be posted on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/IRIS%20BaP?OpenDocument

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the meeting materials or the group conducting this SAB activity. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it consists of comments that provide specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB committees and panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.

    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation on a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Interested parties wishing to provide comments should contact Dr. Diana Wong, DFO (preferably via email), at the contact information noted above, by August 14, 2015 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the teleconference. Written Statements: Written statements for these teleconferences should be received in the SAB Staff Office by the same deadlines given above for requesting oral comments. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via email. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Diana Wong at (202) 564-2049 or [email protected] To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Wong preferably at least ten days prior to the teleconferences, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: June 24, 2015. Thomas H. Brennan, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16197 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0465; FRL-9930-00-OW] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Water Quality Standards Regulation (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 0988.12, OMB Control No. 2040-0049) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2015. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0465, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tangela Cooper, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Health Protection Division, (4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0369; fax number: 202-566-0409; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: Water quality standards are provisions of state,1 tribal, and federal law that consist of designated uses for waters of the United States, water quality criteria to protect the designated uses, and an antidegradation policy. Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires states and authorized tribes to establish water quality standards, and to review and, if appropriate, revise their water quality standards once every three years. The Act also requires EPA to review and either approve or disapprove the new or revised standards, and to promulgate replacement federal standards if necessary. Section 118(c)(2) of the Act specifies additional water quality standards requirements for waters of the Great Lakes system.

    1 The Clean Water Act defines the term “state” to mean the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and specific territories including Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

    The Water Quality Standards regulation (40 CFR part 131 and portions of part 132) governs national implementation of the water quality standards program. The regulation describes requirements and procedures for states and authorized tribes to develop, review, and revise their water quality standards, and EPA procedures for reviewing and approving the water quality standards. The regulation requires the development and submission of information to EPA, including:

    —The minimum elements in water quality standards that each state or tribe must submit to EPA for review, including any new or revised water quality standards resulting from the jurisdiction's triennial review (40 CFR 131.6 and 131.20). The elements include use designations for specific water bodies; methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality standards revisions; supporting analysis for use attainability analyses; water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses; methodologies for site-specific criteria development; an antidegradation policy; certification by the jurisdiction's Attorney General or other appropriate legal authority that the water quality standards were duly adopted pursuant to state or tribal law; information that will aid EPA in determining the adequacy of the scientific basis for the standards; and information on general policies that may affect the implementation of the standards. —Information that an Indian tribe must submit to EPA in order to determine whether a tribe is qualified to administer the water quality standards program (40 CFR 131.8). —Information a state or tribe must submit if it chooses to exercise a dispute resolution mechanism for disputes between states and tribes over water quality standards on common water bodies (40 CFR 131.7). —Information related to public participation requirements during state and tribal review and revision of water quality standards (40 CFR 131.20). States and tribes must hold public hearings as part of their triennial reviews, and make any proposed standards and supporting analyses available to the public before the hearing.

    The regulation establishes specific additional requirements for water quality standards and their implementation in the waters of the Great Lakes system, contained in the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (40 CFR part 132). This portion of the regulation includes the following requirements for information collection: Bioassay tests to support the development of water quality criteria; studies to identify and provide information on antidegradation control measures that will guard against the reduction of water quality in the Great Lakes system; and information collection and record keeping activities associated with analyses and reporting to request regulatory relief from Guidance requirements. The Guidance includes additional information collections that are addressed in separate Information Collection Requests for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: The Water Quality Standards regulation requires reporting at least once every three years from 96 jurisdictions: 56 states and territories, and Indian tribes with EPA-approved standards (40 tribes as of May 2015). The respondents affected by this collection activity are in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 92411 “Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs,” formerly SIC code #9511. Additionally water dischargers subject to certain requirements related to the WQS in the Great Lakes System include dischargers in the following NAICS codes: Mining (except oil and gas) (212), Food manufacturing (311), Paper manufacturing (322), Chemical manufacturing (325), Petroleum refineries (32411), Primary metal manufacturing (331), Fabricated metal product manufacturing (332), Machinery manufacturing (333), Computer and electronic product manufacturing (334), Electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing (335), Transportation equipment manufacturing (336), Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution (2211), and Sewage treatment facilities (22132).

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

    Estimated number of potential respondents: 96 jurisdictions plus 2,323 Great Lakes dischargers.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 286,981 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $13,359,089 (per year). There are no annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 10,000 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects an increase in the estimated number of respondents to reflect EPA's approval of water quality standards for four additional tribes. These estimates could change further if, for example, EPA approves water quality standards for additional tribes, or if there are changes in the burden related to expected NPDES permit activities in the Great Lakes basin covered by the ICR.

    Dated: June 24, 2015. Elizabeth Southerland, Director, Office of Science and Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16234 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9929-26] Access to Confidential Business Information by Vision Technologies, Inc., and Its Identified Subcontractor, Computer Sciences Corporation AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has authorized its contractor, Vision Technologies, Inc., of Glen Burnie, MD, and Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) of Falls Church, VA, its identified subcontractor to access information which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

    DATES:

    Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than July 8, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Scott Sherlock, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8257; fax number: (202) 564-8251; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number GS-06F-0535Z, order number 0015, contractor Vision Technologies, Inc., of 530 McCormick Drive, Suite 6, Glen Burnie, MD, and CSC, 3170 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA, will assist EPA's Office of Research and Development by supporting the desktop systems on which the CBI will reside. The contractor will also provide information technology support and solutions to enhance science and research results.

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number GS-06F-0535Z, order number 0015, Vision Technologies and CSC will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. Vision Technologies and CSC personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide Vision Technologies and CSC access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until October 21, 2016. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

    Vision Technologies and CSC personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: June 19, 2015. Pamela S. Myrick, Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16228 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9929-67] Access to Confidential Business Information by Eastern Research Group, Inc. AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has authorized its contractor, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) of Lexington, MA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

    DATES:

    Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than July 8, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Scott Sherlock, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8257; fax number: (202) 564-8251; email address: [email protected].

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number EP-D-11-006, contractor ERG of 110 Hartwell Ave., Suite 1, Lexington, MA, will assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in the performance of work related to source characterization. The contractor will also assist in identifying information to characterize lifecycle inventory unit process flows associated with certain chemical categories.

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number EP-D-11-006, ERG will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. ERG's personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide ERG access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and ERG's site located at 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200, Chantilly, VA, in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until March 31, 2016. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

    ERG personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: June 24, 2015. Pamela S. Myrick, Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16229 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK [Public Notice 2015-6015] Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request.

    Form Title: EIB 94-08 Notification and Assignment by Insured to Financial Institution of Medium Term Export Credit Insurance Policy.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine where insurance proceeds should be sent and to determine which exporters require lender financing of their insured receivables.

    Ex-Im Bank's exporter policy holders, along with the financial institution providing it with financing, provide this form to Ex-Im Bank. The form transfers the duties and obligations of the insured exporter to the financial institution. It also provides certifications to the financial institution and Ex-Im Bank that the financed export transaction results in a valid, enforceable, and performing debt obligation. Exporter policy holders need this form to obtain financing for their medium term export sales.

    The form can be viewed at http://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib94-08.pdf.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before August 31, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Titles and Form Number: EIB 94-08 Notification and Assignment by Insured to Financial Institution of Medium Term Export Credit Insurance Policy.

    OMB Number: 3048-0040.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Need and Use: The form transfers the duties and obligations of the insured exporter to the financial institution. It also provides certifications to the financial institution and Ex-Im Bank that the financed export transaction results in a valid, enforceable, and performing debt obligation. Exporter policy holders need this form to obtain financing for their medium term export sales.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 50.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 8.3 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.

    Government Expenses:

    Reviewing time per year: 12 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $510 (time * wages).

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $612.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Agency Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16052 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK [Public Notice: 2015-6013] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 03-02, Application for Medium Term Insurance or Guarantee

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    The purpose of this collection is to gather information necessary to make a determination of eligibility of a transaction for Ex-Im Bank assistance under its medium-term guarantee and insurance program.

    The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the financial institution provide specific information (industry code, number of employees and annual sales volume) needed to make a determination as to whether or not the exporter meets the SBA's definition of a small business. The financial institution already provides the exporter's name and address. These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.

    The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the financial institution to indicate whether the exporter is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Decline to Answer. The option of “Decline to Answer” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to provide that information. The form can be viewed at: http://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib03-02_0.pdf.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before August 31, 2015, to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov (EIB:03-02) or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Titles and Form Number: EIB 03-02, Application for Medium Term Insurance or Guarantee.

    OMB Number: 3048-0014.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Need and Use: The purpose of this collection is to gather information necessary to make a determination of eligibility of a transaction for Ex-Im Bank assistance under its medium-term guarantee and insurance program.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 400.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.2 hour.

    Annual Burden Hours: 480 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.

    Government Expenses:

    Reviewing Time per Year: 700 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $29,750 (time*wages).

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $35,700.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Agency Clearance Officer, Records Management Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16065 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice 2015-6016] Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    Form Title: EIB 99-14 Export-Import Bank Trade Reference form.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine whether or not a company has a good payment history.

    This form will enable Ex-Im Bank to make a credit decision on a foreign buyer credit limit request submitted by a new or existing policy holder. Additionally, this form is used by those Ex-Im Bank policy holders granted delegated authority to commit the Bank to a foreign buyer credit limit.

    The form can be viewed at http://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib99-14.pdf.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before August 31, 2015, to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Titles and Form Number: EIB 99-14 Export-Import Bank Trade Reference form.

    OMB Number: 3048-0042.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Need and Use: This form provides essential credit information used by Ex-Im Bank credit officers when analyzing requests for export credit insurance/financing support, both short-term (360 days and less) and medium-term (longer than 360 days), for the export of their U.S. goods and services. Additionally, this form is an integral part of the short term Multi-Buyer export credit insurance policy for those policy holders granted foreign buyer discretionary credit limit authority (DCL). Multi-Buyer policy holders given DCL authority may use this form as the sole source or one piece among several sources of credit information for their internal foreign buyer credit decision which, in turn, commits Ex-Im's insurance.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 6,500.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,625 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.

    Government Expenses:

    Reviewing time per year: 1,625 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $69,062 (time * wages).

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $82,875.

    Bonita Jones-McNeil, Agency Clearance Officer, Records Management Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16066 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10112, First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri

    NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of First Bank of Kansas City on September 04, 2009. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16159 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10466 Hometown Community Bank, Braselton, GA

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Hometown Community Bank, Braselton, Georgia (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Hometown Community Bank on November 16, 2012. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: June 26, 2015.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16160 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10304, The First National Bank of Barnesville, Barnesville, GA

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for The First National Bank of Barnesville, Barnesville, GA (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of The First National Bank of Barnesville on October 22, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16161 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 27, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:

    1. Atlantic Capital Bancshares, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia; to merge with First Security Group, Inc., and thereby acquire FSGBank, NA, both in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

    In connection with this applicantion, Atlantic Capital Bancshares' parent companies BankCap Equity Fund, LLC; BankCap Partners GP L.P.; BankCap Partners Fund I, L.P.; and BCP Fund I Southeast Holdings, LLC, all in Dallas, Texas, will indirectly acquire First Security Group, Inc., and FSGBank, NA, both in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 26, 2015. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16157 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Title: Goal-Oriented Adult Learning in Self-Sufficiency Study.

    OMB No.: New Collection.

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is proposing a data collection activity as part of the Goal-Oriented Adult Learning in Self-Sufficiency (GOALS) study. The purpose of the GOALS project is to address the nexus between the growing knowledge base in the psychological sciences and long-standing approaches to self-sufficiency programs targeted to adults and young adults. The project will explore the programmatic implications of existing research on psychological processes associated with goal-directed behaviors, including socio-emotional regulation and cognitive skills, executive functioning, and related areas. The project will synthesize current research on these topics; address how insights gained from research can be used to promote economic advancement among low-income populations, identify promising strategies, or strengthen underlying skills in these areas; and inform measurement of changes and developments in skill acquisition.

    The proposed information collection activity consists of exploratory calls with program directors and administrators, semi-structured interviews with key program staff and community partner organization staff, and focus group discussions with program participants. ACF seeks to gain an in-depth, systematic understanding of program administration and implementation, service delivery and operation, outputs and outcomes, and identify promising practices and other areas for further study.

    Respondents: Key program directors and administrators, program staff and community partner organization staff, and program participants at selected program sites.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Total Number of Respondents Annual Number of Respondents Number of Responses per Respondent Average Burden Hours per Response Annual Burden Hours Exploratory telephone call semi-structured interview—program directors and administrators 24 12 1 1 12 Site visit semi-structured interview—program staff and community partner organization staff 180 90 1 1.25 113 Site visit group discussion—program participants 84 42 1 1.25 53 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours 178

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Karl Koerper, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16073 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0742] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0045. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution—21 CFR Part 207 OMB Control Number 0910-0045—Extension

    Requirements for drug establishment registration and drug listing are set forth in section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360), section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), and part 207 (21 CFR part 207). Fundamental to FDA's mission to protect the public health is the collection of this information, which is used for important activities such as postmarket surveillance for serious adverse drug reactions, inspection of drug manufacturing and processing facilities, and monitoring of drug products imported into the United States. Comprehensive, accurate, and up to date information is critical to conducting these activities with efficiency and effectiveness.

    Under section 510 of the FD&C Act, FDA is authorized to establish a system for registration of producers of drugs and for listing of drugs in commercial distribution. To implement section 510 of the FD&C Act, FDA issued part 207. Under current § 207.20, manufacturers, repackers, and relabelers that engage in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of human or veterinary drugs and biological products, including bulk drug substances and bulk drug substances for prescription compounding, and drug premixes as well as finished dosage forms, whether prescription or over-the-counter, are required to register their establishment. In addition, manufacturers, repackers, and relabelers are required to submit a listing of every drug or biological product in commercial distribution. Owners or operators of establishments that distribute under their own label or trade name a drug product manufactured by a registered establishment are not required either to register or list. However, distributors may elect to submit drug listing information in lieu of the registered establishment that manufactures the drug product. Foreign drug establishments must also comply with the establishment registration and product listing requirements if they import or offer for import their products into the United States.

    Under current § 207.21, establishments, both domestic and foreign, must register with FDA within 5 days after beginning the manufacture of drugs or biologicals, or within 5 days after the submission of a drug application or biological license application. In addition, establishments must register annually. Changes in individual ownership, corporate or partnership structure, location, or drug handling activity must be submitted as amendments to registration under current § 207.26 within 5 days of such changes. Under § 207.20(b), private label distributors may request their own labeler code and elect to submit drug listing information to FDA. In such instances, at the time of submitting or updating drug listing information, private label distributors must certify to the registered establishment that manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed (which includes, among other things, repackaging and relabeling) the listed drug that the drug listing submission was made. Establishments must, within 5 days of beginning the manufacture of drugs or biologicals, submit to FDA a listing for every drug or biological product in commercial distribution at that time. Private label distributors may elect to submit to FDA a listing of every drug product they place in commercial distribution. Registered establishments must submit to FDA drug product listing for those private label distributors who do not elect to submit listing information.

    Under § 207.25, product listing information submitted to FDA by domestic and foreign manufacturers must, depending on the type of product being listed, include any new drug application number or biological establishment license number, copies of current labeling and a sampling of advertisements, a quantitative listing of the active ingredient for each drug or biological product not subject to an approved application or license, the national drug code (NDC) number, and any drug imprinting information.

    In addition to the product listing information required, FDA may also require, under § 207.31, a copy of all advertisements and a quantitative listing of all ingredients for each listed drug or biological product not subject to an approved application or license; the basis for a determination, by the establishment, that a listed drug or biological product is not subject to marketing or licensing approval requirements; and a list of certain drugs or biological products containing a particular ingredient. FDA may also request, but not require, the submission of a qualitative listing of the inactive ingredients for all listed drugs or biological products, and a quantitative listing of the active ingredients for all listed drugs or biological products subject to an approved application or license.

