Federal Register Vol. 80, No.129,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 129 (July 7, 2015)

Page Range38613-38912
FR Document

80_FR_129
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 38727 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 38755 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 38782 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 38686 - Announcement of Financial Sector LiabilitiesPDF
80 FR 38665 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 38667 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Changed Circumstances Review of Lanling Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd.PDF
80 FR 38685 - National Environmental Education Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 38684 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; National Water Quality Inventory Reports (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 38658 - Inmate Commissary Account Deposit ProceduresPDF
80 FR 38664 - Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 38622 - Commutation of Sentence: Technical ChangePDF
80 FR 38746 - Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 38714 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance To Conduct Voluntary Customer/Partner Surveys (NLM)PDF
80 FR 38750 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 38672 - Final Waiver and Extension of the Project Period; Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education ProgramPDF
80 FR 38623 - Safety Zone: Underwater Vessel Testing, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CAPDF
80 FR 38702 - Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; National Indian Health Outreach and Education, Policy/Budget/Diabetes; Announcement Type: Limited New and Competing Continuation Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2015-IHS-NIHOE-I-PBD-0002; Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.933PDF
80 FR 38751 - Plan for Generic Information Collection Activity; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 38689 - TC Dealership, L.P.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 38687 - JS Autoworld, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 38797 - Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy; Notice of Open MeetingPDF
80 FR 38796 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Affidavit of RelationshipPDF
80 FR 38795 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 38795 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 38670 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 38620 - Transfer of Offenders to Foreign CountriesPDF
80 FR 38675 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 38692 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 38799 - Agency Request for Emergency Processing of Collection of Information by the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 38676 - Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 38675 - Advanced Energy Management Alliance Coalition v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 38678 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 38676 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 38730 - Notice of Availability of the Records of Decision for the Provo River Delta Restoration ProjectPDF
80 FR 38734 - Information Collection Activities; Well Control and Production Safety Training; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 38664 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 38663 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 38661 - Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 38729 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan Draft AddendumPDF
80 FR 38687 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 38661 - Ashley Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 38662 - Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 38747 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Weekly Claims and Extended Benefits Data and Weekly Initial and Continued Weeks ClaimedPDF
80 FR 38679 - Kingfisher Wind, LLC; Order Granting Market-Based Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers and Providing Guidance on Vertical Market Power RepresentationsPDF
80 FR 38679 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 38736 - United States and State of Michigan v. Hillsdale Community Health Center, et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 38674 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Deferment Request FormsPDF
80 FR 38674 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Internship/Residency and Loan Debt Burden Forbearance FormsPDF
80 FR 38749 - Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 38671 - Threat Reduction Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 38716 - National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and PracticesPDF
80 FR 38662 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Vote on Final Agenda and Other Logistics for September Meeting Regarding the School to Prison Pipeline in OklahomaPDF
80 FR 38751 - Committee Management; RenewalsPDF
80 FR 38732 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 38734 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 38733 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 38691 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Incentive ContractsPDF
80 FR 38690 - Submission for OMB Review; Delivery SchedulesPDF
80 FR 38669 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 38694 - Qualification of Biomarker-Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 38696 - CHEMBIOMED, LTD.; Revocation of U.S. License No. 0916PDF
80 FR 38696 - Chung Po Liu; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment OrderPDF
80 FR 38748 - Comment Request for Information Collection for ETA 9128, Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments Workload Report, ETA 9129, Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments Outcomes Report, Extension With Revision, ETA 9128 X, Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments Workload Report for Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX), and ETA 9129 X, Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments Outcomes Report for Unemployment Compensation for Ex-ServicemembersPDF
80 FR 38798 - Alaska: Fixed Wing Aircraft External Loads as a Restricted Category Special Purpose Flight OperationPDF
80 FR 38798 - Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs)PDF
80 FR 38799 - Advisory Circular (AC) 20-159, Obtaining Design and Production Approval of Airport Moving Map Display Applications Intended for Electronic Flight Bag SystemsPDF
80 FR 38791 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 7650A Relating to Debit Process for the Collection of FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility FeesPDF
80 FR 38745 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Assumption of Concurrent Federal Criminal Jurisdiction In Certain Areas of Indian CountryPDF
80 FR 38718 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Wound Therapy SystemPDF
80 FR 38721 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 38723 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 38726 - Nebraska; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 38725 - Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 38716 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 38755 - Determining the Effectiveness, Limitations, and Operator Response for Very Early Warning Fire Detection Systems in Nuclear Facilities (DELORES-VEWFIRE)PDF
80 FR 38793 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
80 FR 38782 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
80 FR 38789 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
80 FR 38783 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule Series 9100, 9200, 9300, 9550, and 9800 Regarding Temporary and Permanent Cease and Desist OrdersPDF
80 FR 38780 - Natural Phenomena Hazards in Fuel Cycle FacilitiesPDF
80 FR 38752 - Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1PDF
80 FR 38780 - Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Specific Licenses and Certificates of Compliance for Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear FuelPDF
80 FR 38756 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
80 FR 38808 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Procedures To Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies Under Section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions ActPDF
80 FR 38653 - The Commission's Rules To Improve Wireless Coverage Through the Use of Signal BoostersPDF
80 FR 38809 - Mutual Savings Association Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 38810 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 38652 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016; Correcting AmendmentPDF
80 FR 38654 - Alcohol and Drug Testing: Reporting Positive Results for Tramadol as a Controlled SubstancePDF
80 FR 38670 - Appointments to Performance Review Board for Senior Executive ServicePDF
80 FR 38715 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 38712 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 38712 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 38801 - Pilot Program for Expedited Project DeliveryPDF
80 FR 38685 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10113, InBank, Oak Forest, IllinoisPDF
80 FR 38686 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10108, First Coweta Bank, Newnan, GAPDF
80 FR 38693 - Availability of Program Instructions for MIPPA Funds Program Title: Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act: State Plans for Medicare Savings Program, Low Income Subsidy & Prescription Drug Enrollment Outreach and AssistancePDF
80 FR 38668 - National Institute of Standards and Technology Plan for Providing Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded ResearchPDF
80 FR 38693 - Notice of Intent To Award a Single Supplement to the Eldercare LocatorPDF
80 FR 38713 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 38713 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 38714 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Treatment of Acute and Chronic Neurological Injuries Involving Axonal RegenerationPDF
80 FR 38613 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron CanadaPDF
80 FR 38656 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 38615 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 38625 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Plantwide Applicability Limit Permitting RevisionsPDF
80 FR 38628 - Performance Specification 18-Performance Specifications and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Chloride Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary SourcesPDF
80 FR 38771 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards InformationPDF
80 FR 38802 - Notice of Funding Availability for the Small Business Transportation Resource Center ProgramPDF
80 FR 38617 - Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 38700 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
80 FR 38700 - Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 38699 - National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 38811 - WRC-07 Implementation Report and Order and WRC-12 OrderPDF