    Under § 207.30, establishments must update their product listing information every June and December or, at the discretion of the establishment, when any change occurs. These updates must include the following information: (1) A listing of all drug or biological products introduced for commercial distribution that have not been included in any previously submitted list; (2) all drug or biological products formerly listed for which commercial distribution has been discontinued; (3) all drug or biological products for which a notice of discontinuance was submitted and for which commercial distribution has been resumed; and (4) any material change in any information previously submitted. No update is required if no changes have occurred since the previously submitted list.

    Historically, drug establishment registration and drug listing information have been submitted in paper form using Form FDA 2656 (Registration of Drug Establishment/Labeler Code Assignment), Form FDA 2657 (Drug Product Listing), and Form FDA 2658 (Registered Establishments' Report of Private Label Distributors) (collectively referred to as FDA Forms). Changes in the FD&C Act resulting from enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85) (FDAAA) require that drug establishment registration and drug listing information be submitted electronically unless a waiver is granted. Before the enactment of FDAAA, section 510(p) of the FD&C Act expressly provided for electronic submission of drug establishment registration information upon a finding that electronic receipt was feasible, and section 510(j) of the FD&C Act provided that drug listing information be submitted in the form and manner prescribed by FDA. Section 224 of FDAAA, which amends section 510(p) of the FD&C Act, now expressly, requires electronic drug listing in addition to drug establishment registration. In certain cases, if it is unreasonable to expect a person to submit registration and listing information electronically, FDA may grant a waiver from the electronic format requirement.

    In the Federal Register of June 1, 2009 (74 FR 26248), FDA announced the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Drug Establishment Registration and Drug Listing” (the 2009 guidance). The document provides guidance to industry on the statutory requirement to submit electronically drug establishment registration and drug listing information. The guidance describes the types of information to include for purposes of drug establishment registration and drug listing and how to prepare and submit the information in an electronic format (Structured Product Labeling (SPL) files) that FDA can process, review, and archive. In addition to the information that previously was collected on the FDA Forms, the guidance addresses electronic submission of other required information as follows:

    • For registered foreign drug establishments, the name, address, and telephone number of its U.S. agent (§ 207.40(c));

    • the name of each importer that is known to the establishment (the U.S. company or individual in the United States that is an owner, consignee, or recipient of the foreign establishment's drug that is imported into the United States. An importer does not include the consumer or patient who ultimately purchases, receives, or is administered the drug, unless the foreign establishment ships the drug directly to the consumer or the patient) (section 510(i)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act); and

    • the name of each person who imports or offers for import (the name of each agent, broker, or other entity, other than a carrier, that the foreign drug establishment uses to facilitate the import of their drug into the United States) (section 510(i)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act).

    FDA also recommends the voluntary submission of the following additional information, when applicable:

    • To facilitate correspondence between foreign establishments and FDA, the email address for the U.S. agent, and the telephone number(s) and email address for the importer and person who imports or offers for import their drug;

    • a site-specific Data Universal Numbering System number for each entity (e.g., the registrant, establishments, U.S. agent, importer);

    • the NDC product code for the source drug that is repacked or relabeled;

    • distinctive characteristics of certain listed drugs, i.e., the flavor, the color, and image of the actual solid dosage form; and

    • registrants may indicate that they view as confidential the registrant's business relationship with an establishment, or an inactive ingredient.

    In addition to this collection of information, there is an additional burden for the following activities:

    • preparing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the electronic submission of drug establishment registration and drug listing information;

    • creating the SPL file, including accessing and reviewing the technical specifications and instructional documents provided by FDA (accessible at http://www.fda.gov/oc/datacouncil/spl.html);

    • reviewing and selecting appropriate terms and codes used to create the SPL file (accessible at http://www.fda.gov/oc/datacouncil/spl.html);

    • obtaining the digital certificate used with FDA's electronic submission gateway and uploading the SPL file for submission (accessible at http://www.fda.gov/esg/default.htm); and

    • requests for waivers from the electronic submission process as described in the draft guidance.

    When FDA published the 2009 guidance on submitting establishment registration and drug listing information in electronic format, the Agency also amended its burden estimates for OMB control number 0910-0045 to include the additional burden for the collection of information that had not been submitted using the FDA forms, and to create and upload the SPL file. The amended burden estimates included the one-time preparation of an SOP for creating and uploading the SPL file. Although most firms will already have prepared an SOP for the electronic submission of drug establishment registration and drug listing information, each year additional firms will need to create an SOP. As provided in Table 2, FDA estimates that approximately 1,000 firms will have to expend a one-time burden to prepare, review, and approve an SOP, and the Agency estimates that it will take 40 hours per recordkeeper to create 1,000 new SOPs for a total of 40,000 hours.

    In the Federal Register of March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15214), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received one comment.

    The comment noted that under § 207.20(a), manufacturers, repackers, and relabelers are required to register their establishment and submit a listing of every drug or biological product in commercial distribution. Under § 207.20(b), owners or operators of establishments that distribute under their own label or trade name a drug product manufactured by a registered establishment are not required either to register or list but may elect to submit drug listing information in lieu of the registered establishment that manufactures the drug product. The comment said that although the burden of listing private label drugs rests on the manufacturer, the standard industry practice has been to submit two separate listings under different marketing categories. The comment said that these listings are submitted either by the private label distributor or by the manufacturer and “in order for the necessary information to be provided to FDA (all Offices and Centers) both listings are necessary.” The comment also recommended that all drug listings should include the marketing category of the drug.

    FDA Response: Under section 510 of the FD&C Act and part 207, contract manufacturers (registered establishments) are required to list their products with FDA under their own labeler code. To properly identify such a listing, contract manufacturers should list products manufactured for a private label distributor by using one of following marketing categories: (1) Approved Drug Product Manufactured Exclusively For Private Label Distributor; (2) OTC Monograph Drug Product Manufactured Exclusively For Private Label Distributor; (3) Unapproved Drug Product Manufactured Exclusively For Private Label Distributor. Contract manufacturers may also include the private label distributor's labeling with the listing submission.

    Additionally, § 207.20(b) requires that the private label distributor have its product listed under its own labeler code (using whatever marketing category is appropriate to the finished product (e.g., NDA, OTC Monograph, Unapproved Drug)). The private label distributor may elect to do this on its own. If the private label distributor elects not to do this, then the responsibility for submitting the additional listing falls on the registered establishment (the contract manufacturer).

    In Tables 1 and 2, the information collection requirements of the drug establishment registration and drug listing requirements have been grouped according to the information collection areas of the requirements.

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average burden per response Total hours
    New registrations, including new labeler codes requests 1,400 2 2,800 4.5 12,600 Annual updates of registration information 10,000 1 10,000 4.5 45,000 New drug listings 1,567 7 11,000 4.5 49,500 New listings for private label distributor 146 10.06 1,469 4.5 6,611 June and December updates of all drug listing information 5,300 20 106,000 4.5 477,000 Waiver requests 1 1 1 1 1 Total 590,712 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 Activity resulting from Section 510(p) of the FD&C Act as amended by FDAAA Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average burden per recordkeeping Total hours One-time preparation of SOP 1,000 1 1,000 40 40,000 SOP maintenance 3,295 1 3,295 1 3,295 Total 43,295 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with the collection of information. Dated: June 25, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16129 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2044] Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of Enterovirus D68; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (the Authorization) for in an vitro diagnostic device for detection of Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) strains detected in North America in 2014. FDA issued this Authorization under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as requested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Authorization contains, among other things, conditions on the emergency use of the authorized in vitro diagnostic device. The Authorization follows the February 6, 2015, determination by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves EV-D68. On the basis of such determination, the Secretary of HHS also declared on February 6, 2015, that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostic devices for detection of EV-D68 subject to the terms of any authorization issued under the FD&C Act. The Authorization, which includes an explanation of the reasons for issuance, is reprinted in this document.

    DATES:

    The Authorization is effective as of May 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the EUA to the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4338, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the Authorization may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the Authorization.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carmen Maher, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Counterterrorism Policy and Acting Director, Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4347, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8510.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) as amended by the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-276) and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5) allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain situations. With this EUA authority, FDA can help assure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

    Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that, before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of the following grounds: (1) A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (2) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (3) a determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or (4) the identification of a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6b) sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad.

    Once the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may authorize the emergency use of a drug, device, or biological product if the Agency concludes that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Under section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of each authorization, and each termination or revocation of an authorization, and an explanation of the reasons for the action. Section 564 of the FD&C Act permits FDA to authorize the introduction into interstate commerce of a drug, device, or biological product intended for use when the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use. Products appropriate for emergency use may include products and uses that are not approved, cleared, or licensed under sections 505, 510(k), or 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360(k), and 360e) or section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262).

    FDA may issue an EUA only if, after consultation with the HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of CDC (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances), FDA 1 concludes: (1) That an agent referred to in a declaration of emergency or threat can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; (2) that, based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that: (A) The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing (i) such disease or condition; or (ii) a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by a product authorized under section 564, approved or cleared under the FD&C Act, or licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act, for diagnosing, treating, or preventing such a disease or condition caused by such an agent; and (B) the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the agent or agents identified in a declaration under section 564(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act, if applicable; (3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition; and (4) that such other criteria as may be prescribed by regulation are satisfied.

    1 The Secretary of HHS has delegated the authority to issue an EUA under section 564 of the FD&C Act to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

    No other criteria for issuance have been prescribed by regulation under section 564(c)(4) of the FD&C Act. Because the statute is self-executing, regulations or guidance are not required for FDA to implement the EUA authority.

    II. EUA Request for an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of EV-D68

    On February 6, 2015, under section 564(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(b)(1)(C)), the Secretary of HHS determined that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves EV-D68. Also on February 6, 2015, under section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act and on the basis of such determination, the Secretary of HHS declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection of EV-D68, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under section 564 of the FD&C Act. Notice of the determination and declaration of the Secretary was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10685). On April 24, 2015, CDC requested, and on May 12, 2015, FDA issued, an EUA for the CDC EV-D68 2014 Real-time RT-PCR Assay, subject to the terms of the Authorization.

    III. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of this document and the full text of the Authorization are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. The Authorization

    Having concluded that the criteria for issuance of the Authorization under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has authorized the emergency use of an in vitro diagnostic device for detection of EV-D68 strains detected in North America in 2014 subject to the terms of the Authorization. The Authorization in its entirety (not including the authorized versions of the fact sheets and other written materials) follows and provides an explanation of the reasons for its issuance, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act:

    BILLING CODE 4164-01-P EN01JY15.005 EN01JY15.006 EN01JY15.007 EN01JY15.008 EN01JY15.009 EN01JY15.010 EN01JY15.011 Dated: June 25, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16125 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-C
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0967] Intent to Exempt Certain Unclassified, Class II, and Class I Reserved Medical Devices From Premarket Notification Requirements; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Intent to Exempt Certain Unclassified, Class II, and Class I Reserved Medical Devices from Premarket Notification Requirements.” This guidance describes FDA's intent to exempt certain unclassified medical devices (that FDA intends to classify into class I or II), certain class II medical devices, and certain class I medical devices from premarket notification requirements. FDA believes the devices identified in this guidance document are sufficiently well understood and do not require premarket notification to assure their safety and effectiveness.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled “Intent to Exempt Certain Unclassified, Class II, and Class I Reserved Medical Devices from Premarket Notification Requirements” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Angela C. Krueger, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1666, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6380.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In the commitment letter (section 1.G of the Performance Goals and Procedures) that was drafted as part of the reauthorization process for the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2012, part of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), FDA committed to identifying low-risk medical devices to exempt from premarket notification requirements. This guidance describes FDA's intent to exempt certain unclassified medical devices (that FDA intends to classify into class I or II), certain class II medical devices, and certain class I medical devices (that no longer meet the “reserved” criteria in section 510(l) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360(l))) from premarket notification requirements. FDA believes the devices identified in this guidance document are sufficiently well understood and do not require 510(k) notification to assure their safety and effectiveness.

    The draft of this guidance was made available in the Federal Register on August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44804). The comment period closed on September 30, 2014. FDA received one comment on the draft guidance requesting that devices classified under 21 CFR 880.6760 (Protective restraint, product code OYS, Patient Bed with Canopy/Restraints) be considered for inclusion in the guidance document. FDA considered the comment and determined it was appropriate to add this device type to the final guidance.

    In the process of finalizing the guidance document, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) reviewed additional medical device product codes not included in the draft guidance and determined that there were additional device types which are sufficiently well understood and do not require premarket notification (510(k)) to assure their safety and effectiveness. As a result, the following device types (product codes) were added to the final guidance document: EIB—Syringe, Irrigating (Dental); EWD—Protector, Hearing (Insert); EWE—Protector, Hearing (Circumaural); LEZ—Aids, Speech Training for the Hearing Impaired (AC-Powered and Patient-Contact); LFA—Aids, Speech Training for the Hearing Impaired (Battery-Operated or Non-Patient); KLX—Electroglottograph; LZI—Device, Assistive Listening; LRL—Cushion, Hemorrhoid; KMJ—Lubricant, Patient; OYS—Patient Bed with Canopy/Restraint (see above); HCD—Cannula, Ventricular; GYK—Instrument, Shunt System Implantation; LHM—System, Thermographic, Liquid Crystal; KYA—System, Thermographic, Liquid Crystal, Nonpowered (Adjunctive Use); NUR—Pad, Interlabial; and LZW—Monitor, Spine Curvature.

    Additionally, CDRH reviewed the device types (product codes) included in the draft guidance document and determined that two device types (product codes) originally proposed in the draft guidance document should not be included in the final guidance as devices for which FDA intends to exempt from premarket notification requirements: FLL—Thermometer, Electrical, Clinical (21 CFR 880.2910); and GWO—Plate, Cranioplasty, Preformed, Alterable (21 CFR 882.5320). CDRH determined that premarket notification (510(k)) is necessary to assure the safety and effectiveness of these devices. Notably, the FLL product code currently covers thermometers with a range of technologies and intended uses, including those used to screen for potential pandemic contagious diseases. CDRH believes that some thermometer types may be candidates for exemption from premarket notification requirements at a later date, but that thermometers should first be further categorized by technology and/or intended use into distinct product codes. CDRH is actively reviewing this issue and will further consider which of the sub-types may be appropriate to exempt from premarket notification requirements. In addition, CDRH believes that premarket notification (510(k)) is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for cranioplasty plates (GWO), which are permanent implants and may be constructed of polymeric materials and/or may be resorbable, because FDA must evaluate the material properties and resorption rate in relation to bone healing. CDRH recognizes that manufacturers may not have submitted a 510(k) for these two device types following publication of the draft guidance. As a result, CDRH is providing such manufacturers 90 days following the publication of this notice to submit a 510(k) for these device types; however, distribution and marketing of such devices must cease if a manufacturer receives an order from FDA declaring the device to be not substantially equivalent to any legally marketed predicate device. Finally, CDRH changed the product code listed in the guidance document for Ophthalmic Cameras (21 CFR 886.1120) from HKI—Camera, Ophthalmic, AC-Powered to PJZ—Camera, Ophthalmic, AC-Powered, General Use to clarify the type of AC-powered Ophthalmic Camera CDRH intended to exempt. CDRH also removed LQX—Device, Finger-Sucking (21 CFR 890.3475) from the final guidance because this device type is already classified as class I (general controls) and exempt from premarket notification. Finger-sucking devices (LQX) and cranioplasty plates (GWO) were unintentionally included in the draft guidance.

    III. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of the FDA on the Intent to Exempt Certain Unclassified, Class II, and Class I Reserved Medical Devices from Premarket Notification Requirements. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Intent to Exempt Certain Unclassified, Class II, and Class I Reserved Medical Devices from Premarket Notification Requirements” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1300046 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.

    VI. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16150 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0129] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0719. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications OMB Control Number 0910-0719—Extension

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) (Pub. L. 111-148) contains a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act), which amends the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and establishes an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed biological reference product (See sections 7001 through 7003 of the Affordable Care Act.)