Issue

80 129 Tuesday, July 7, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement: United States and State of Michigan v. Hillsdale Community Health Center, et al., 38736-38745 2015-16585 Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Well Control and Production Safety Training, 38734-38736 2015-16599 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38692-38693 2015-16608 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Oklahoma Advisory Committee, 38662-38663 2015-16572 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Underwater Vessel Testing, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA, 38623-38625 2015-16621 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38663-38664 2015-16594 2015-16597 2015-16598
Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Appointments to Performance Review Board; Senior Executive Service, 38670 2015-16529 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38670-38671 2015-16611 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Funding Availabilities: Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, 38693-38694 2015-16509 Funding Awards: Eldercare Locator, 38693 2015-16507 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Procedures To Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 38808-38809 2015-16538 Meetings: Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee, 38809 2015-16534 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Delivery Schedules, 38690-38691 2015-16565 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Incentive Contracts, 38691-38692 2015-16566 Meetings: Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, 38671-38672 2015-16578 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Deferment Request Forms, 38674-38675 2015-16582 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program—Internship/Residency and Loan Debt Burden Forbearance Forms, 38674 2015-16581 Final Waiver and Extension of the Project Period: Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program, 38672-38674 2015-16622 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments Workload Report, et al., 38748-38749 2015-16560 Weekly Claims and Extended Benefits Data and Weekly Initial and Continued Weeks Claimed, 38747-38748 2015-16590 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arkansas; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Plantwide Applicability Limit Permitting Revisions, 38625-38628 2015-16388 Performance Specifications and Test Procedures: Specification 18—Hydrogen Chloride Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources, 38628-38652 2015-16385 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Water Quality Inventory Reports, 38684-38685 2015-16638 Meetings: National Environmental Education Advisory Council, 38685 2015-16642 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, 38613-38615 2015-16469 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 38615-38617 2015-16463 Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes, 38617-38620 2015-16181 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 38656-38658 2015-16465 NOTICES Emergency Locator Transmitters, 38798 2015-16557 Guidance: Obtaining Design and Production Approval of Airport Moving Map Display Applications Intended for Electronic Flight Bag Systems; Advisory Circular, 38799 2015-16556 Restricted Category Special Purpose Flight Operations: Alaska Fixed Wing Aircraft External Loads, 38798-38799 2015-16558 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Improving Wireless Coverage Through the Use of Signal Boosters, 38653-38654 2015-16536 World Radiocommunication Conference Implementation Report and Orders, 38812-38912 2015-15249 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: First Coweta Bank, Newnan, GA, 38686 2015-16512 InBank, Oak Forest, IL, 38685 2015-16513 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations, 38723-38725 2015-16551 Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 38727-38729 C1--2015--10535 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Arkansas, 38725-38726 2015-16549 Nebraska, 38726-38727 2015-16550 Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations, 38721-38723 2015-16552 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 38675-38679 2015-16588 2015-16602 2015-16603 2015-16609 Complaints: Advanced Energy Management Alliance Coalition v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, 38675-38676 2015-16604 Filings: Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General; et al. v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co.; et al., 38676 2015-16606 Market-Based Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers and Providing Guidance on Vertical Market Power Representations: Kingfisher Wind, LLC, 38679-38684 2015-16589 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration RULES Alcohol and Drug Testing: Reporting Positive Results for Tramadol as a Controlled Substance, 38654-38655 2015-16531 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38799-38801 2015-16607 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Financial Sector Liabilities, 38686-38687 2015-16658 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 38687 2015-16593 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment: TC Dealership, LP, 38689-38690 2015-16618 Proposed Consent Agreements: JS Autoworld, Inc., 38687-38688 2015-16617 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Pilot Program for Expedited Project Delivery, 38801-38802 2015-16515 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan, 38729-38730 2015-16595 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Debarment Orders: Chung Po Liu, 38696-38699 2015-16561 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Qualification of Biomarker-Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 38694-38695 2015-16563 License Revocations: CHEMBIOMED, LTD.; U.S. License No. 0916, 38696 2015-16562 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Ashley Resource Advisory Committee, 38661 2015-16592 Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee, 38661-38662 2015-16591 2015-16596 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Delivery Schedules, 38690-38691 2015-16565 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Incentive Contracts, 38691-38692 2015-16566 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