    Section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)), added by the BPCI Act, sets forth the requirements for an application for a proposed biosimilar product and an application or a supplement for a proposed interchangeable product. Section 351(k) defines biosimilarity to mean “that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components” and that “there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product.” (See section 351(i)(2) of the PHS Act.) A 351(k) application must contain, among other things, information demonstrating that the biological product is biosimilar to a reference product based upon data derived from analytical studies, animal studies, and clinical studies, unless FDA determines, in its discretion, that certain studies are unnecessary in a 351(k) application. (See section 351(k)(2) of the PHS Act.) To demonstrate interchangeability, an applicant must provide sufficient information to demonstrate biosimilarity and that the biosimilar biological product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, if the biosimilar biological product is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the use of the biosimilar biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch. (See section 351(k)(4) of the PHS Act.) Interchangeable products may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the prescribing health care provider. (See section 351(i)(3) of the PHS Act.)

    In estimating the information collection burden for 351(k) applications, we reviewed the number of 351(k) applications FDA has received through fiscal year (FY) 2014, as well as the collection of information regarding the general licensing provisions for biologics license applications under section 351(a) of the PHS Act submitted to OMB (approved under OMB control number 0910-0338). For the information collection burden for 351(a) applications, FDA described § 601.2(a) (21 CFR 601.2(a)) as requiring a manufacturer of a biological product to submit an application on forms prescribed for such purpose with accompanying data and information including certain labeling information to FDA for approval to market a product in interstate commerce. FDA also added in the burden estimate the container and package labeling requirements provided under §§ 610.60 through 610.65 (21 CFR 610.60 through 610.65). The estimated hours per response for § 601.2, and §§ 610.60 through 610.65, are 860 hours.

    In addition, in submitting a 351(a) application, an applicant completes the Form FDA 356h, “Application to Market a New Drug, Biologic, or an Antibiotic Drug for Human Use.” The application form serves primarily as a checklist for firms to gather and submit certain information to FDA. The checklist helps to ensure that the application is complete and contains all the necessary information so that delays due to lack of information may be eliminated. The form provides key information to FDA for efficient handling and distribution to the appropriate staff for review. The estimated burden hours for biological product submissions using FDA Form 356h are included under the applicable requirements approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.

    To submit an application seeking licensure of a proposed biosimilar product under section 351(k)(2)(A)(i) and (k)(2)(A)(iii) of the PHS Act, FDA believes that the estimated burden hours would be approximately the same as noted under OMB control number 0910-0338 for a 351(a) application—860 hours. The burden estimates for seeking licensure of a proposed biosimilar product that meets the standards for interchangeability under section 351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4) would also be 860 hours. Until we gain more experience with biosimilar applications, FDA believes this estimate is appropriate for 351(k) applications because to determine biosimilarity or interchangeability of a proposed 351(k) product, the application and the information submitted is expected to be comparably as complex and technically demanding as a proposed 351(a) application. FDA may determine, in its discretion, an element required under a 351(k) application to be unnecessary to support licensure of a biosimilar or interchangeable product. In those cases, the number of hours per response may be less than the hours estimated.

    A summary of the information collection requirements in the submission of a 351(k) application as described under the BPCI Act follows:

    Section 351(k)(2)(A)(i) requires manufactures of 351(k) products to submit an application for FDA review and licensure before marketing a biosimilar product. An application submitted under this section shall include information demonstrating that:

    • The biological product is biosimilar to a reference product based upon data derived from analytical studies, animal studies (including toxicity), and a clinical study or studies (including immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics). The Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) may determine that any of these elements is unnecessary;

    • The biological product and reference product utilize the same mechanism or mechanisms of action for the condition or conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling, but only to the extent the mechanism or mechanisms of action are known for the reference product;

    • The condition or conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling proposed for the biological product have been previously approved for the reference product;

    • The route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the biological product are the same as those of the reference product; and

    • The facility in which the biological product is manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to assure that the biological product continues to be safe, pure, and potent.

    Section 351(k)(2)(A)(iii) requires the application to include publicly available information regarding the Secretary's previous determination that the reference product is safe, pure, and potent. The application may include any additional information in support of the application, including publicly available information with respect to the reference product or another biological product.

    Under section 351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4), a manufacturer may include information demonstrating that the biological product meets the standards for interchangeability either in the application to show biosimilarity or in a supplement to such an application. The information submitted to meet the standard for interchangeability must show that: (1) The biological product is biosimilar to the reference product and can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient; and (2) for a biological product that is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.

    In addition to the collection of information regarding the submission of a 351(k) application for a proposed biosimilar or interchangeable biological product, section 351(l) of the BPCI Act establishes procedures for identifying and resolving patent disputes involving applications submitted under section 351(k) of the PHS Act. The burden estimates for the patent provisions under section 351(l)(6)(C) of the BPCI Act are included in table 1 of this document and are based on the estimated number of 351(k) biosimilar respondents. Based on similar reporting requirements, FDA estimates this notification will take 2 hours. A summary of the collection of information requirements under section 351(l)(6)(C) follows:

    Not later than 30 days after a complaint from the reference product sponsor is served to a 351(k) applicant in an action for patent infringement described under 351(l)(6), section 351(l)(6)(C) requires that the 351(k) applicant provide the Secretary with notice and a copy of such complaint. The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register notice any complaint received under section 351(l)(6)(C)(i).

    In the Federal Register of February 3, 2015 (80 FR 5761), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received three comments.

    (Comment) One comment requested FDA provide clarity and interpretation regarding the standards for interchangeability (sections 351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4) of the PHS Act). The comment also sought clarification regarding the timelines and the chosen mode of communication for FDA to convey to the stakeholders any details on an unnecessary element under a 351(k) application.

    (Response) FDA expects to issue a draft guidance, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability to a Reference Product,” in 2015. FDA issued a draft guidance, “Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Biosimilar Biological Product Sponsors or Applicants,” in 2013, which provides recommendations to industry on formal meetings between FDA and biosimilar biological product sponsors or applicants.

    (Comment) Another comment requested FDA provide clarity on the factors for consideration in assessing whether a proposed biosimilar is highly similar to a reference product to support a demonstration of biosimilarity—specifically, which product quality attributes are considered critical to match (and how much difference is allowed).

    (Response) FDA issued the final guidance, “Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity of a Therapeutic Protein Product to a Reference Product,” in April 2015. This final guidance provides further clarification on factors for consideration in assessing whether products are highly similar, including expression system, manufacturing process, impurities, reference product, and reference standards.

    (Comment) A third comment supported approval and post-market policies that would allow healthcare practitioners to make informative decisions when treating patients.

    (Response) FDA issued the final guidance, “Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product,” in April 2015. This guidance discusses a stepwise approach to demonstrating biosimilarity, the totality-of-the-evidence approach that FDA will use to review applications for biosimilar products, as well as general scientific principles in conducting comparative structural and functional analyses, animal testing, and clinical studies (including human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies, clinical immunogenicity assessment, and comparative clinical studies). The guidance also provides information on postmarketing safety monitoring considerations.

    The comment also requested FDA consider adding as part of a biosimilar or interchangeable product's labeling instruction guidance on third party substitution of biosimilars without the knowledge of the healthcare provider. As noted by the comment, these issues are also subject to state laws and regulations. Under the BPCI Act, a biological product that has been approved as an “interchangeable” may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.

    Based on the number of 351(k) applications FDA received through FY 2014, we estimate that we will receive approximately five 351(k) applications annually. The number of respondents submitting 351(k) applications is based on the number of sponsors submitting 351(k) applications through FY 2014. In making these estimates, FDA has taken into account, among other things, the expiration dates of patents that relate to potential reference products and general market interest in biological products that could be candidates for 351(k) applications.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 351(k) Applications (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    351(k)(2)(A)(i) and 351(k)(2)(A)(iii) Biosimilar Product Applications 5 1 5 860 4,300 351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4) Interchangeable Product Applications or Supplements 2 1 2 860 1,720 351(l)(6)(C) Patent Infringement Notifications 5 1 5 2 10 Total 6,030 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: June 25, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16128 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Lists of Designated Primary Medical Care, Mental Health, and Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice advises the public of the published lists of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities designated as primary medical care, mental health, and dental health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) as of May 29, 2015, available on the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/shortage/. HPSAs are designated or withdrawn by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the authority of section 332 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act and 42 CFR part 5.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for further information on the HPSA designations listed on the HRSA Web site and requests for additional designations, withdrawals, or reapplication for designations should be submitted to Kae Brickerd, Ph.D., Director, Shortage Designation Branch, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, Mail Stop 11SWH03, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301) 594-5168.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 332 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 254e, provides that the Secretary of HHS shall designate HPSAs based on criteria established by regulation. HPSAs are defined in section 332 to include (1) urban and rural geographic areas with shortages of health professionals, (2) population groups with such shortages, and (3) facilities with such shortages. Section 332 further requires that the Secretary annually publish a list of the designated geographic areas, population groups, and facilities. The lists of HPSAs are to be reviewed at least annually and revised as necessary. HRSA's Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW) has the responsibility for designating and updating HPSAs.

    Public or private nonprofit entities are eligible to apply for assignment of National Health Service Corps (NHSC) personnel to provide primary care, mental, or dental health services in or to these HPSAs. NHSC health professionals with a service obligation may enter into service agreements to serve only in federally designated HPSAs. Entities with clinical training sites located in HPSAs are eligible to receive priority for certain residency training program grants administered by the BHW. Many other federal programs also utilize HPSA designations. For example, under authorities administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, certain qualified providers in geographic area HPSAs are eligible for increased levels of Medicare reimbursement.

    Development of the Designation and Withdrawal Lists

    Criteria for designating HPSAs were published as final regulations (42 CFR part 5) in 1980. Criteria then were defined for each of seven health professional types (primary medical care, dental, psychiatric, vision care, podiatric, pharmacy, and veterinary care). The criteria for correctional facility HPSAs were revised and published on March 2, 1989 (54 FR 8735). The criteria for psychiatric HPSAs were expanded to mental health HPSAs on January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2473). Currently funded PHS Act programs use only the primary medical care, mental health, or dental HPSA designations.

    Individual requests for designation or withdrawal of a particular geographic area, population group, or a facility as a HPSA are received and reviewed continuously by BHW. The majority of the requests come from the Primary Care Offices (PCO) in the State Health Departments, who have access to the on-line application and review system. Requests that come from other sources are referred to the PCOs for their review and concurrence. In addition, interested parties, including the Governor, the State Primary Care Association and state professional associations are notified of each request submitted for their comments and recommendations.

    Annually, lists of designated HPSAs are made available to all PCOs, state medical and dental societies and others, with a request to review and update the data on which the designations are based. Emphasis is placed on updating those designations that are more than 3 years old or where significant changes relevant to the designation criteria have occurred.

    Recommendations for possible additions, continuations, revisions, or withdrawals from a HPSA list are reviewed by BHW, and the review findings are provided by letter to the agency or individual requesting action or providing data, with copies to other interested organizations and individuals. These letters constitute the official notice of designation as a HPSA, rejection of recommendations for HPSA designation, revision of a HPSA designation, and/or advance notice of pending withdrawals from the HPSA list. Designations (or revisions of designations) are effective as of the date on the notification letter from BHW. Proposed withdrawals become effective only after interested parties in the area affected have been afforded the opportunity to submit additional information to BHW in support of its continued or revised designation. If no new data are submitted, or if BHW review confirms the proposed withdrawal, the withdrawal becomes effective upon publication of the lists of designated HPSAs in the Federal Register. In addition, lists of HPSAs are updated daily on the HRSA Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/shortage/, so that interested parties can access the most accurate and timely information.

    Publication and Format of Lists

    Due to the large volume of designations, a printed version of the list is no longer distributed. This notice serves to inform the public of the availability of the complete listings of designated HPSA on the HRSA Web site. The three lists (primary medical care, mental health, and dental) of designated HPSAs are available at a link on the HRSA Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/shortage/ and include a snapshot of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities that were designated HPSAs as of May 29, 2015. This notice incorporates the most recent annual reviews of designated HPSAs and supersedes the HPSA lists published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2014 (Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 122/Wednesday, June 25, 2014/Notices 36075). The lists also include automatic facility HPSAs, designated as a result of the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-251), not subject to update requirements. Each list of designated HPSAs (primary medical care, mental health, and dental) is arranged by state. Within each state, the list is presented by county. If only a portion (or portions) of a county is (are) designated, or if the county is part of a larger designated service area, or if a population group residing in the county or a facility located in the county has been designated, the name of the service area, population group, or facility involved is listed under the county name. Counties that have a whole county geographic HPSA are indicated by the “Entire county HPSA” notation following the county name. Further details on the snapshot of HPSAs listed can be found on the HRSA Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/shortage/.

    In addition to the specific listings included in this notice, all Indian Tribes that meet the definition of such Tribes in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, 25 U.S.C. 1603(d), are automatically designated as population groups with primary medical care and dental health professional shortages. The Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002 also made the following entities eligible for automatic facility HPSA designations: All federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and rural health clinics that offer services regardless of ability to pay. These entities include: FQHCs funded under section 330 of the PHS Act, FQHC Look-Alikes, and Tribal and urban Indian clinics operating under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450) or the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Many, but not all, of these entities are included on this listing. Exclusion from this list does not exclude them from HPSA designation; any facilities eligible for automatic designation will be included in the database as they are identified.

    Future Updates of Lists of Designated HPSAs

    The lists of HPSAs on the HRSA Web site consist of all those that were designated as of May 29, 2015. It should be noted that HPSAs are currently updated on an ongoing basis based on the identification of new areas, population groups, facilities, and sites that meet the eligibility criteria or that no longer meet eligibility criteria and/or are being replaced by another type of designation. As such, additional HPSAs may have been designated by letter since that date. The appropriate agencies and individuals have been or will be notified of these actions by letter. These newly designated HPSAs will be included in the next publication of the HPSA list and are currently included in the daily updates posted on the HRSA Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/shortage/find.html.

    Any designated HPSA listed on the HRSA Web site is subject to withdrawal from designation if new information received and confirmed by HRSA indicates that the relevant data for the area involved have significantly changed since its designation. The effective date of such a withdrawal will be the next publication of a notice regarding this list in the Federal Register.

    All requests for new designations, updates, or withdrawals should be based on the relevant criteria in regulations published at 42 CFR part 5.

    Electronic Access Address

    The complete list of HPSAs designated as of May 29, 2015, are available on the HRSA Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/shortage/. Frequently updated information on HPSAs is also available at http://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. James Macrae, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16168 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than July 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to OIRA_ [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information Collection Request Title: Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program

    OMB No.: 0915-xxxx—NEW.

    Abstract: The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program (RESEP) is authorized by Section 417C of the Public Health Service Act, Part C of Title IV, Public Law 106-245 (42 U.S.C. 285(a)-9). The purpose of RESEP is to assist individuals who live (or lived) in areas where U.S. nuclear weapons testing occurred and who are diagnosed with cancer and other radiogenic diseases caused by exposure to nuclear fallout or nuclear materials such as uranium. RESEP funds support eligible health care organizations in implementing cancer screening programs; developing education programs; disseminating information on radiogenic diseases and the importance of early detection; screening eligible individuals for cancer and other radiogenic diseases; providing appropriate referrals for medical treatment; and facilitating documentation of Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) claims.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: For this program, performance measures were drafted to provide data useful to the program and to enable HRSA to provide aggregate program data required by Congress under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-62). These measures cover the principal topic areas of interest to the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, including: (a) Demographics for RESEP medical user patient population; (b) medical screening activities for cancers and other radiogenic diseases; (c) exposure and presentation types for eligible radiogenic malignant and non-malignant diseases; (d) referrals for appropriate medical treatment; (e) eligibility counseling and referral assistance for the RECA and Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act programs; and (f) program outreach and education activities. These measures will speak to the Office's progress toward meeting the goals set. A 60-day Federal Register Notice was published in 80 FR 9268 (February 20, 2015). There were no comments.

    Likely Respondents: RESEP award recipients.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average burden per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program Performance Measures 42 1 42 24 1,008 Total 42 1 42 24 1,008
    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16136 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority

    This notice amends Part R of the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (60 FR 56605, as amended November 6, 1995; as last amended at 80 FR 3610 dated January 23, 2015).

    This notice reflects organizational changes in the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Specifically, this notice: (1) Transfers the border health function from the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Office of the Associate Administrator (RH) to the Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation, Office of External Engagement (RA57); and (2) updates the functional statement for the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Office of the Associate Administrator (RH) and the Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation, Office of External Engagement (RA57).