RULES Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016; Correcting Amendments, 38652-38653 2015-16532
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation, 38700 2015-16137 National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice, 38699-38700 2015-16135 Petitions: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 38700-38702 2015-16170 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES National Indian Health Outreach and Education: Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes, 38702-38712 2015-16620 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

National Park Service

NOTICES Records of Decisions: Provo River Delta Restoration Project, 38730-38731 2015-16600
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China, 38667-38668 2015-16644 Solid Urea From the Russian Federation, 38664-38665 2015-16636 Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China:, 38665-38667 2015-16647 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Prisons Bureau

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Assumption of Concurrent Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Certain Areas of Indian Country, 38745-38746 2015-16554 Meetings: National Commission on Forensic Science, 38746-38747 2015-16634
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Delivery Schedules, 38690-38691 2015-16565 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Incentive Contracts, 38691-38692 2015-16566 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Plan for Providing Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research, 38668-38669 2015-16508 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance To Conduct Voluntary Customer/Partner Surveys, 38714-38715 2015-16633 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 38712-38713 2015-16525 Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 38713-38714 2015-16503 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 38715 2015-16528 National Institute of Mental Health, 38713 2015-16501 2015-16502 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 38712 2015-16527 Prospective Grants of Exclusive Licenses: Treatment of Acute and Chronic Neurological Injuries Involving Axonal Regeneration, 38714 2015-16500 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 38669-38670 2015-16564 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 38732-38734 2015-16567 2015-16568 2015-16570 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38750 2015-16624 Charter Renewals: Committee Management, 38751 2015-16571 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38751-38752 2015-16619 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 38771-38780 2015-16223 Facility Operating Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 38756-38770 2015-16539 Guidance: Determining the Effectiveness, Limitations, and Operator Response for Very Early Warning Fire Detection Systems in Nuclear Facilities, 38755-38756 2015-16547 Natural Phenomena Hazards in Fuel Cycle Facilities, 38780 2015-16542 Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Specific Licenses and Certificates of Compliance for Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 38780-38782 2015-16540 License Amendment Applications: Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 38752-38755 2015-16541 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 38755 2015-16749 Prisons Prisons Bureau RULES Commutation of Sentence; Technical Change, 38622-38623 2015-16635 Transfer of Offenders to Foreign Countries, 38620-38622 2015-16610 PROPOSED RULES Inmate Commissary Account Deposit Procedures, 38658-38660 2015-16637 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 38782 2015-16725 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 38793-38795 2015-16546 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 38783-38788, 38791-38793 2015-16543 2015-16555 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 38782-38783, 38789-38791 2015-16544 2015-16545 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38795 2015-16614 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38795-38796 2015-16612 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38796-38797 2015-16615 Meetings: Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, 38797-38798 2015-16616 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 38716 2015-16548 National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, 38716-38718 2015-16573 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

NOTICES Funding Availabilities: Small Business Transportation Resource Center Program, 38802-38808 2015-16183
Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38810 2015-16533
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Final Determinations: Wound Therapy System, 38718-38721 2015-16553 Utah Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission NOTICES Records of Decisions: Provo River Delta Restoration Project, 38730-38731 2015-16600 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38749-38750 2015-16579 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Communications Commission, 38812-38912 2015-15249 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.

80 129 Tuesday, July 7, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0499; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-061-AD; Amendment 39-18198; AD 2015-13-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) Model 430 helicopters to require inspecting the tail rotor control tube assembly (control tube) and either repairing or replacing the control tube. This AD was prompted by two reports of failure of the control tube bonded clevis. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of a control tube bonded clevis, which could lead to failure of the control tube and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 11, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2014-0499.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

On July 30, 2014, at 79 FR 44147, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to BHTC Model 430 Helicopters, serial number 49001 through 49121, with control tube part number (P/N) 430-001-007-101 installed. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the control tube and either repairing or replacing it. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of a control tube bonded clevis, which could lead to failure of the control tube and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

The NPRM was prompted by Canadian AD No. CF-2013-30, dated October 7, 2013, issued by TCCA, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to correct an unsafe condition for BHTC Model 430 helicopters with control tube P/N 430-001-007-101. TCCA advises of two failures of the control tube bonded clevis caused by cracking from control tube oscillation. TCCA states that this situation, if not corrected, could result in the loss of control of the helicopter. TCCA AD No. CF-2013-30 consequently requires a one-time inspection of the control tube for damage and contacting BHTC for evaluation of the control tube if the damage exceeds allowable limits. If the tube is not damaged, the damage is within allowable limits, or BHTC Engineering determines the control tube can be returned to service, TCCA AD No. CF-2013-30 requires modifying the tube according to BHTC's service information. TCCA AD No. CF-2013-30 also requires replacing control tubes, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105, no later than 12 months from the effective date of its AD.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 44147, July 30, 2014).

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCCA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the TCCA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TCCA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the TCCA AD

The TCCA AD requires submitting sketches of a control tube damaged beyond defined limits to BHTC for evaluation. BHTC then determines if the control tube can be returned to service. We make no such requirement in this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 430-13-51, dated September 3, 2013, states that BHTC received two reports of control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, failing because the clevis failed due to fatigue caused by control tube oscillation. ASB No. 430-13-51 specifies a one-time inspection of control tube assembly, P/N 430-001-007-101, to verify if the tube has chaffing damage and indicated that a mandatory replacement would follow when sufficient parts became available. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Other Related Service Information

We reviewed Bell Helicopter Technical Bulletin 430-04-35, Revision B, dated March 20, 2009, which recommends that control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, be replaced with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105, if damage exists. On June 12, 2014, Bell issued Revision A to ASB No. 430-13-51, which set a compliance date of September 30, 2014, to remove control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 5 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

• The cost of inspecting the control tube is minimal.

• Repairing the control tube requires 2 work-hours for a labor cost of $170.

• Replacing control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105, requires 3 work-hours for a labor cost of $255. Parts cost $3,974 for a total cost per helicopter of $4,229.

According to manufacturer's service information, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by the manufacturer. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-13-11 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada: Amendment 39-18198; Docket No. FAA-2014-0499; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-061-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) Model 430 Helicopters, serial number 49001 through 49121, with control tube assembly (control tube), part number (P/N) 430-001-007-101 installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as fatigue failure of a tail rotor control tube bonded clevis. This condition could result in failure of the tail rotor control tube and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective August 11, 2015.

(d) Compliance

You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

(1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), visually inspect each control tube for any damage, for any damage to the clevis, and to determine whether the clevis is correctly bonded to the control tube.

(i) If a control tube and clevis have no damage or damage within acceptable limits and the clevis is correctly bonded to the control tube, repair the control tube by applying tape in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph 5, of Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 430-13-51, dated September 3, 2013.

(ii) If the control tube or clevis is damaged beyond acceptable limits or if the clevis is not correctly bonded to the control tube, replace control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105.

(2) Within 250 hours TIS, replace each control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

(1) Bell Helicopter Technical Bulletin 430-04-35, Revision B, dated March 20, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD No. CF-2013-30, dated October 7, 2013. You may view the TCCA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2014-0499.

(h) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6720, Tail Rotor Control

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 430-13-51, dated September 3, 2013.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

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

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 24, 2015. Bruce E. Cain, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16469 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0569; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-047-AD; Amendment 39-18199; AD 2015-14-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of loose bolts that are intended to secure the translating door crank assembly to the outside handle shaft. This AD requires a detailed inspection for loose bolts on the aft translating door crank assembly, and removal and reinstallation of the bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent loose bolts from falling out. If both bolts become loose or fall out after the door is closed and locked, the door cannot be opened from inside or outside, which could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective August 11, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0569; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425 227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0569.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48105). The NPRM was prompted by a report of loose bolts that are intended to secure the translating door crank assembly to the outside handle shaft. The NPRM proposed to require a detailed inspection for loose bolts on the aft translating door crank assembly, and removal and reinstallation of the bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent loose bolts from falling out. If both bolts become loose or fall out after the door is closed and locked, the door cannot be opened from inside or outside, which could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-08, dated February 10, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

There was one in-service report where the bolts securing the translating door crank assembly to the outside handle shaft were found loose. It was also found on another translating door that sealant was missing on these bolts. If both bolts become loose or fall out after the door is closed and locked, the door cannot be opened from inside or outside.

The aft entry translating door and aft service translating door are classified as emergency exits. The inability to open an emergency exit could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection of the translating door crank assemblies for loose bolts, as well as appropriate rectification [removal and reinstallation of the bolts].

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0569-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (79 FR 48105, August 15, 2014), and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Remove Certain Requirements From the NPRM (79 FR 48105, August 15, 2014)

Horizon Air requested that the job set-up and close-out procedures included in Part A-INSPECTION, and Part B-RECTIFICATION, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013, be removed as requirements in the NPRM (79 FR 48105, August 15, 2014). The commenter noted that only the procedures included in paragraph B. Procedure, of Part A and Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013, provide corrective actions to address the unsafe condition. The commenter stated that the job set-up and close-out procedures do not directly correct the unsafe condition and restrict an operators' ability to perform maintenance in conjunction with the detailed inspection that would be required by the proposed AD.

We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree to remove the job set-up procedures and most of the steps in the job close-out procedures from this AD because those actions do not directly correct the unsafe condition. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to specify that the inspection must be done in accordance with paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of Part A—INSPECTION, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013.

We have also revised paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD to specify that the corrective actions must be done in accordance with paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” and steps 3.C.(4) and 3.C.(5) of paragraph 3.C., “Close Out,” of Part B—RECTIFICATION, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013. The intent of this final rule is to ensure that the aft entry translating door and aft service translating door are correctly installed. Therefore, we consider the operational tests in steps 3.C.(4) and 3.C.(5) of paragraph 3.C., “Close Out,” of Part B—RECTIFICATION, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013, to be required actions to ensure that these doors operate properly. If maintenance is done concurrently with the required detailed inspection, it should not affect an operator's ability to return the aircraft to service. If the required detailed inspection cannot be completed because the airplane is undergoing maintenance, then the actions required by this AD can be accomplished just prior to the airplane being returned to service. Concurrently performing maintenance and doing the actions required by this AD should not cause a delay in an airplane's return to service.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 48105, August 15, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 48105, August 15, 2014).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013. This service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for loose bolts on the aft translating door crank assembly, and removal and reinstallation of the bolts. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 7 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $48,790, or $595 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= FAA-2014-0569; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-14-01 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18199. Docket No. FAA-2014-0569; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-047-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective August 11, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 through 4411 inclusive.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a report of loose bolts that are intended to secure the translating door crank assembly to the outside handle shaft. We are issuing this AD to prevent loose bolts from falling out. If both bolts become loose or fall out after the door is closed and locked, the door cannot be opened from inside or outside, which could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions

Within 600 flight hours or 100 days, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the aft translating door crank assembly for loose bolts, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of Part A—INSPECTION, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013. Doing the applicable actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(1) If any loose bolt is found: Before further flight, remove and reinstall the translating door crank assembly bolt, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” and steps 3.C.(4) and 3.C.(5) of paragraph 3.C., “Close Out,” of Part B—RECTIFICATION, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013.