    Chapter RH—Federal Office of Rural Health Policy Section RH-20, Functions

    This notice reflects organizational changes within the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy. Specifically: (1) Transfers the border health function from the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP), Office of the Associate Administrator (RH) to the Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation (OPAE), Office of External Engagement (RA57); and (2) updates the functional statement for the FOHRP, Office of the Associate Administrator (RH).

    Office of the Associate Administrator (RH)

    The Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) is responsible for the overall leadership and management of the office. FORHP serves as a focal point within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for rural health-related issues and as a principal source of advice to the Secretary for coordinating efforts to strengthen and improve the delivery of health services to populations in the nation's rural areas. FORHP provides leadership within HHS and with stakeholders in providing information and counsel related to access to, and financing and quality of, health care to rural populations. Specifically, the Office of the Associate Administrator: (1) Provides staff support to the National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services; (2) stimulates and coordinates interaction on rural health activities and programs in the Agency, Department and with other federal agencies; (3) establishes and maintains a resource center for the collection and dissemination of the latest information and research findings related to the delivery of health services in rural areas; (4) ensures successful dissemination of appropriate information technology advances, such as electronic health records systems; (5) monitors the health information technology policy and activities of other HHS components for useful application in rural areas; (6) provides overall direction and leadership over the management of nationwide community-based rural health grants programs; (7) provides overall direction and leadership over the management of a program of state grants which supports collaboration within state offices of rural health; (8) provides overall direction and leadership over the management of programs to advance the use of telehealth and coordination of health information technology; and (9) provides overall direction and leadership over the office's administrative and management functions.

    Chapter RA5—Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation Section RA5-20, Functions

    This notice reflects organizational changes within the Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation. Specifically: (1) Transfers the border health function from the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP), Office of the Associate Administrator (RH) to the Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation (OPAE), Office of External Engagement (RA57); and (2) updates the functional statement for the OPAE, Office of External Engagement (RA57).

    Office of External Engagement (RA57)

    (1) Serves as the principal Agency resource for facilitating external engagement; (2) coordinates the Agency's intergovernmental activities; (3) provides the Administrator with a single point of contact on all activities related to important state and local government, stakeholder association, and interest group activities; (4) coordinates Agency cross-Bureau cooperative agreements and activities with organizations such as the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislature, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, National Association of Counties, and National Association of County and City Health Officials; (5) interacts with various commissions such as the Delta Regional Authority, Appalachian Regional Commission, and on the Denali Commission; (6) monitors HRSA's border health activities and investments to promote collaboration and improve health care access to those living along the U.S.-Mexico border; (7) serves as the primary liaison to Department intergovernmental staff; and (8) serves as the Agency liaison to manage and coordinate study engagements with the Government Accountability Office and the HHS Office of the Inspector General, Office of Evaluation and Inspections .

    Delegations of Authority

    All delegations of authority and re-delegations of authority made to HRSA officials that were in effect immediately prior to this reorganization, and that are consistent with this reorganization, shall continue in effect pending further re-delegation.

    This reorganization is effective upon date of signature.

    Dated: June 19, 2015. James Macrae, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16169 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Dow Chemical Company in Pittsburg, California, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).

    On May 21, 2015, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked for Dow Chemical Company in Pittsburg, California, from October 1, 1947, through June 30, 1957, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on June 20, 2015. Therefore, beginning on June 20, 2015, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16276 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health AGENCY:

    Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Minority Health.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is hereby giving notice that the Advisory Committee on Minority Health (ACMH) will hold a meeting. This meeting will be open to the public. Preregistration is required for both public attendance and comment. Any individual who wishes to attend the meetings and/or participate in the public comment session should email [email protected]

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 21, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Wednesday, July 22, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert St. NW., Washington, DC 20008.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Rashida Dorsey, Designated Federal Officer, ACMH; Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Phone: 240-453-8222, Fax: 240-453-8223; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with Public Law 105-392, the ACMH was established to provide advice to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority Health in improving the health of each racial and ethnic minority group and on the development of goals and specific program activities of the Office of Minority Health.

    Topics to be discussed during the meeting will include strategies to improve the health of racial and ethnic minority populations through the development of health policies and programs that will help eliminate health disparities, as well as other related issues.

    Public attendance at this meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person at least fourteen (14) business days prior to the meeting. Members of the public will have an opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Individuals who would like to submit written statements should mail or fax their comments to the Office of Minority Health at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting. Any members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to ACMH committee members should submit their materials to the Designated Federal Officer, ACMH, Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852, prior to close of business on Tuesday, July 14, 2015.

    Dated: June 23, 2015. Rashida Dorsey, Designated Federal Officer, ACMH, Office of Minority Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16195 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Grand Junction Facilities site in Grand Junction, Colorado, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). On May 20, 2015, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Grand Junction Facilities site in Grand Junction, Colorado, during the period from February 1, 1975, through December 31, 1985, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on June 19, 2015. Therefore, beginning on June 19, 2015, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16268 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).

    On May 20, 2015, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of Department of Energy contractors and subcontractors (excluding employees of the following Hanford prime contractors during the specified time periods: Battelle Memorial Institute, January 1, 1984, through December 31, 1990; Rockwell Hanford Operations, January 1, 1984, through June 28, 1987; Boeing Computer Services Richland, January 1, 1984, through June 28, 1987; UNC Nuclear Industries, January 1, 1984, through June 28, 1987; Westinghouse Hanford Company, January 1, 1984, through December 31, 1990; and Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, January 1, 1984, through December 31, 1990), who worked at the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, during the period from January 1, 1984, through December 31, 1990, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on June 21, 2015. Therefore, beginning on June 21, 2015, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16277 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-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; Metabolomics Core for the Undiagnosed Diseases Network.

    Date: July 14-15, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Rolf Jakobi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6187, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-495-1718, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: Molecular and Cellular Substrates of Complex Brain Disorders.

    Date: July 24, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Deborah L Lewis, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4183, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9129, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; National Primate Research Centers (P51) Revision Application.

    Date: July 27, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 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: Biao Tian, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3089B, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-4411, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cognition and Perception.

    Date: July 28-29, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Maribeth Champoux, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3170, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3163, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cancer Immunopathology and Immunotherapy.

    Date: July 28, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sharon K Gubanich, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6195D, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408-9512, [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 25, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16063 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies AGENCY:

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11970), and subsequently revised in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29908); September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51118); April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644); November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858); December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75122); and on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809).

    A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the Federal Register during the first week of each month. If any laboratory or IITF certification is suspended or revoked, the laboratory or IITF will be omitted from subsequent lists until such time as it is restored to full certification under the Mandatory Guidelines.

    If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.

    This notice is also available on the Internet at http://www.samhsa.gov/workplace.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, Room 7-1051, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice), 240-276-2610 (fax).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.

    To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.

    Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.

    In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:

    HHS-Certified Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Dynacare, 6628 50th Street NW., Edmonton, AB Canada T6B 2N7, 780-784-1190, (Formerly: Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories). HHS-Certified Laboratories ACM Medical Laboratory, Inc., 160 Elmgrove Park, Rochester, NY 14624, 585-429-2264. Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc., 345 Hill Ave., Nashville, TN 37210, 615-255-2400, (Formerly: Aegis Sciences Corporation, Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc., Aegis Analytical Laboratories). Alere Toxicology Services, 1111 Newton St., Gretna, LA 70053, 504-361-8989/800-433-3823, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Laboratory Specialists, Inc.). Alere Toxicology Services, 450 Southlake Blvd., Richmond, VA 23236, 804-378-9130, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.; Kroll Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.). Baptist Medical Center-Toxicology Laboratory, 11401 I-30, Little Rock, AR 72209-7056, 501-202-2783, (Formerly: Forensic Toxicology Laboratory Baptist Medical Center). Clinical Reference Lab, 8433 Quivira Road, Lenexa, KS 66215-2802, 800-445-6917. DrugScan, Inc., 200 Precision Road, Suite 200, Horsham, PA 19044, 800-235-4890. Dynacare*, 245 Pall Mall Street, London, ONT, Canada N6A 1P4, 519-679-1630, (Formerly: Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories). ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, MS 38655, 662-236-2609. Fortes Laboratories, Inc., 25749 SW Canyon Creek Road, Suite 600, Wilsonville, OR 97070, 503-486-1023. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 7207 N. Gessner Road, Houston, TX 77040, 713-856-8288/800-800-2387. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 69 First Ave., Raritan, NJ 08869, 908-526-2400/800-437-4986, (Formerly: Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.). Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1904 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919-572-6900/800-833-3984, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc., CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.; CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Subsidiary of Roche Biomedical Laboratory; Roche CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Member of the Roche Group). Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1120 Main Street, Southaven, MS 38671, 866-827-8042/800-233-6339, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc.; MedExpress/National Laboratory Center). LabOne, Inc. d/b/a Quest Diagnostics, 10101 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219, 913-888-3927/800-873-8845, (Formerly: Quest Diagnostics Incorporated; LabOne, Inc.; Center for Laboratory Services, a Division of LabOne, Inc.). MedTox Laboratories, Inc., 402 W. County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55112, 651-636-7466/800-832-3244. MetroLab-Legacy Laboratory Services, 1225 NE 2nd Ave., Portland, OR 97232, 503-413-5295/800-950-5295. Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Forensic Toxicology Laboratory, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, 612-725-2088. National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc., 1100 California Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93304, 661-322-4250/800-350-3515. One Source Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., 1213 Genoa-Red Bluff, Pasadena, TX 77504, 888-747-3774, (Formerly: University of Texas Medical Branch, Clinical Chemistry Division; UTMB Pathology-Toxicology Laboratory). Pacific Toxicology Laboratories, 9348 DeSoto Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, 800-328-6942, (Formerly: Centinela Hospital Airport Toxicology Laboratory). Pathology Associates Medical Laboratories, 110 West Cliff Dr., Spokane, WA 99204, 509-755-8991/800-541-7891x7. Phamatech, Inc., 15175 Innovation Drive, San Diego, CA 92128, 888-635-5840. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 1777 Montreal Circle, Tucker, GA 30084, 800-729-6432, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories). Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 400 Egypt Road, Norristown, PA 19403, 610-631-4600/877-642-2216, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories). Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 8401 Fallbrook Ave., West Hills, CA 91304, 818-737-6370, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories). Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, 3700650 Westwind Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA 95403, 800-255-2159. Southwest Laboratories, 4625 E. Cotton Center Boulevard, Suite 177, Phoenix, AZ 85040, 602-438-8507/800-279-0027. STERLING Reference Laboratories, 2617 East L Street, Tacoma, Washington 98421, 800-442-0438. US Army Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory, 2490 Wilson St., Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-5235, 301-677-7085. _____

    * The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.

    Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (Federal Register, July 16, 1996) as meeting the minimum standards of the Mandatory Guidelines published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809). After receiving DOT certification, the laboratory will be included in the monthly list of HHS-certified laboratories and participate in the NLCP certification maintenance program.

    Janine Denis Cook, Chemist, Division of Workplace Programs, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16172 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-20-P
    ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Notice of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Quarterly Business Meeting AGENCY:

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Quarterly Business Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) will hold its next quarterly meeting on Wednesday, July 15, 2015. The meeting will be held in Room SR325 at the Russell Senate Office Building at Constitution and Delaware Avenues NE., Washington, DC, starting at 9:00 a.m. DST.

    DATES:

    The quarterly meeting will take place on Wednesday, July 15, 2015, starting at 9:00 a.m. DST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in Room SR325 at the Russell Senate Office Building at Constitution and Delaware Avenues NE., Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Bienvenue, 202-517-0202, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an independent federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation's diverse historic resources, and advises the President and the Congress on national historic preservation policy. The goal of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which established the ACHP in 1966, is to have federal agencies act as responsible stewards of our nation's resources when their actions affect historic properties. The ACHP is the only entity with the legal responsibility to encourage federal agencies to factor historic preservation into federal project requirements. For more information on the ACHP, please visit our Web site at www.achp.gov.

    The agenda for the upcoming quarterly meeting of the ACHP is the following:

    Call to Order—9:00 a.m. I. Chairman's Welcome II. Swearing in Ceremony III. Section 106 Issues A. Federal Agency Support for SHPOs and THPOs B. Amending ACHP Program Comment on Communication Facilities IV. Historic Preservation Policy and Programs A. Building a More Inclusive Preservation Program 1. Asian-American Pacific Islander Initiative 2. American Latino Heritage Initiative 3. ACHP Youth Initiatives B. Preservation 50 1. ACHP Public Policy Initiative. 2. ACHP 50th Anniversary Retrospective C. Historic Preservation Legislation in the 114th Congress 1. Policy for Adoption of ACHP Legislative Positions 2. ACHP Legislative Agenda-H.R. 2817, Reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund D. Policy Statement on the Role of Historic Preservation in Rebuilding Resilient Communities V. Native American Affairs Committee Activities VI. New Business VII. Adjourn

    The meetings of the ACHP are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Bienvenue, 202-517-0202 or [email protected], at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.

    Authority:

    54 U.S.C. 304102

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Javier E. Marques, Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16134 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-K6-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4222-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Oklahoma; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4222-DR), dated May 26, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 11, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 26, 2015.

    Adair, Beckham, Caddo, Creek, Garvin, Jackson, Logan, Marshall, McIntosh, Muskogee, Pushmataha, Sequoyah, and Washita Counties for Public Assistance.

    Comanche and McCurtain Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16242 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

    DATES:

    The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case No. Chief executive officer of community Community map repository Effective date of
  • modification
  • Community
  • No.
  • Illinois: Cook (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Palos Heights (13-05-8093P). The Honorable Robert Straz, Mayor, City of Palos Heights, 7607 West College Drive, Palos Heights, IL 60463. City Hall, 7607 West College Drive, Palos Heights, IL 60463. September 19, 2014 170142 DuPage (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). Village of Lisle (14-05-2185P). The Honorable Joseph J. Broda, Mayor, Village of Lisle, 925 Burlington Avenue, Lisle, IL 60532. Village Hall, 925 Burlington Avenue, Lisle, IL 60532. September 10, 2014 170211 Indiana: Marshall (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Plymouth (14-05-0926P). The Honorable Mark Senter, Mayor, City of Plymouth, 124 North Michigan Street, Plymouth, IN 46563. 124 North Michigan Street, Plymouth, IN 46563. September 11, 2014 180164 Marshall (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). Unincorporated Areas of Marshall County (14-05-0926P). The Honorable Kevin Overmyer, Marshall County President, Board of Commissioners, 112 West Jefferson Street, Room 205, Plymouth, IN 46563. 112 West Jefferson, Plymouth, IN 46563. September 11, 2014 180443 Kansas: Lyon (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Emporia (13-07-1700P). The Honorable Rob Gilligan, Mayor, City of Emporia, P.O. Box 928, Emporia, KS 66801. 521 Market Street, Emporia, KS 66801. October 10, 2014 200203 Minnesota: Olmsted (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Rochester (13-05-8106P). The Honorable Ardell F. Brede, Mayor, City of Rochester, 201 4th Street SE., Room 281, Rochester, MN 55904. 2122 Campus Drive, Suite 300, Rochester, MN 55904. October 17, 2014 275246 Pennington (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Thief River Falls (14-05-0815P). The Honorable Jim Dagg, Mayor, City of Thief River Falls, 405 Third Street East, Thief River Falls, MN 56701. City Hall, 405 Third Street East, Thief River Falls, MN 56701. September 18, 2014 270344 Pennington (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). Unincorporated Areas of Pennington County (14-05-0815P). The Honorable Neil Peterson, Pennington County Chairman Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 616, Thief River Falls, MN 56701. 201 Sherwood Avenue South, Thief River Falls, MN 56701. September 18, 2014 270651 Missouri: Buchanan (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of St. Joseph (14-07-0148P). The Honorable Bill Falkner, Mayor, City of Saint Joseph, 1100 Frederick Avenue, Room 309, St. Joseph, MO 64506. 1100 Frederick Avenue, Room 107, St. Joseph, MO 64506. September 25, 2014 290043 Cape Girardeau (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Cape Girardeau (14-07-0463P). The Honorable Harry Rediger, Mayor, City of Cape Girardeau, 401 Independence Street, Cape Girardeau, MO 63703. 401 Independence Street, Cape Girardeau, MO 63703. September 8, 2014 290458 New Hampshire: Hillsborough (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Nashua (14-01-0876P). The Honorable Donnalee Lozeau, Mayor, City of Nashua, 229 Main Street, Nashua, NH 03061. 229 Main Street, Nashua, NH 03061. September 19, 2014 330097 Ohio: Logan (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Bellefontaine (14-05-4416P). The Honorable Adam Brannon, Mayor, City of Bellefontaine, 135 North Detroit Street, Bellefontaine, OH 43311. 135 North Detroit Street, Bellefontaine, OH 43311. September 19, 2014 390340 Summit (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Hudson (14-05-3718P). The Honorable William A. Currin, Mayor, City of Hudson, 115 Executive Parkway, Suite 400, Hudson, OH 44236. 27 East Main Street, Hudson, OH 44236. September 22, 2014 390660 Oregon: Jackson (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Medford (13-10-1490P). The Honorable Gary Wheeler, Mayor, City of Medford, 411 West 8th Street, Medford, OR 97501. 411 West 8th Street, Medford, OR 97501. September 18, 2014 410096 Jackson (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Medford (14-10-0435P). The Honorable Gary Wheeler, Mayor, City of Medford, 411 West 8th Street, Medford, OR 97501. 411 West 8th Street, Medford, OR 97501. September 15, 2014 410096 Wisconsin: Chippewa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1420). City of Eau Claire (14-05-1736P). Mr. Russell Van Gompel, City of Eau Claire, City Manager, 203 South Farwell Street, Third Floor, Eau Claire, WI 54701. City Hall, 203 South Farwell Street Third Floor, Eau Claire, WI 54701. September 12, 2014 550128
    [FR Doc. 2015-16225 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1520] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before September 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1520, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies will be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 16, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Local map repository address Montgomery County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 10-07-0013S Preliminary Date: October 17, 2014 City of Caney City Hall, 100 West 4th Avenue, Caney, KS 67333. City of Cherryvale City Hall, 123 West Main Street, Cherryvale, KS 67335. City of Coffeyville Engineering Department, 11 East 2nd Street, Coffeyville, KS 67337. City of Dearing City Hall, 306 South Independence Avenue, Dearing, KS 67340. City of Elk City City Hall, 114 North Montgomery Avenue, Elk City, KS 67344. City of Havana Montgomery County Judicial Center, 300 East Main Street, Lower Level, Independence, KS 67301. City of Independence City Hall, 120 North 6th Street, Independence, KS 67301. City of Liberty Montgomery County Judicial Center, 300 East Main Street, Lower Level, Independence, KS 67301. City of Tyro Tyro City Clerk's Office, 1655 County Road 2700, Caney, KS 67333. Unincorporated Areas of Montgomery County Montgomery County Judicial Center, 300 East Main Street, Lower Level, Independence, KS 67301. Camden County, NJ (All Jurisdictions) Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 13-02-0051S Preliminary Date: Septmeber 19, 2014 Borough of Audubon Borough Hall, 606 West Nicholson Road, Audubon, NJ 08106. Borough of Audubon Park Community Hall, 20 Road C, Audubon Park, NJ 08106. Borough of Bellmawr Municipal Building, 21 East Browning Road, Bellmawr, NJ 08031. Borough of Brooklawn Borough Hall, 301 Christiana Street, Brooklawn, NJ 08030. Borough of Collingswood Borough Hall, 678 Haddon Avenue, Collingswood, NJ 08108. Borough of Mount Ephraim Tax Office, 121 South Black Horse Pike, Mount Ephraim, NJ 08059. Borough of Oaklyn Borough Hall, 500 White Horse Pike, Oaklyn, NJ 08107. Borough of Runnemede Borough Hall, 24 North Black Horse Pike, Runnemede, NJ 08078. Borough of Woodlynne Municipal Building, 200 Cooper Avenue, Woodlynne, NJ 08107. City of Camden Planning Department, 520 Market Street, Suite 224, Camden, NJ 08101. City of Gloucester Municipal Building, 512 Monmouth Street, Gloucester City, NJ 08030. Township of Gloucester Municipal Building, 1261 Chews Landing Road, Laurel Springs, NJ 08021. Township of Haddon Annex Building, 10 Reeve Avenue, Haddon Township, NJ 08108. Township of Pennsauken Municipal Building, 5605 North Crescent Boulevard, Pennsauken, NJ 08110. Gloucester County, New Jersey (All Jurisdictions) Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 13-02-0052S Preliminary Date: September 19, 2014 Borough of National Park Borough Hall, 7 South Grove Avenue, National Park, NJ 08063. Borough of Paulsboro Administration Building, 1211 North Delaware Street, Paulsboro, NJ 08066. Borough of Swedesboro Borough Hall, 1500 Kings Highway, Swedesboro, NJ 08085. Borough of Wenonah 1 South West Avenue, Wenonah, NJ 08090. Borough of Westville 165 Broadway, Westville, NJ 08093. City of Woodbury City Hall, 33 Delaware Street, Woodbury, NJ 08096. Township of Deptford Municipal Building, 1011 Cooper Street, Deptford, NJ 08096. Township of East Greenwich East Greenwich Township Municipal Building, 159 Democrat Road, Mickleton, NJ 08056. Township of Greenwich Greenwich Township Construction and Zoning Office, 403 West Broad Street, Gibbstown, NJ 08027. Township of Logan 125 Main Street, Bridgeport, NJ 08014. Township of Mantua Municipal Building, 401 Main Street, Mantua, NJ 08051. Township of West Deptford 400 Crown Point Road, West Deptford, NJ 08086. Township of Woolwich 121 Woodstown Road, Swedesboro, NJ 08085.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16227 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4222-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Oklahoma; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4222-DR), dated May 26, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 12, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 26, 2015.

    Wagoner County for Individual Assistance.

    Beckham, Caddo, Canadian, Marshall, McIntosh, and Seminole Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16241 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0026] Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee. (HSSTAC), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Committee management; notice of Federal Advisory Committee charter renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that the renewal of the charter of the Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC) is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate's performance of its duties. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.

    ADDRESSES:

    If you desire to submit comments on this action, they must be submitted by August 14, 2015. Comments must be identified by (DHS-2015-0026) and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    • Email: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    • Fax: 202-254-6176.

    • Mail: Bishop Garrison, HSSTAC Executive Director, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, IAO Stop 0205, Washington, DC 20528-0205

    • Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and DHS-2015-0026, the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided.

    • Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bishop Garrison, HSSTAC Executive Director, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, IAO Stop 0205, Washington, DC 20528-0205, 202-254-5866 (O) 202-254-6176 (F), [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose and Objective: The charter of the Homeland Security Science and Technology Committee (HSSTAC) is being renewed in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5 United States Code, Appendix. The committee addresses science and technology needs and trends, management processes and organizational constructs, and other matters of special interest to the Under Secretary of Science and Technology and will ensure the identification of new technologies and application of new technologies in those areas to strengthen homeland security.

    Duration: The committee's charter is effective June 15, 2015 and expires June 14, 2017.

    Responsible DHS Officials: Bishop Garrison, HSSTAC Executive Director, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, IAO Stop 0205, Washington, DC 20528-0205, 202-254-5617 (O), 202-254-6176 (F), [email protected].

    Dated: June 23, 2015. Dr. Reginald Brothers, Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16156 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9F-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0114] Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Civil Surgeon Designation Registration, Form I-910; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0114 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2013-0002. 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 http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2013-0002;

    (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 (This is not a toll-free number. 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-2013-0002 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Civil Surgeon Designation Registration.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-910; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Section 212(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) renders individuals inadmissible if the individual is afflicted with the statutorily mentioned diseases or medical conditions. In order to establish that the individual is admissible when seeking adjustment of status to a legal permanent resident (and in certain cases other aliens seeking an immigration benefit), the individual must submit Form I-693 (OMB Control Number 1615-0033), Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record, that is completed by a civil surgeon, a USCIS designated physician.” To be selected as a civil surgeon, the physician has to demonstrate that he or she is a licensed physician with no less than 4 years of professional experience.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-910 is 725 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 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 1,450 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 $3,625.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16120 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5837-N-03] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Evaluation of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program, Phase I AGENCY:

    Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed information collection.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: August 31, 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: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    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.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Evaluation of the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program, Phase I.

    OMB Approval Number: N/A.

    Type of Request: New.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Office of Policy Research and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is proposing a data collection activity as part of the evaluation of the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811) Project Rental Assistance (PRA) Program. The PRA Program is a new model of housing assistance authorized in 2010 that provides project-based rental assistance to state housing agencies for the development of supportive housing for extremely low-income persons with disabilities. Housing agencies must have a formal partnership with the state health and human service agency and the state Medicaid provider to provide services and supports directly to residents living in units funded with Section 811 PRA.

    The Section 811 PRA program authorizing statute requires HUD to describe the assistance under the program, to analyze its effectiveness, and propose recommendations for future assistance under Section 811. HUD is implementing a two-phase evaluation of the Section 811 PRA program. The first phase of the evaluation is focused on a process evaluation that will describe the implementation of the program in the first 12 states awarded Section 811 PRA funds. The second phase will evaluate the program effectiveness and its impact on residents. This request for OMB clearance covers the first phase of the evaluation. Data collection includes in-person interviews with staffs at state agencies, (housing, health and human services and state Medicaid providers) and Section 811 PRA Partner Agencies (property owners or managers of properties where Section 811 PRA participants live and staff at organizations that provide supportive services to PRA participants). The purpose of the interviews is to document the implementation experience of the Section 811 PRA Program.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): State housing agencies, state health and human service and Medicaid provider agencies, and Section 811 PRA Partner Agencies.

    Total Estimated Burden: For the state housing agency staff, state health and human service agency staff and state Medicaid agency staff, researchers will administer interviews on the implementation of the Section 811 PRA Program for a total of five hours. An additional two hours will be needed to compile material needed on the PRA program in order to answer the research questions. The total burden for state housing agency and Medicaid respondents is 168 hours. The average burden of interviews for Section 811 PRA Partner Agency staff is one hour, with an additional hour to compile information needed to complete the interview. The total burden for PRA Partner Agencies is 137.5 hours. The total burden for all respondents is 305.5 hours.

    Respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average
  • burden/
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Average
  • burden/
  • data collection
  • (hours)
  • Total
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • State housing agencies implementing Section 811 PRA 12 1 5 2 84 Medicaid agencies implementing Section 811 PRA 12 1 5 2 84 Section 811 PRA Partner Agencies 55 1 1.5 1 137.5 Total Burden Hours 305.5
    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:

    1701z-1 Research and Demonstrations; 12 U.S.C. chapter 13.

    Dated: June 22, 2015. Katherine M. O'Regan, Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy Development and Research.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16202 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Geological Survey [GX15LR000F60100] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an extension and revision of a currently approved information collection (1028-0062).

    SUMMARY:

    We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. The collection will consist of 38 forms. As part of the requested extension we will make a revision to the number of the associated collection instruments. This revision includes deleting USGS Form 9-4002-A and USGS Form 9-4019-A. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2015.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit a copy of your comments to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-7195 (fax); or [email protected] (email). Reference `Information Collection 1028-0062, Industrial Minerals Surveys' in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Sangine at 703-648-7720 (telephone); [email protected] (email); or by mail at U.S. Geological Survey, 989 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    Respondents to these forms supply the USGS with domestic production and consumption data of industrial mineral commodities, some of which are considered strategic and critical. These data and derived information will be published as chapters in Minerals Yearbooks, monthly and quarterly Mineral Industry Surveys, annual Mineral Commodity Summaries, and special publications, for use by Government agencies, industry, education programs, and the general public.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028-0062.

    Form Number: Various (38 forms).

    Title: Industrial Minerals Surveys.

    Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Business or Other-For-Profit Institutions: U.S. nonfuel minerals producers and consumers of industrial minerals. Public sector: State and local governments.

    Respondent Obligation: None. Participation is voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: Monthly, Quarterly, Semiannually, or Annually.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 20,053.

    Estimated Time per Response: For each form, we will include an average burden time ranging from 10 minutes to 5 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 14,004 hours.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: There are no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this collection of information.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number and current expiration date.

    III. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden time to the proposed collection of information; (c) how to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Michael J. Magyar, Associate Director, National Minerals Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16126 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [156A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] Land Acquisition; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Acquisition of Land into Trust.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States has acquired approximately 1,553 acres of Federal land within the boundary of the former Badger Army Ammunition Plant near Baraboo, Wisconsin, in trust for the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin. The acquisition was effectuated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This notice provides a legal description of the property.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Michael Black, Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, MS-4606 MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 208-5116.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 12, 2014, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Act), and on December 19, 2015, the President signed the Act into law. See Public Law 113-291. The Act legislatively transferred approximately 1,553 acres located within the boundary of the former Badger Army Ammunition Plant near Baraboo, Wisconsin, to the Secretary of the Interior in trust for the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin. The legislation effectuated the acquisition of the land in trust and clarified responsibility and liability with regard to conduct or activities that took place on the land before the transfer. 160 Cong. Rec. S6722 (daily ed. Dec. 12, 2014) (statement of Sen. Baldwin).

    The approximately 1,533 acres are within the boundary of the former Badger Army Ammunition Plan, near Baraboo, Wisconsin, and the external boundary is described as follows:

    BIA-Ho-Chunk Nation Reservation Trust Land Former Badger Army Ammunition Plant, Sauk Co. WI. Legal Description

    A parcel of land located in the NW1/4 of the SE1/4, the NE1/4 of the SE1/4, the SE1/4 of the SE1/4 and the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 34, the NW1/4 of the SW1/4, the NE1/4 of the SW1/4, the SE1/4 of the SW1/4, the SW1/4 of the SW1/4, the NW1/4 of the SE1/4 and the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 35, all in T11N, R6E, Town of Sumpter, Sauk County, Wisconsin, the NW1/4 of the NW1/4, the SW1/4 of the NW1/4, the NW1/4 of the SW1/4 and the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 1, the NE1/4 of the NE1/4, the NW1/4 of the NE1/4, the SW1/4 of the NE1/4, the SE1/4 of the NE1/4, the NE1/4 of the NW1/4, the NW1/4 of the NW1/4, the SW1/4 of the NW1/4, the SE1/4 of the NW1/4, the NE1/4 of the SW1/4, the NW1/4 of the SW1/4, the SW1/4 of the SW1/4, the SE1/4 of the SW1/4, the NE1/4 of the SE1/4, the NW1/4 of the SE1/4, the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 and SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 2, the NE1/4 of the NE1/4, the NW1/4 of the NE1/4, the SW1/4 of the NE1/4, the SE1/4 of the NE1/4, the NE1/4 of the SE1/4, the NW1/4 of the SE1/4, the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 and SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 3, the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 and the SE1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 10, the NE1/4 of the NE1/4, the NW1/4 of the NE1/4, the SW1/4 of the NE1/4, the SE1/4 of the NE1/4, the NE1/4 of the NW1/4, the NW1/4 of the NW1/4, the SW1/4 of the NW1/4, the SE1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 11, all in T10N, R6E, Town of Sumpter, Sauk County, Wisconsin more particularly described as follows:

    Commencing at the north quarter corner of Section 3, T10N, R6E; thence S52°06′02″ E, 865.88 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence N85°00′00″ E, 35.00 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence S5°00′00″ E, 35.00 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence S85°00′00″ W, 35.00 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence N5°0′00″ W, 35.00 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence N52°06′02″ W, 865.88 ft. to the north quarter corner of section 3, T10N, R6E; THENCE N89°53′11″ E along the north line of the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of said Section 3, 20.16 ft. to the south quarter corner of Section 34, T11N, R6E; THENCE N89°56′52″ E along the south line of the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of said Section 34, 6.71 ft. to the centerline of United States Highway “12”; THENCE N00°55′51″ E along said centerline, 940.81 ft. to the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 05°40′12″ and a radius of 1,910.00 ft.; thence northeasterly along the arc of said curve and said centerline, 189.02 ft. to the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing N03°45′57″ E, 188.94 ft.; THENCE N06°36′03″ E along said centerline, 701.17 ft. to a westerly extension of the north boundary fence of the Badger Army Ammunition Plant; THENCE S89°01′57″ E along said boundary fence extension, 121.59 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod on the east right-of-way line of said United States Highway “12”; THENCE S89°01′57″ E along said boundary fence, 3,730.27 ft. to the top of a 5″ diameter iron pipe at a fence corner in the Badger Army Ammunition Plant perimeter fence; THENCE N01°49′33″ E along said boundary fence, 231.54 ft. to the top of a 5″ diameter iron pipe at a fence corner in the Badger Army Ammunition Plant perimeter fence; THENCE N37°02′42″ E along said boundary fence, 522.84 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N32°56′27″ E along said boundary fence, 349.60 ft. to the top of a 5″ diameter iron pipe at a fence corner in the Badger Army Ammunition Plant perimeter fence; THENCE S85°35′58″ E along said boundary fence, 116.31 ft. to the top of a 5″ diameter iron pipe at a fence corner in the Badger Army Ammunition Plant perimeter fence; THENCE N79°40′05″ E along said boundary fence, 88.90 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N89°42′24″ E along said boundary fence, 107.92 ft. to the top of a 5″ diameter iron pipe at a fence corner in the Badger Army Ammunition Plant perimeter fence; THENCE S03°55′57″ E along said boundary fence, 538.07 ft. to the top of a 5″ diameter iron pipe at a fence corner in the Badger Army Ammunition Plant perimeter fence; THENCE S01°03′37″ W along said boundary fence, 427.20 ft. to the top of a 5″ diameter iron pipe at a fence corner in the Badger Army Ammunition Plant perimeter fence; THENCE S89°02′38″ E along said boundary fence, 1,057.00 ft. to the top of a 5″ diameter iron pipe at a fence corner in the Badger Army Ammunition Plant perimeter fence; THENCE S89°02′38″ E, 107.85 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE S29°57′32″ E, 110.60 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE S45°35′28″ E, 645.15 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 45°34′28″ and a radius of 280.00 ft.; thence southerly along the arc of said curve, 222.72 ft. to the east line of the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 35, T11N, R6E and the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S22°48′14″ E, 216.89 ft.; THENCE S00°01′00″ E along the east line of said SW1/4 of the SE1/4, 983.91 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence N88°28′32″ W, 358.22 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod on the north line of the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 2, T10N, R6E; thence S89°57′01″ W along said north line, 353.00 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence S0°17′43″ W, 316.48 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence N89°57′01″ E, 353.00 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence N0°17′43″ E, 316.48 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod on the north line of the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 2, T10N, R6E; thence S88°28′32″ E, 358.22 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N89°47′45″ E, 1,770.12 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 18°28′58″ and a radius of 656.00 ft.; thence easterly along the arc of said curve, 211.61 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of compound curvature thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S80°57′46″ E, 210.70 ft.; said compound curvature being the beginning of a curve to the right having a central angle of 51°35′40″ and a radius of 541.22 ft.; thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve, 487.36 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the end of the curve thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S30°08′16″ E, 471.06 ft. THENCE S04°19′32″ E, 186.91 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE S02°46′22″ W, 2,101.76 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE S02°46′15″ W, 1,005.40 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 58°50′20″, and a radius of 695.87 ft.; thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve, 714.61 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at point of reverse curvature thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S32°57′32″ W, 683.62 ft.; the point of reverse curvature being in a curve to the left having a central angle of 57°26′32″ and a radius of 1,277.16 ft.; thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve, 1,280.42 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the end of the curve thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S34°25′24″ W, 1,227.47 ft.; THENCE S84°20′38″ E, 30.01 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 02°26′12″ and a radius of 2,425.57 ft.; thence southerly along the arc of said curve, 103.16 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the end of the curve thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S03°19′53″ W, 103.15 ft.; THENCE S00°57′46″ W, 380.83 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N88°49′29″ W, 29.99 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE S00°57′44″ W, 913.21 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N89°08′47″ W, 70.75 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 28°51′22″ and a radius of 274.99 ft.; thence southerly along the arc of said curve, 138.50 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S15°16′53″ W, 137.04 ft.; THENCE S29°42′34″ W, 91.44 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 04°06′24″, and a radius of 1,902.00 ft.; thence southerly along the arc of said curve, 136.33 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S27°39′22″ W, 136.30 ft.; THENCE S25°36′10″ W, 336.07 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N89°00′17″ W, 2,293.93 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 32°47′08″ and a radius of 171.64 ft.; thence westerly along the arc of said curve, 98.21 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S74°36′09″ W, 96.88 ft.; THENCE S58°12′35″ W, 4.12 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 32°29′28″ and a radius of 180.00 ft.; thence westerly along the arc of said curve, 102.07 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S74°27′19″ W, 100.71 ft.; THENCE N89°17′57″ W, 380.98 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N86°54′50″ W, 831.39 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N89°53′10″ W, 96.40 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 64°36′08″ and a radius of 189.00 ft.; thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve, 213.10 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S57°48′46″ W, 201.99 ft.; THENCE S25°30′42″ W, 24.98 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 66°27′44″ and a radius of 63.00 ft.; thence westerly along the arc of said curve, 73.08 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S58°44′34″ W, 69.05 ft.; THENCE N88°01′34″ W, 214.61 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 90°21′06″ and a radius of 72.00 ft.; thence southerly along the arc of said curve, 113.54 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S46°47′53″ W, 102.14 ft; THENCE S01°37′20″ W, 148.74 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 89°03′28″ and a radius of 61.00 ft.; thence westerly along the arc of said curve, 94.82 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing S46°09′04″ W, 85.55 ft.; THENCE N89°19′12″ W, 791.47 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N01°18′03″ E, 405.32 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 02°45′20″ and a radius of 1,629.00 ft.; thence northerly along the arc of said curve, 78.34 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing N00°04′37″ W, 78.33 ft. THENCE N01°27′17″ W, 241.79 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 28°49′27″ and a radius of 160.00 ft.; thence northwesterly along the arc of said curve, 80.49 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing N15°52′00.5″ W, 79.65 ft.; THENCE N30°16′44″ W, 103.56 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 31°17′36″ and a radius of 192.00 ft.; thence northerly along the arc of said curve, 104.87 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing N14°37′56″ W, 103.57 ft.; THENCE N01°00′52″ E, 62.79 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N89°06′24″ W, 380.04 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N00°17′32″ W, 548.93 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N01°03′16″ E, 1,517.93 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N89°55′10″ W, 632.25 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N00°33′46″ E, 93.42 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 07°05′22″ and a radius of 2,794.00 ft.; thence northerly along the arc of said curve, 345.72 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing N04°06′27″ E, 345.50 ft.; THENCE N07°39′08″ E, 104.02 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 07°14′40″ and a radius of 1,012.00 ft.; thence northerly along the arc of said curve, 127.96 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of tangency thereof, said curve having a long chord bearing N04°01′48″ E, 127.87 ft.; THENCE N00°24′28″ E, 210.33 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; THENCE N89°06′46″ W, 1,056.52 ft. to the west line of the NW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 3, T10N, R6E; THENCE N00°36′25″ E along said west line, 970.26 ft. to the southwest corner of the NE1/4 of said Section 3; THENCE N00°40′57″ E along the west line of the NE1/4 of said Section 3, 2,747.19 ft. to the point of beginning.

    Containing 67,650,480 square feet or 1,553.04 acres more or less.

    Subject to the Following Easements to the Town of Sumpter Around Existing Cemeteries Easement “A”—90 Foot Easement Around Cemetery PARCEL “O2”

    A parcel of land located in the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 3, T10N, R6E, Town of Sumpter, Sauk County, Wisconsin more particularly described as follows:

    Commencing at a Harrison monument at the northeast corner of said Section 3; thence S89°56′52″ W along the north line of the NE1/4 of said Section 3, 2618.20 ft. to the south 1/4 corner of Section 34, T11N, R6E; thence N89°53′11″ E along the north line of the NE1/4 of said Section 3, 20.16 ft. to the north 1/4 corner of said Section 3; thence S52°06′02″ E, 865.88 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of beginning; thence N85°00′00″ E, 35.00 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence S5°00′00″ E, 35.00 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence S50°00′00″ E, 127.28 ft.; thence S85°00′00″ W, 215.00 ft.; thence N5°00′00″ W, 215.00 ft.; thence N85°00′00″ E, 215.00 ft.; thence S5°00′00″ E, 215.00 ft.; thence N50°00′00″ W, 127.28 ft.; thence S85°00′00″ W, 35.00 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence N5°00′00″ W, 35.00 ft. to the point of beginning.

    Easement “B”—90 Foot Easement Around Cemetery PARCEL “O6”

    A parcel of land located in the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 2, T10N, R6E and in the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 35, T11N, R6E all in the town of Sumpter, Sauk County, Wisconsin more particularly described as follows:

    Commencing at a Harrison monument at the northeast corner of said Section 2; thence S89°57′01″ W along the north line of the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 and the north line of the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of said Section 2, 1667.80 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod at the point of beginning; thence S0°17′43″ W, 316.48 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence S44°52′38″ E, 126.90 ft.; thence N0°17′43″ E, 496.48 ft.; thence S89°57′01″ W, 533.00 ft.; thence S0°17′43″ W, 496.48 ft.; thence N89°57′01″ E, 533.00 ft.; thence N44°52′38″ W, 126.90 ft.; thence S89°57′01″ W, 353.00 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod; thence N0°17′43″ E, 316.48 ft. to a 3/4″ solid round iron rod on the north line of the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of said Section 2; thence N89°57′01″ E along said north line, 353.00 ft. to the point of beginning.

    In addition, pursuant to the Act, federally-owned structures on the property have been transferred to the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin in fee. The transfer of the property has been recorded at the Land Title Records Office as BIA Land Titles and Records Tract ID #: 439 T 2170.

    Authority

    This notice publishes the legal description of the property in the Federal Register. The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is issuing this publication under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1, and with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Army.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. Kevin K. Washburn, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16196 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-18374; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP15.R50000] Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee: Notice of Nomination Solicitation AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service is seeking nominations for one member of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee). The Secretary of the Interior will appoint the member from nominations submitted by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and traditional Native American religious leaders. The nominee need not be a traditional Indian religious leader.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be received by August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program (2253), National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, or via email [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program (2253), National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, or via email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Review Committee was established by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), at 25 U.S.C. 3006, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    The Review Committee is responsible for:

    1. Monitoring the NAGPRA inventory and identification process;

    2. Reviewing and making findings related to the identity or cultural affiliation of cultural items, or the return of such items;

    3. Facilitating the resolution of disputes;

    4. Compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and developing a process for disposition of such remains;

    5. Consulting with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and museums on matters within the scope of the work of the Review Committee affecting such tribes or organizations;

    6. Consulting with the Secretary of the Interior in the development of regulations to carry out NAGPRA; and

    7. Making recommendations regarding future care of repatriated cultural items.

    The Review Committee consists of seven members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary may not appoint Federal officers or employees to the Review Committee. Three members are appointed from nominations submitted by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and traditional Native American religious leaders. At least two of these members must be traditional Indian religious leaders. Three members are appointed from nominations submitted by national museum or scientific organizations. One member is appointed from a list of persons developed and consented to by all of the other members.

    Members serve as Special Governmental Employees, which requires completion of annual ethics training. Members are appointed for 4-year terms and incumbent members may be reappointed for 2-year terms. The Review Committee's work takes place during public meetings. The Review Committee normally meets in person two times per year, normally for two or three days. The Review Committee may also hold one or more public teleconferences of several hours duration.

    Review Committee members serve without pay but shall be reimbursed for each day the member participates in Review Committee meetings. Review Committee members are reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in association with Review Committee meetings (25 U.S.C. 3006(b)(4)). Additional information regarding the Review Committee, including the Review Committee's charter, meeting protocol, and dispute resolution procedures, is available on the National NAGPRA Program Web site, at www.nps.gov/NAGPRA/REVIEW/.

    Individuals who are federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated Special Government Employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.

    Nominations should:

    1. Be submitted on the official letterhead of the tribe or organization.

    2. Affirm that the signatory is the official authorized by the tribe or organization to submit the nomination.

    3. Nominations by a traditional religious leader must explain that he or she is a traditional religious leader.

    4. Include the nominee's full legal name, home address, home telephone number, and email address.

    5. Include the nominee's resume or a brief biography of the nominee, in which the nominee's NAGPRA experience and ability to work as a member of a Federal advisory committee are addressed.

    Dated: June 19, 2015. Alma Ripps, Chief, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16103 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-18569; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before May 30, 2015. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by July 16, 2015. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: June 4, 2015. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. CALIFORNIA Los Angeles County University of Southern California Historic District, Roughly bounded by W. Jefferson & W. Exposition Blvds., S. Figueroa St. & McClintock Ave., Los Angeles, 15000408 COLORADO Logan County Pantall Elementary School, 1215 N. 5th St., Sterling, 15000409 CONNECTICUT Fairfield County Rowayton Depot Historic District, 1-23 Cudlipp, 5-15 Dibble, 5-28 Hunt, 12,19 Jacob & 7-11 Thomes Sts., 1-44 Arnold Ln., 6-12 Belmont Pl., Norwalk, 15000410 GEORGIA Elbert County Elberton Commercial Historic District (Boundary Increase and Additional Documentation), N. McIntosh, Thomas, Church, & S. Oliver Sts., Elberton, 15000411 Fulton County Lindridge—Martin Manor Historic District, Roughly bounded by Armand Rd., NE., Lindridge, Melante, & Cardova Drs., NE., Armand Ct., NE., Atlanta, 15000412 KENTUCKY Fayette County Young, Charles, Park and Community Center, 540 E. 3rd St., Lexington, 15000413 LOUISIANA Caddo Parish Washington, Booker T., High School, 2104 Milam St., Shreveport, 15000414 MAINE Androscoggin County Lewiston Mills and Water Power System Historic District, Bounded by Androscoggin R., Lisbon, Locust & Bates Sts., Lewiston, 15000415 Cumberland County Great Chebeague Golf Club, 16 Stone Wharf Rd., Chebeague Island, 15000416 Kennebec County Hodgkins, Ella R., Intermediate School, 17 Malta St., Augusta, 15000417 Piscataquis County Norton's Corner School, 2373 Elliotsville Rd., Willimantic, 15000418 MISSOURI St. Louis County Jefferson Barracks VA Hospital, (United States Second Generation Veterans Hospitals MPS) 1 Jefferson Barracks Dr., St. Louis, 15000419 NEW JERSEY Cumberland County Remington, John and Elizabeth, House, 689 Roadstown Rd., Hopewell Township, 15000420 NORTH CAROLINA Carteret County HMT BEDFORDSHIRE (shipwreck and remains), (World War II Shipwrecks along the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico MPS) Offshore Beaufort, Beaufort, 15000421 NORTH DAKOTA Dunn County Independence Congregational Church, BIA Rd. 13, Mandaree, 15000422 OHIO Hamilton County United States Playing Card Company Complex, 4590 Beech St., Norwood, 15000044 VERMONT Windham County Vermont Academy Campus Historic District, (Educational Resources of Vermont MPS) 10 Long Walk, Rockingham, 15000423 WISCONSIN Dane County Holy Name Seminary, 702 S. High Point Rd., Madison, 15000424 Rock County Goodrich, Ezra and Elizabeth, House, 742 E. Madison Ave., Milton, 15000425 Sauk County Spellman Granite Works, 615 Phillips Blvd., Sauk City, 15000426

    A request to move has been received for the following resource:

    COLORADO El Paso County Rio Grande Engine No. 168, 9 S. Sierra Madre, Colorado Springs, 79000601

    A request for removal has been received for the following resources:

    MAINE Androscoggin County Bradford House, 54-56 Pine St., Lewiston, 78000154 Aroostook County McElwain House, 2 Main St., Caribou, 82000739 Cumberland County First Baptist Church, 353 Congress St., Portland, 78000170 Franklin County New Sharon Bridge, S. of ME 2 over Sandy River, New Sharon, 99001189 Knox County Crockett, Knott, House, 750 Main St., Rockland, 93001112 Piscataquis County Burgess, Walter and Eva, Farm, 79 Shaw Rd., Macomber Corner, 97000312 NORTH DAKOTA Eddy County Myhre, Jens, Round Barn, (North Dakota Round Barns TR) ND 30, New Rockford, 86002749 La Moure County Rodman Octagonal Barn, (North Dakota Round Barns TR) ND 30, Edgeley, 86002753 McIntosh County Wishek City Hall, Old, 21 Centennial St., Wishek, 05001141 Stark County Gerhardt Octagonal Pig House, (North Dakota Round Barns TR) ND 38, Gladstone, 86002758
    [FR Doc. 2015-16162 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-PWR-TUSK-18335: PX.XLKTUSK15.00.1] Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Establishment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, is establishing the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council (Council). The purpose of the Council is to provide the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and National Park Service (NPS) guidance for the management of the Monument.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christie Vanover, Public Affairs Officer, Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, Nevada 89005, telephone (702) 293-8691, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NPS is establishing the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council in accordance with Section 3092 (a)(6) of Public Law 113-291, and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    The Council provides the Secretary and the NPS with guidance for the management of the Monument, including advice on the preparation and implementation of the management plan.