(2) If no loose bolt is found: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, remove and reinstall the translating door crank assembly bolts, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” and steps 3.C.(4) and 3.C.(5) of paragraph 3.C., “Close Out,” of Part B—RECTIFICATION, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (g)(1), and (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, dated July 27, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-08, dated February 10, 2014. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0569-0002.

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16463 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2434; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-023-AD; Amendment 39-18196; AD 2015-13-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-46-350P and PA-46-500TP airplanes. This AD requires installing cable ties around the cabin altitude encoder and the supporting structure, adding thread-locking compound to the threads of the existing single fastener; and repetitively inspecting the cable ties and the fastener to ensure security and proper condition. This AD was prompted by a report that a cabin altitude encoder came free from its mounting bracket, which interfered with motion of the elevator flight control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective July 13, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 13, 2015.

We must receive comments on this AD by August 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.piper.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2434.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2434; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404) 474-5606; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We received a report that a Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model PA-46-500TP airplane experienced a pitch control system problem that resulted in a limited ability to control the elevator. The pilot was able to land the aircraft safely with a combination of primary pitch control and pitch trim. Initial speculation was that this was an installation error.

Follow-on investigation revealed that a Garmin avionics box installed behind the instrument panel had fallen down on the elevator control sector adjacent to the column and jammed the primary pitch control. The box is the cabin altitude encoder and is installed upside down above the elevator control sector. This configuration was introduced in December 2014 as part of a type design change to Piper Model PA-46-500TP airplanes. A similar configuration was also introduced on the PA-46-350P through a type design change. The box is installed with one fastener with no locking features. The one fastener uses a knurled nut that is also installed upside down. Vibration and low installation torque could easily cause the nut to come loose. The reported airplane had only 12 hours time in service.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1283, dated June 12, 2015. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing cable ties around the avionics box and the supporting structure; repetitively inspecting the cable ties and the knurled nut to ensure security and proper condition; and applying thread-locking compound to the knurled nut to ensure proper security. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

FAA's Determination

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

AD Requirements

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

Differences Between the AD and the Service Information

Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1283, dated June 12, 2015, includes more airplane serial numbers than we have included in this AD. The cabin altitude encoders on the airplanes for the additional serial numbers affected in the service bulletin use a similar installation, but are located and oriented differently so that they do not create the unsafe condition. Piper is working on a permanent modification to incorporate on all airplanes affected by the service bulletin.

Interim Action

We consider this AD interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification to correct the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because if the cabin altitude encoder mouting becomes loose and intereferes with the elevator control system, this could result in loss of control. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2015-2434 and Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-023-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 28 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Modify the encoder mounting installation by installing 2 cable ties and thread-locking compound 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $10 $95 $2,660 Inspect the encoder mounting installation to verify proper condition and security of the cable ties and security of the knurled nut 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 (per inspection cycle) Not applicable 85 2,389

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements/repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements/repairs:

On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Replace cable ties and/or apply thread-locking compound 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $10 $95 Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-13-09 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-18196; Docket No. FAA-2015-2434; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-023-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective July 13, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the following Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in table 1 of paragraph (c) of this AD:

Table 1 of Paragraph (c) of This AD—Applicability Model Serial No. PA-46-350P 4636652 through 4636662. PA-46-500TP 4697549, 4697569, 4697582 through 4697591, 4697593 through 4697595, 4697597, and 4697598. (d) Subject

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2130, Cabin Pressure Control System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by a report that a cabin altitude encoder came free from its mounting bracket, which interfered with motion of the elevator flight control. This condition, if not prevented, could result in loss of control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD as specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, unless already done.

(g) Modification

Do one of the following in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD:

(1) Before further flight after July 13, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), modify the encoder mounting installation by installing two cable ties and adding thread-locking compound to the knurled holddown nut. Do the modification following Part I of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1283, dated June 12, 2015.

(2) Before each flight after July 13, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) do a pre-flight security check by grasping the knurled holddown nut with a bare hand and verifying that the nut is tight and secure. Within the next 10 hours time-in-service after July 13, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), you must do the modification required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(i) The pre-flight security check required in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD may be performed by the owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7), and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

Note 1 to paragraph (g)(2)(i):

Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1283, dated June 12, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in this AD, includes pictures for accessing and locating the cabin altitude encoder and can be used as guidance for performing this preflight check. See paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) for the availability of this service information.

(ii) The pre-flight security check required in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD is no longer necessary after the modification required by either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

(h) Inspection

Within 50 hours TIS after doing the modification required in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD and repetitively thereafter not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect the encoder mounting installation to verify the proper condition and security of the cable ties and the security of the knurled holddown nut. Do the inspection following Part II of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1283, dated June 12, 2015.

(1) If the cable ties are found to not be properly secure or are not in proper condition during the inspection required in paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, replace with new cable ties following Part I of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1283, dated June 12, 2015.

(2) If the knurled holddown nut is found to not be properly secure during the inspection required in paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, apply thread-locking compound following Part I of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1283, dated June 12, 2015.

(i) Special Flight Permit

Special flight permits are permitted with the following limitation: The pre-flight security check required in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD must be done.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

(k) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Gregory “Keith” Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404) 474-5606; email: [email protected]

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1283, dated June 12, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Piper Aircraft, Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (877) 879-0275; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.piper.com.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

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

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 24, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16181 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Part 527 [BOP-1165-F] RIN 1120-AB65 Transfer of Offenders to Foreign Countries AGENCY:

Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) streamlines regulations on transferring offenders to foreign countries by eliminating language that constitutes agency guidance to staff. Guidance language will be retained in the relevant Bureau policy.

DATES:

This rule is effective on August 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) streamlines regulations on transferring offenders to or from foreign countries by eliminating language that constitutes agency guidance to staff. Guidance language will be retained in the relevant Bureau policy. We published a proposed rule on this subject on January 2, 2014 (79 FR 78). We received 6 comments on the proposed rule. Five of those comments were generally in support of the rule. One comment raised issues which we respond to below.

First, the commenter suggested that “the Bureau of Prisons undertake a more substantial revision of the section that addresses notification of inmates, along with rewriting the agency guidance to staff on this issue as it appears in Program Statement 5140.40.” The commenter refers to § 527.43, Notification of inmates, which indicates that inmates will be notified regarding information on international offender transfers through the institution's admission and orientation program and by the case manager of an inmate who is a citizen or national of a treaty nation. This section indicates that the inmate must be given individual notice of the availability of the transfer program, provided with an opportunity to inquire about transfer to the country of which the inmate is a citizen or national, and informed of the procedures set forth in this part. This section was rewritten for clarity. No substantive language or requirements were changed in this section. We note, however, that per the commenter's request, agency guidance to staff in the corresponding Program Statement on Transfer of Offenders To or From Foreign Countries is concurrently being rewritten to accommodate the revised regulations and to reflect changes in agency guidance to staff.

The commenter also questioned whether translations of the notifications and/or Transfer Inquiry Forms described in § 527.43 (Notification of inmates) and § 527.44 (Request for transfer to country of citizenship or nationality) can be obtained in languages other than English, Spanish, and French. The Transfer Inquiry form has, in fact, been translated into the languages of all of the countries with which the United States have Treaty agreements. The Bureau is in the process of posting these forms to our public Web site. Unit staff currently provides the translated forms to inmates who have expressed an interest in Treaty Transfer.

The commenter was concerned that the “process of notifying inmates about the transfer program and forwarding their applications to the Department of Justice is unnecessarily lengthy and has many problems. A few case managers still neglect to offer the information and an opportunity to apply for transfer to inmates at the admission and orientation program. Many miss the 60-day deadline within which transfer applications are supposed to be mailed to Washington. Most seriously, some case managers actively obstruct the program in the way they handle the forms after the inmate expresses an interest in transfer, and they seem to act with total impunity.” The Bureau agrees that timeliness issues have occurred in the past. Effective December 2013, the Bureau began monitoring the Treaty Transfer Case Management Activity (CMA) Assignments to ensure they are entered within 28 calendar days from initial commitment. The Bureau will now ensure that a Treaty Transfer application packet is received in Central Office within 60 days of the CMA assignment indicating an inmate has expressed an interest in Treaty Transfer.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Bureau now finalizes the proposed rule published on January 2, 2014, without change.

Executive Order 12866

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, section 1(b), “Principles of Regulation.” The Director, Bureau of Prisons, has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13132

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under EO 13132, we determine that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 527

District of Columbia, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Prisoners, Women.

Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director, Bureau of Prisons.

Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, in 28 CFR 0.96, we amend 28 CFR part 527 as set forth below.

SUBCHAPTER B—INMATE ADMISSION, CLASSIFICATION, AND TRANSFER PART 527—TRANSFERS 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 527 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3565, 3569, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 4100-4115, 4161-4166, (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 4201-4218, 5003, 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95-0.99.

2. Revise subpart E to read as follows: Subpart E—Transfer of Offenders to Foreign Countries Sec. 527.40 Purpose and scope. 527.41 Definitions. 527.42 Limitations on transfer of offenders to foreign countries. 527.43 Notification of inmates. 527.44 Request for transfer to country of citizenship or nationality. 527.45 Bureau determination on request for transfer. 527.46 Transfer procedures. 527.47 Transfer of state prisoners to other countries. 527.48 Transfer of American national prisoners from foreign countries. Subpart E—Transfer of Offenders to Foreign Countries
§ 527.40 Purpose and scope.

This subpart describes the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) procedures regarding its role in the transfer of offenders to foreign countries and the transfer of American offenders back to the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4100, et seq., and applicable transfer treaties and conventions.

§ 527.41 Definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart, the following definitions apply.

(a) Treaty nation. A country with which the United States has a transfer treaty relationship either through a bilateral treaty or a multilateral transfer convention.

(b) State prisoner. An inmate serving a sentence imposed in a court in one of the states of the United States, or in a territory or commonwealth of the United States.

(c) Departure institution. The Bureau of Prisons institution to which an eligible inmate is finally transferred for return to the country of which the inmate is a citizen or national.

(d) Admission institution. The Bureau of Prisons institution where a United States citizen or national-inmate is first received from a treaty nation.

§ 527.42 Limitations on transfer of offenders to foreign countries.

The transfer treaties and conventions, as well as 18 U.S.C. 4100-4115, impose specific requirements that an inmate must satisfy in order to be returned to his or her country of citizenship or nationality.

§ 527.43 Notification of inmates.

Foreign national inmates will be notified about the International Prisoner Transfer Program and the procedures to follow to apply for transfer as follows:

(a) Through information provided in the institution's admission and orientation program; and

(b) Through individual notice given to an inmate who is a citizen or national of a treaty nation. The notice must:

(1) Reiterate the availability of the transfer program;

(2) Provide the inmate with an opportunity to inquire about transfer to the country of which the inmate is a citizen or national; and

(3) Inform the inmates of the procedures set forth in this part.

§ 527.44 Request for transfer to country of which inmate is a citizen or national.