    The Council is composed of 10 members appointed by the Secretary, as follows: (a) One member appointed among individuals recommended by the County Commission; (b) one member appointed among individuals recommended by the city council of Las Vegas, Nevada; (c) one member appointed among individuals recommended by the city council of North Las Vegas, Nevada; (d) one member appointed among individuals recommended by the tribal council of the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe; (e) one member of the conservation community in southern Nevada; (f) one member appointed among individuals recommended by Nellis Air Force Base; (g) one member appointed among individuals recommended by the State of Nevada; (h) one member who resides in Clark County and has a background that reflects the purposes for which the Monument was established; and (i) two members who reside in Clark County or adjacent counties, both of whom shall have experience in the field of paleontology, obtained through higher education, experience, or both. Members will be appointed by the Secretary for a term of three years.

    Certification Statement: I hereby certify that the establishment of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the Interior under Public Law 113-291, The Carl Levin and Howard “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

    Dated: June 16, 2015. Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16109 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EE-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-613 Remand] Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof; Commission Decision to Review in Part a Final Initial Determination on Remand; Request for Written Submissions AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) final initial determination on remand (“RID”) issued on April 27, 2015, making findings concerning whether there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-613 on September 11, 2007, based on a complaint filed by InterDigital Communications Corp. of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania and InterDigital Technology Corp. of Wilmington, Delaware (collectively, “InterDigital”) on August 7, 2007. 72 FR 51838 (Sept. 11, 2007). The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain 3G mobile handsets and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,004 (“the `004 patent”); 7,190,966 (“the `966 patent”); 7,286,847 (“the `847 patent”); and 6,693,579 (“the `579 patent). The Notice of Investigation named Nokia Corporation of Espoo, Finland (“Nokia”) and Nokia Inc. of Irving, Texas (“Nokia Inc.”) as respondents. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was named as a participating party. The Commission later amended the Notice of Investigation to substitute complainant InterDigital Communications, Inc. for InterDigital Communications Corp. Notice (Feb. 15, 2015); Order No. 53 (Jan. 14, 2015). The Commission also later amended the Notice of Investigation to add Microsoft Mobile OY (“MMO”) as a party. 79 FR 43068-69 (July 24, 2014).

    On February 13, 2009, InterDigital moved for summary determination that a domestic industry exists because its licensing activities in the United States satisfy the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). On March 10, 2009, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 42) granting the motion. On April 9, 2009, the Commission determined not to review the ID. Notice (Apr. 9, 2009).

    On August 14, 2009, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no violation of section 337. In particular, he found that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are not infringed and that they are not invalid. The ALJ further found no prosecution laches relating to the `004, `966, and `847 patents and that the `579 patent is not unenforceable.

    On October 16, 2009, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part. 74 FR 55068-69 (Oct. 26, 2009) (“Notice of Review”). In particular, although the Commission affirmed the ID's determination of no violation of section 337 and terminated the investigation, the Commission reviewed and modified the ID's claim construction of the term “access signal” found in the asserted claims of the '847 patent. The Commission also reviewed, but took no position on, the ID's construction of the term “synchronize” found in the asserted claims of the '847 patent. The Commission further reviewed, but took no position on, validity with respect to all of the asserted patents. The Commission did not review the ID's construction of the claim limitations “code” and “increased power level” in the asserted claims of the '966 and '847 patents.

    InterDigital timely appealed the Commission's final determination of no violation of section 337 as to claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 11 of the ’966 patent and claim 5 of the ’847 patent to the Federal Circuit. Specifically, InterDigital appealed the final ID's unreviewed constructions of the claim limitations “code” and “increased power level” in the '966 and '847 patents. Respondent Nokia, the intervenor on appeal, raised as an alternate ground of affirmance the issue of whether the Commission correctly determined that InterDigital has a license-based domestic industry.

    On August 1, 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed the Commission's construction of the claim limitations “code” and “increased power level” in the '966 and '847 patents, reversed the Commission's determination of non-infringement as to the asserted claims of those patents, and remanded to the Commission for further proceedings. InterDigital Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n., 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In particular, the Court rejected the final ID's construction of the “code” limitation as being limited to “a spreading code or a portion of a spreading code” and, instead, construed “code” as “a sequence of chips” and as “broad enough to cover both a spreading code and a non-spreading code.” Id. at 1323-27. The Court affirmed the Commission's determination that InterDigital has a domestic industry. Id. at 1329-30. Nokia subsequently filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on the issue of domestic industry. On January 10, 2013, the Court denied the petition and issued an additional opinion addressing several issues raised in Nokia's petition for rehearing. InterDigital Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Court's mandate issued on January 17, 2013, returning jurisdiction to the Commission.

    On February 4, 2013, the Commission issued an Order directing the parties to submit comments regarding what further proceedings must be conducted to comply with the Federal Circuit's remand. Commission Order (Feb. 4, 2013). On February 12, 2014, the Commission issued an Order and Opinion deciding certain aspects of the investigation and remanding other aspects to the Chief ALJ. 79 FR 9277-79 (Feb. 18, 2014); see also Comm'n Op. Remanding Investigation (Feb. 12, 2014); Comm'n Order Remanding Investigation (Feb. 12, 2014). On February 24, 2014, Nokia petitioned for reconsideration of the Commission's remand Order and Opinion. On March 24, 2014, the Commission granted in part the petition for reconsideration and issued a revised remand notice, order, and opinion. 79 FR 17571-73 (Mar. 28, 2014).

    On April 27, 2015, the ALJ issued the RID. The ALJ found that the accused Nokia handsets meet the limitations “generated using a same code” and “the message being transmitted only subsequent to the subscriber unit receiving the indication” recited in the asserted claims of the '966 and '847 patents. The ALJ also found that the pilot signal (P-CPICH) in the 3GPP standard practiced by the accused Nokia handsets satisfies the limitation “synchronize to the pilot signal” recited in the asserted claim of the '847 patent. The ALJ further found that the currently imported Nokia handsets, which contain chips that were not previously adjudicated, infringe the asserted claims of the '966 and '847 patents. The ALJ also found that there is no evidence of patent hold-up by InterDigital, but that there is evidence of reverse hold-up by the respondents. The ALJ found that the public interest does not preclude issuance of an exclusion order. The ALJ did not issue a Recommended Determination on remedy or bonding.

    On May 11, 2015, MMO and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “MMO”) filed a petition for review of certain aspects of the RID, including infringement, domestic industry, and the public interest. Also on May 11, 2015, Nokia filed a petition for review of the RID with respect to infringement, domestic industry, and whether the Commission has jurisdiction over Nokia following the sale of its handset business to MMO. Further on May 11, 2015, the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) filed a petition for review of the RID's finding of infringement.

    On May 19, 2015, InterDigital filed a response to MMO's and the IA's petitions for review. Also on May 19, 2015, MMO filed a response to the IA's petition for review. Further on May 19, 2015, the IA filed a response to MMO's and Nokia's petitions for review.

    On June 3, 2015, InterDigital filed a statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). Also on June 3, 2015, several non-parties filed responses to the Commission Notice issued on May 4, 2015, including: United States Senator Robert Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania; Microsoft Corporation; Intel Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., Dell Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Company; Innovation Alliance; and Ericsson Inc. See 80 FR 26295-96 (May 7, 2015). On June 24, 2015, United States Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania also filed a response to the Commission's May 4, 2015, notice.

    On June 15, 2015, Respondents filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of their petition for review. Respondents Microsoft Mobile Oy and Nokia Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Reply of Respondents Microsoft Mobile Oy and Nokia Inc. in Support of Petition for Review (June 15, 2015). On June 17, 2015, the IA filed a response, opposing Respondents' motion. Office of Unfair Import Investigation's Response to Respondents Microsoft Mobile Oy and Nokia, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Petition to Review (June 17, 2015). On June 19, 2015, InterDigital filed a response, opposing Respondents' motion. InterDigital's Response to Respondents MMO and Nokia, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Petition for Review (June 19, 2015). The motion is denied.

    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the RID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the RID in part.

    Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the RID's findings concerning the application of the Commission's prior construction in Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (“the 800 investigation”) and Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-868 (“the 868 investigation”) of the claim limitation “successively [transmits/transmitted] signals.” The Commission has also determined to review the RID with respect to whether the accused products satisfy the claim limitation “successively [transmits/transmitted] signals” as construed by the Commission in the 800 and 868 investigations. The Commission has further determined to review the RID's public interest findings.

    The Commission has determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the RID.

    The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to the following questions:

    1. Have Respondents waived any reliance on the application of the Commission's construction in the 800 and 868 investigations of the limitation “successively [transmits/transmitted] signals?”

    2. Do the Commission's determinations in the 800 and/or 868 investigation constitute an intervening change of controlling legal authority such that the Commission should apply the construction of “successively [transmits/transmitted] signals” as found in those investigations in determining infringement in this investigation?

    3. What evidence exists in the record of this investigation with respect to whether the accused products satisfy the “successively [transmits/transmitted] signals” limitation as construed by the Commission in the 800 and 868 investigations?

    4. Please state and explain your position on whether, for purposes of the Commission's consideration of the statutory public interest factors, InterDigital has in effect asserted that the patents in question are FRAND-encumbered, standard-essential patents.

    5. Please state and explain your position on whether InterDigital has offered Respondents licensing terms that reflect the value of its own patents.

    6. What portion of the accused devices is allegedly covered by the asserted claims? Do the patents in question relate to relatively minor features of the accused devices?

    7. Please state and explain your position on the legal significance of InterDigital's alleged willingness to accept an arbitral determination of FRAND terms with respect to the patents in question.

    8. Please state and explain your position on the legal significance of InterDigital's alleged unwillingness to obtain a judicial determination of FRAND terms with respect to the patents in question.

    9. Please state and explain your position on whether Respondents have shown themselves willing to take licenses to the patents in question on FRAND terms.

    10. Do Respondents' alleged delaying tactics in negotiating with InterDigital provide sufficient evidence of reverse hold-up, regardless of Respondents' offers to license only InterDigital's U.S. patent portfolio?

    11. Do Respondents' licensing counteroffers satisfy the requirements of the ETSI IPR Policy?

    12. Please state and explain your position on whether the RID equates patent infringement and reverse hold-up.

    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (Dec. 1994) (Commission Opinion).

    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.

    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.

    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice. Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding issued in the original investigation on August 14, 2009. Complainant and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration and to provide identification information for all importers of the subject articles. Complainant and OUII are also requested to state the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on July 10, 2015. Initial submissions are limited to 125 pages, not including any attachments or exhibits related to discussion of the public interest. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on July 20, 2015. Reply submissions are limited to 75 pages, not including any attachments or exhibits related to discussion of the public interest. The parties may not incorporate by reference their prior filings before the ALJ or the Commission. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-613 REMAND”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 25, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16116 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Review)] Woven Electric Blankets From China; Institution of a Five-Year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on woven electric blankets from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission; 1 to be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is July 31, 2015. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 15, 2015.

    1 No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117-0016/USITC No. 15-5-338, expiration date June 30, 2017. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Szustakowski (202-2205-3169), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background. On August 18, 2010, the Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of woven electric blankets from China (75 FR 50991). The Commission is conducting a review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR parts 201, subparts A and B and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

    Definitions. The following definitions apply to this review:

    (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce.

    (2) The Subject Country in this review is China.

    (3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determination, the Commission defined a single Domestic Like Product comprising finished, semi-finished, and unassembled woven electric blankets including woven electric blankets commonly referred to as throws, of all sizes and fabric types, whether made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a blend of both, as is coextensive with Commerce's scope.

    (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination, the Commission defined a single Domestic Industry to include the known domestic producer of the Domestic Like Product.

    (5) The Order Date is the date that the antidumping duty order under review became effective. In this review, the Order Date is August 18, 2010.

    (6) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

    Participation in the proceeding and public service list. Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the proceeding as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the proceeding.

    Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule § 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list. Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this proceeding available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the proceeding, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the proceeding. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Certification. Pursuant to § 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this proceeding must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

    Written submissions. Pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is July 31, 2015. Pursuant to § 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule § 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is September 15, 2015. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of §§ 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please be aware that the Commission's rules with respect to filing have changed. The most recent amendments took effect on July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov. Also, in accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the proceeding must be served on all other parties to the proceeding (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the proceeding you do not need to serve your response).

    Inability to provide requested information. Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) in making its determination in the review.

    Information To Be Provided In Response To This Notice of Institution: As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.

    (1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.

    (2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

    (3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.

    (4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.

    (5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

    (6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries since the Order Date.

    (7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the Domestic Like Product and the Subject Merchandise (including street address, World Wide Web address, and the name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of a responsible official at each firm).

    (8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the Domestic Like Product or the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or other markets.

    (9) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2014, except as noted (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

    (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm's(s') production;

    (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix);

    (c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s);

    (d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and

    (e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends).

    (10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2014 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

    (a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') imports;

    (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country; and

    (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country.

    (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2014 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

    (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') production;

    (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country (i.e., the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and

    (c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') exports.

    (12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country since the Order Date, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.

    (13) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

    Authority:

    This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 25, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16006 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Second Review)] Hand Trucks From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background. On June 5, 2015, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (80 FR 11226, March 2, 2015) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

    1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Staff report. A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review was placed in the nonpublic record on June 19, 2015, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

    Written submissions. As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before July 6, 2015, and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by July 6, 2015. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please be aware that the Commission's rules with respect to filing have changed. The most recent amendments took effect on July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    2 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. and Precision Products, Inc. to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 25, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16115 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    On June 24, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Intalco Aluminum Corporation, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00161 SAB, Dkt # 2.

    The United States of America, by its undersigned counsel, brought this complaint and proposed consent decree on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (“USFS”) (collectively, “United States”), against Intalco Aluminum Corporation (“Intalco” or “Defendant”).

    The United States brings this civil action under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607, to recover past response costs incurred by the United States in connection with releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Holden Mine Site in Chelan County, Washington (the “Site”). Intalco is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and is a successor to Howe Sound Company, a former operator of the Holden Mine.

    The Site is located in north-central Washington state, within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, and consists of National Forest System land and adjoining private land. The Site is in a remote area approximately twelve miles northwest of Lake Chelan, and is accessible only by Lake Chelan ferry. The Howe Sound Company (“Howe Sound”) operated the Holden Mine at the Site from 1938-1957, extracting copper, zinc, silver, and gold from approximately sixty miles of underground workings. The Holden Mine ceased operations in 1957. Subsequently, Howe Sound's interest in the Site was transferred to Holden Village, Inc., which has operated an interdenominational retreat at the Site since 1961 under a Special Use Permit issued by the USFS. The Holden Village has 5,000 to 6,000 visitors each year, and is home to approximately 50 year-round residents. Defendant is the legal successor to Howe Sound.