An inmate who is eligible for and desires to transfer to the country of which the inmate is a citizen or national for service of a sentence imposed in a United States Court must indicate the inmate's interest by completing and signing the appropriate form and giving it to Bureau staff for further processing.

§ 527.45 Bureau determination on request for transfer.

The following is the process by which determinations are made on an inmate's request to be transferred to the country of which the inmate is a citizen or national to serve a sentence imposed in a United States Court.

(a) Warden's determination. Upon verifying that the inmate is eligible for transfer, the Warden forwards all relevant information, including a complete application package, to the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division, Central Office.

(b) Central Office and Department of Justice determination.

(1) The Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division reviews the submitted material and forwards the application package to the Department of Justice for review.

(2) The Department of Justice notifies the inmate of the determinations made.

§ 527.46 Transfer procedures.

(a) Treaty nation determination. If the Department of Justice approves the transfer request, the treaty nation will be asked if it consents to the transfer of its citizen or national. The inmate will be informed of the determination made by the treaty nation.

(b) Transfer to departure institution. The Bureau and the Department of Justice will arrange for the inmate to be transferred to an appropriate departure institution.

(c) Consent verification hearing. If the treaty nation consents to the transfer, the United States will arrange a consent verification hearing for the prisoner as required by 18 U.S.C. 4107, 4108. This hearing is held before a U.S. Magistrate Judge or other judicial officer as specified in sections 4107 and 4108. The Bureau must ensure that the prisoner is available and present at the consent verification hearing.

(d) Transfer to departure institution and foreign retrieval of inmate. If the foreign national prisoner gives consent to transfer at the consent verification hearing, the Department of Justice will notify the treaty transfer nation.

§ 527.47 Transfer of state prisoners to other countries.

The Bureau of Prisons may assume custody of a state prisoner who has been approved for transfer to a treaty nation for the purpose of facilitating the transfer to the treaty nation. Once the state prisoner has consented to the transfer at the consent verification hearing, the Bureau assumes custody of the prisoner. The state is not required to contract for the placement of the prisoner in federal custody, nor to reimburse the United States for the cost of confinement (as would ordinarily be required by 18 U.S.C. 5003).

§ 527.48 Transfer of American national prisoners from foreign countries.

The Bureau of Prisons is responsible for:

(a) Sending escorts to foreign countries to retrieve American national prisoners who have been approved for transfer to the United States and who have had their consent verified at the consent verification hearing specified in 18 U.S.C. 4108; and

(b) Making logistical arrangements for the transfer and coordinating with the United States Parole Commission for proceedings to determine how the sentence will be administered.

[FR Doc. 2015-16610 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Part 571 [BOP-1154-F] RIN 1120-AB54 Commutation of Sentence: Technical Change AGENCY:

Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This document finalizes a minor technical change to the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) regulations on sentence commutation which clarifies that Bureau staff, other than institution-level staff, will recalculate the inmate's sentence in accordance with the terms of the commutation order if a petition for commutation of sentence is granted.

DATES:

This rule is effective on August 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document finalizes a minor technical change to the Bureau regulations on sentence commutation which clarifies that Bureau staff other than institution-level staff will recalculate the inmate's sentence in accordance with the terms of the commutation order if a petition for commutation of sentence is granted. That function is currently completed by the Bureau's Designation and Computation Center (DSCC), located in Grand Prairie, Texas. We received no comments on the interim rule that was published on March 23, 2010.

For the aforementioned reasons, the interim rule on this subject on that was published on March 23, 2010 (75 FR 13680) is adopted as final without change.

Executive Order 12866

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13132

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 571

Prisoners.

Accordingly, the interim rule on this subject amending 28 CFR part 571 that was published on March 23, 2010 (75 FR 13680) is adopted as final without change.

L.C. Eichenlaub, Deputy Director, Bureau of Prisons.
[FR Doc. 2015-16635 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0422] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Underwater Vessel Testing, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay in San Francisco, CA near Hunters Point, in support of the Underwater Vessel Testing. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of the testing participants and mariners transiting the area. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from July 7, 2015 until October 31, 2015. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 1, 2015 until July 7, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0422. 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 temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7443 or email at [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202)366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register 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.” The Coast Guard received the information about the event on May 11, 2015, and the event would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Due to the short timeframe for issuing this safety zone, we find that it is impracticable to solicit comments for this temporary final rule.

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 for similar reasons listed above. Due to the time constraints noted, it is impracticable to give 30 days notice before the effective date of this rule.

B. Basis and Purpose

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

The Office of the Secretary of Defense will host Underwater Vessel Testing periodically between July 1 through October 31, 2015 in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay in San Francisco, CA near Hunter's Point. The safety zone is needed to establish a temporary restricted area on the waters surrounding the testing. A restricted area is necessary to ensure the safety of mariners transiting the area.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around the testing. The Underwater Vessel Testing Safety Zone establishes a temporary restricted area on the water within an area connecting the following points: 37°43′30″ N., 122°21′6″ W.; 37°43′53″ N., 122°19′17″ W.; 37°41′34″ N., 122°20′30″ W.; 37°41′56″ N., 122°18′42″ W.; thence back to the point of origin (NAD 83). Periods of enforcement will be requested by the Office of the Secretary of Defense with one week notice and approved by the COTP. This safety zone will be enforced for a duration of 6 to up to 72 hours as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners periodically between July 1 through October 31, 2015. At the conclusion of the testing evolution the safety zone shall terminate for each evolution.

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the testing. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep vessels away from the vicinity of the testing to ensure the safety of mariners transiting the area.

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.

We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

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.

This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 a safety zone of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T11-681 to read as follows:
§ 165.T11-681 Safety zone; Underwater Vessel Testing, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA.