    During the period of mining operations, metals were recovered from the ore taken from Holden Mine in an on-Site mill. Approximately 10 million tons of mill tailings were left on-Site after mining operations ceased, placed in three piles spread over approximately 120 acres. Additionally, approximately 250,000-300,000 cubic yards of rock that did not contain mineral concentrations sufficient to mill were placed in two large waste rock piles on the Site. There have been, and continue to be, releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances to the environment from the tailings and waste rock piles that have caused the United States to incur response costs under CERCLA. The subject Consent Decree resolves the United States' claims for reimbursement of a portion of those costs.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Intalco Aluminum Corporation, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00161 SAB, D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-2-1135/3. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ-ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the Proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the proposed consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ-ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $6.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Maureen Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16119 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-0010; NRC-2013-0251] Proposed License Renewal of License No. SNM-2506 for the Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the renewal of License No. SNM-2506, issued in 1993 and held by Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation (NSPM) (doing business as Xcel Energy) for the operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) site-specific Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), for an additional 20 years.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0251 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0251. Address questions about NRC dockets to Ms. Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jean Trefethen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0867, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of a renewal of License No. SNM-2506 to Northern States Power Company (NSPM) for the operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) site-specific Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) located within the city limits of Red Wing in Goodhue County, Minnesota for an additional 40 years. Therefore, as required by part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq), the NRC prepared an environmental assessment (EA) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15098A026). Based on the results of the EA, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed license renewal, and is issuing a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).

    In 1993, the NRC issued a 20-year license to NSPM to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel generated at the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, in the Prairie Island (PI) ISFSI. License SNM-2506 currently allows NSPM to store up to 48 transnuclear-40 (TN-40) casks and TN-40 high thermal (TN-40HT) casks at the PI ISFSI. The PI ISFSI is located within the facility boundary of the PINGP, which is located within the city limits of Red Wing in Goodhue County, Minnesota, approximately 45 kilometers (km) [28 miles (mi)] southeast of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.

    On October 20, 2011, the licensee submitted their application for a 40-year license renewal for the PI ISFSI (ADAMS Accession No. ML113140518). This application was supplemented by letter(s), dated February 29, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12065A073) and dated April 26, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML121170406).

    In October 2012, the NRC and the Prairie Island Indian Community (PIIC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (ADAMS Accession No. ML12284A456). The MOU acknowledges the PIIC's special expertise in the areas of historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, land use, and environmental justice as they relate to license renewal for the PI ISFSI, and establishes a cooperating agency relationship between the NRC and the PIIC. The MOU also defines the roles and responsibilities of both entities and the process used to prepare an EA that incorporates and reflects the PIIC's views in the areas of special expertise.

    In November 2013 (78 FR 69460), to further the environmental review process, the NRC published the draft EA and the draft FONSI for the proposed PI ISFSI license renewal in the Federal Register for public review and comment). Comments were received from the applicant (NSPM), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the City of Red Wing, and the PIIC. Appendix B of the final EA contains the NRC's responses to those comments.

    II. Environmental Assessment

    The proposed action is whether to renew the site-specific ISFSI license for an additional 40 years provided that NRC requirements are met. If approved, NSPM would continue to possess and store the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, spent fuel at the PI ISFSI for an additional 40 years under the requirements in 10 CFR part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste.”

    The PI ISFSI is needed to provide additional spent fuel storage capacity so that the PINGP Units 1 and 2 can continue to operate. The PINGP Units 1 and 2 operate under separate NRC licenses (DPR-42 and DPR-60, respectively) that will expire in 2033 and 2034, respectively. Spent fuel assemblies from PINGP Units 1 and 2 not already stored at the PI ISFSI are currently stored onsite in a spent fuel pool. The PINGP spent fuel pool does not have the needed capacity to store all the spent nuclear fuel that the PINPG Units 1 and 2 would generate through the end of their license term. The PI ISFSI provides additional spent fuel storage capacity necessary for NSPM to continue to operate the PINGP Units 1 and 2 until a permanent facility (or facilities) is available for offsite disposition of the spent fuel.

    In the EA, the NRC staff describes the affected environment and evaluates the potential environmental impacts from the proposed 40-year renewal of license SNM-2506 on land use; transportation; socioeconomics; climatology, meteorology and air quality; geology and soils; water resources; ecology and threatened and endangered species; visual and scenic resources; noise; historic and cultural resources; public and occupational health and safety; waste management; and environmental justice. The EA also discusses the alternatives to the proposed action, including the no-action alternative. The NRC staff also evaluated the potential environmental impacts from decommissioning of the PI ISFSI, taking into consideration an additional 40 years of operation. Additionally, the NRC staff analyzed the cumulative impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions when combined with the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action.

    The NRC staff evaluated potential environmental impacts and categorized the impacts as follows:

    • SMALL-environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

    • MODERATE-environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

    • LARGE-environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

    The NRC staff finds that the impacts from the proposed action would be small for all environmental resource areas. In addition, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations and that federally listed threatened and endangered species would not be affected by the continued operation of the PI ISFSI during the proposed license renewal period.

    The NRC staff is also performing a detailed safety analysis of the NSPM's license renewal application to assess compliance with 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” and 10 CFR part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste.” The NRC staff's analysis will be documented in a separate safety evaluation report (SER). The NRC staff's decision whether to renew the NSPM's PI ISFSI license as proposed will be based on the results of the NRC staff's review as documented in the final EA, the final FONSI, and in the SER.

    Based on its review of the proposed action in the EA relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has determined that renewal of NRC license SNM-2506, which would authorize continued operation of the PI ISFSI in Goodhue County, Minnesota, for a an additional 40 years, will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. No significant changes in NSPM's authorized operations for the PI ISFSI were requested as part of the license renewal application. Approval of the proposed action would not result in any new construction or expansion of the existing ISFSI footprint beyond that previously approved. The ISFSI is a passive facility that produces no liquid or gaseous effluents. No significant radiological or nonradiological impacts are expected from continued normal operations. Occupational dose estimates from routine monitoring activities and transfer of spent fuel for disposal are expected to be at as low as reasonably achievable levels and are expected to be within the limits of 10 CFR 20.1201. The estimated annual dose to the nearest potential member of the public from ISFSI activities is 0.02 millisieverts/year (mSv/yr) [2.20 millirem/year (mrem/yr)], which is below the 0.25 mSv/yr [25 mrem/yr] limit specified in 10 CFR 72.104(a) and the 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr) limit in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1).

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based on its review of the proposed action, in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action, amendment of NRC Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-2506 for the PI ISFSI located in Goodhue County, Minnesota, will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed action and a FONSI is appropriate.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of June, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Marissa G. Bailey, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Environmental Review, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16238 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323; NRC-2009-0552] Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and conduct the scoping process; reopening of scoping process, public meetings, and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 27, 2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notified the public of its opportunity to participate in the scoping process associated with the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) related to the review of the license renewal application submitted by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for the renewal of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-80 and DPR-82 for an additional 20 years of operation at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2. The current operating licenses for DCPP, Units 1 and 2 expire on November 2, 2024, and August 26, 2025, respectively. The scoping period closed on April 12, 2010. The NRC has decided to reopen the scoping process and allow members of the public an additional opportunity to participate.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the environmental scoping process published on January 27, 2010 (75 FR 4427) has been reopened. Comments should be filed no later than August 31, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2009-0552. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12 H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Wentzel, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6459, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2009-0552 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document by the following methods:

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2009-0552.

    • NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The application for renewal of the DCPP licenses can be found in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML093340125.

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

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2009-0552 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Discussion

    On January 27, 2010 (75 FR 4427), the NRC notified the public of its opportunity to participate in the scoping process associated with the preparation of an EIS related to the review of the license renewal application submitted by PG&E for the renewal of the operating licenses for an additional 20 years of operation at DCPP. The application for license renewal, which included an environmental report (ER), dated November 23, 2009 (ADAMS Package No. ML093340125), was submitted pursuant to part 54 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). A separate notice of receipt and availability of the application was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2009 (74 FR 65811). A notice of acceptance for docketing of the application and opportunity for hearing regarding renewal of the facility operating license was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2010 (75 FR 3493). The scoping period closed on April 12, 2010. By letter dated April 10, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111010592), PG&E requested the NRC to delay final processing of the license renewal application to allow time for the completion of certain seismic studies to address concerns raised during the State of California's Coastal Zone Management Act consistency review. On May 31, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11138A315), the NRC delayed all further milestones associated with the safety and environmental reviews of the DCPP license renewal application.

    On December 22, 2014 (ADAMS Package No. ML14364A259), and February 25, 2015 (ADAMS Package No. ML15057A102), PG&E amended its ER to provide additional information identified by NRC staff as necessary to complete the review of the DCPP license renewal application. By letter dated April 28, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15104A509), the NRC staff issued a schedule for the remainder of the DCPP license renewal review. The purpose of this notice is to (1) inform the public that the NRC has decided to reopen the scoping process, as defined in 10 CFR 51.29, “Scoping-environmental impact statement and supplement to environmental impact statement,” and (2) allow members of the public an additional opportunity to participate. The comments already received by the NRC will be considered; reopening of the scoping process provides additional opportunity for the public to comment on issues that may have emerged since completion of the last scoping period.

    As outlined in § 800.8 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR), “Coordination With the National Environmental Policy Act,” the NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under § 800.8(c) the NRC intends to use its process and documentation for the preparation of the EIS on the proposed action to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA in lieu of the procedures set forth in § 800.3 through 800.6.

    In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 10 CFR 54.23, PG&E submitted the ER as part of the application. The ER was prepared pursuant to 10 CFR part 51 and is publicly available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML093340123 (original) and Package Nos. ML14364A259 (amendment 1) and ML15057A102 (amendment 2). The ER may also be viewed on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/diablo-canyon.html. In addition, paper copies of the ER are available for public review near the site at the San Luis Obispo County Library, 995 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93403 and at the Paso Robles City Library, 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, California 93446.

    This document advises the public that the NRC intends to gather the information necessary to prepare a plant specific supplement to the NRC's “Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (NUREG-1437, Revision 1), related to the review of the application for renewal of the DCPP operating licenses for an additional 20 years.

    Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. The NRC is required by 10 CFR 51.95 to prepare a supplement to the GEIS in connection with the renewal of an operating license. This notice is being published in accordance with NEPA and the NRC's regulations found at 10 CFR part 51.

    The NRC will first conduct a scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS and, as soon as practicable thereafter, will prepare a draft supplement to the GEIS for public comment. Participation in the scoping process by members of the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal government agencies is encouraged. The scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS will be used to accomplish the following:

    a. Define the proposed action, which is to be the subject of the supplement to the GEIS;

    b. Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth;

    c. Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not significant;

    d. Identify any environmental assessments and other ElSs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of, the scope of the supplement to the GEIS being considered;

    e. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action;

    f. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commission's tentative planning and decision-making schedule;

    g. Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the supplement to the GEIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies; and

    h. Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared and include any contractor assistance to be used.

    The NRC invites the following entities to participate in scoping:

    a. The applicant, PG&E;

    b. Any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved or which is authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards;

    c. Affected State and local agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards;

    d. Any affected Indian tribe;

    e. Any person who has requested an opportunity to participate in the scoping process; and

    f. Any person who has petitioned for leave to intervene in the proceeding or who has been admitted as a party to the proceeding.

    III. Public Scoping Meeting

    In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the scoping process for an EIS may include a public scoping meeting to help identify significant issues related to a proposed activity and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS. The NRC has decided to hold public meetings for the DCPP license renewal supplement to the GEIS. The scoping meetings will be held on August 5, 2015, and there will be two sessions to accommodate interested persons. The first session will convene at 1:30 p.m. and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7:00 p.m. with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as necessary. Both sessions will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott San Luis Obispo, 1605 Calle Joaquin Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405. Both meetings will be transcribed and will include: (1) An overview by the NRC staff of the NEPA environmental review process, the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS, and the proposed review schedule; and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to submit comments or suggestions on the environmental issues or the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour prior to the start of each session at the same location. Written comments on the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing, as discussed above.

    Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meetings on the scope of the NEPA review by contacting the NRC Project Manager, Michael Wentzel, by telephone at 1-800-368-5642, extension 6459, or by email at [email protected], no later than July 31, 2015. Members of the public may also register to speak at the meeting within 15 minutes of the start of each session. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. Members of the public who have not registered may also have an opportunity to speak if time permits. Public comments will be considered in the scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS. Michael Wentzel will need to be contacted no later than July 22, 2015, if special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or present information at the public meeting so that the NRC staff can determine whether the request can be accommodated.

    Participation in the scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS does not entitle participants to become parties to the proceeding to which the supplement to the GEIS relates. Matters related to participation in any hearing are outside the scope of matters to be discussed at this public meeting.

    At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC will prepare a concise summary of the determination and conclusions reached; including the significant issues identified, and will send a copy of the summary to each participant in the scoping process. The summary will also be available for inspection in ADAMS and the Federal Rulemaking Web site. The NRC staff will then prepare and issue for comment the draft supplement to the GEIS, which will be the subject of a separate notice and separate public meetings. Copies will be available for public inspection at the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register notice. After receipt and consideration of the comments, the NRC will prepare a final supplement to the GEIS, which will also be available for public inspection.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Brian Wittick, Chief, Projects Branch 2, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-15921 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0153] Acceptance of Commercial-Grade Design and Analysis Computer Programs for Nuclear Power Plants AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-1305, “Acceptance of Commercial-Grade Design and Analysis Computer Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.” This DG provides new (i.e., not preceded by earlier guidance on the same subject) guidance that describes acceptance methods that the staff of the NRC considers acceptable in meeting regulatory requirements for acceptance and dedication of commercial-grade design and analysis computer programs for nuclear power plants.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by August 31, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specified subject):

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0153. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George Lipscomb, Office of New Reactors, 301-415-6838, email: [email protected], or Steve Burton, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 301-415-7000, email: [email protected] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0153 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document, by any of the following methods:

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0153.

    • NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if available in ADAMS), is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The DG is electronically available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14119A286.

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

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0153 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enters the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Additional Information

    The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

    The DG, entitled, “Acceptance of Commercial-Grade Design and Analysis Computer Programs for Nuclear Power Plants,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1305. This DG provides new guidance that describes acceptance methods that the staff of the NRC considers acceptable in meeting regulatory requirements for acceptance and dedication of commercial-grade design and analysis computer programs for nuclear power plants.

    II. Backfitting and Issue Finality

    Draft Guide-1305 describes acceptable methods for meeting the dedication requirements in part 21 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) and 10 CFR 50.55(e) with respect to design and analysis computer programs for nuclear power plants. The draft regulatory guide, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” This regulatory guide, if finalized, represents the first NRC guidance on this subject. Issuance of new guidance, by itself, does not represent backfitting unless the NRC intends to impose the guidance on existing licensees and currently-approved design certification rules issued under part 52. The NRC does not have such an intention. Existing licensees and applicants of final design certification rules will not be required to comply with the positions set forth in this draft regulatory guide, unless the licensee or design certification rule applicant seeks a voluntary change to its licensing basis with respect to safety-related power operated valve actuators, and where the NRC determines that the safety review must include consideration of the qualification of the valve actuators. Further information on the staff's use of the draft regulatory guide, if finalized, is contained in the draft regulatory guide under Section D. Implementation.

    Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, afforded protection by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under part 52. Neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under part 52—with certain exclusions discussed below—were intended to apply to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants. Therefore, the positions in any final draft regulatory guide, if imposed on applicants, would not represent backfitting (except as discussed below). The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever a combined license applicant references a part 52 license (i.e., an early site permit or a manufacturing license) and/or part 52 regulatory approval (i.e., a design certification rule or design approval. The staff does not, at this time, intend to impose the positions represented in the draft regulatory guide in a manner that is inconsistent with any issue finality provisions in these part 52 licenses and regulatory approvals. If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a position in this regulatory guide in a manner which does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described applicable issue finality provision.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of June, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Thomas H. Boyce, Chief, Regulatory Guidance and Generic Issues Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16131 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on July 8-10, 2015, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    Wednesday, July 8, 2015, Conference Room T2-B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

    8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.

    8:35 a.m.-11:00 a.m.: Digital Instrumentation & Control (DI&C) Probabilistic Risk Analyses (PRA) (Open)