(a) Location. This temporary safety zone will encompass the navigable waters of the South San Francisco Bay within an area connecting the following points: 37°43′30″ N., 122°21′6″ W.; 37°43′53″ N., 122°19′17″ W.; 37°41′34″ N., 122°20′30″ W.; 37°41′56″ N., 122°18′42″ W. (NAD 83); thence back to the point of origin (NAD 83), as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18651.

(b) Enforcement period. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced for a duration of 6 to up to 72 hours, as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners, periodically between on July 1 through October 31, 2015. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will notify the maritime community of periods during which this zone will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with § 165.7.

(c) Definitions. As used in this section, “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in subpart C of this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.

(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.

Dated: May 18, 2015. Gregory G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2015-16621 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0378; FRL-9929-81-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Plantwide Applicability Limit Permitting Revisions AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving one revision to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Arkansas Governor to the EPA on January 7, 2014. This submittal revises the Arkansas Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting Program to incorporate by reference federal plantwide applicability limit (PAL) permitting provisions to enable the State of Arkansas to issue PSD PALs to sources with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The EPA has determined that the January 7, 2014 revision to the Arkansas SIP is consistent with federal requirements for PSD permitting. The EPA is also approving ministerial changes to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect recent EPA SIP approvals to the Arkansas PSD program and to show that SIP deficiencies identified in prior partial disapprovals have been addressed. We are finalizing this action under section 110 and part C of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES:

This final rule is effective on August 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0378. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adina Wiley, 214-665-2115, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. Background

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our April 27, 2015 proposal. See 80 FR 23245. In that document, we proposed to approve the January 7, 2014, Arkansas SIP revision; a submittal that included PSD permitting provisions adopted on June 28, 2013, at the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission's (“Commission”) Regulation Number 19, Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control (hereinafter Regulation 19 at 19.904(A)(1) and (G)(1)). These revisions to the PSD program provide the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) the ability to issue GHG PSD PALs consistent with the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits Final Rule” (77 FR 41051) and recent litigation surrounding the permitting of GHGs.1 The January 7, 2014 submittal also included a non-substantive revision to the Regulation 19.904(E)(3) to correct a reference to federal air quality models for PSD permitting. The April 27, 2015, proposal and the accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) present our rationale for approving these regulations as meeting the minimum federal requirements for the adoption and implementation of the PSD SIP permitting programs. This action was proposed under section 110 and part C of the Act. We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal.

1 As explained more fully in our April 27, 2015, proposed rulemaking; the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions on June 23, 2014, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. See 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014) (the “UARG” decision).The UARG decision effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for “anyway sources” and invalidated PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources. In accordance with the UARG decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. See Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 09-1322, 06/26/20, judgment entered for No. 09-1322 on 04/10/2015. (The “Coalition” decision). Neither the UARG decision nor the Coalition judgment directly impacted the ability to issue PALs for GHGs for existing major stationary sources. We anticipate that the EPA will need to revise the PAL provisions in the future to address the specifics of these decisions, but this does not affect today the finalization of the State's PAL provisions that can be used to provide PALs for GHGs consistent with the UARG and Coalition decisions. Therefore we can finalize approval of the AR GHG PAL provisions at this time.

II. Final Action

The EPA is approving the January 7, 2014 submitted revisions to the Arkansas PSD Permitting Program at Regulation 19.904(A)(1), (E)(3), and (G)(1) into the Arkansas SIP. The EPA has determined that the January 7, 2014 revision is approvable because the submitted rules are adopted and submitted in accordance with the CAA and are consistent with the EPA's regulations regarding PSD permitting for emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the EPA approves the following as a revision to the Arkansas PSD SIP:

• Substantive revisions to Regulation 19.904(A)(1) incorporating by reference the federal GHG PSD PAL permitting provisions,

• Revisions to Regulation 19.904(E)(3) to update the reference to federal PSD air quality models at 40 CFR 52.21(l)(2), and

• Substantive revisions to Regulation 19.904(G)(1) establishing the requirements for GHG PSD PAL permits consistent with federal requirements.

The EPA is also finalizing our approval of ministerial changes to 40 CFR 52.170(e) and 40 CFR 52.172(b) which reflect that deficiencies identified in our partial disapproval of the December 17, 2007 and March 28, 2008 Arkansas SIP submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed by our approval of Arkansas PSD program revisions which provide the authority to regulate and permit emissions of GHGs on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19596). We are also approving a ministerial change to 40 CFR 52.181(a) to reflect that the EPA approved a revision to the PSD program for the authority to regulate and permit emissions of GHGs on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19596).

The EPA is approving these actions under section 110 and part C of the Act, and for the reasons stated above.

III. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the Arkansas regulations as described in the Final Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: June 19, 2015. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart E—Arkansas 2. Section 52.170 is amended by revising: a. The entry for Section 19.904 in the table titled “EPA-Approved Regulations in the Arkansas SIP” in paragraph (c); and b. The entries for “Infrastructure for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS” and “Interstate transport for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (Noninterference with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in any other State)” in the third table titled “EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP” in paragraph (e).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 52.170 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Regulations in the Arkansas SIP State citation Title/Subject State
  • submittal/
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Explanation
    Regulation No. 19: Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 9: Prevention of Significant Deterioration *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 19.904 Adoption of Regulations 12/01/2014 7/7/2015 [Insert FR page number where document begins] *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP Name of SIP
  • provision
  • Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State
  • submittal/
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Infrastructure for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS Statewide 12/17/07
  • 3/28/08
  • 8/20/12 (77 FR 50033) Approval for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (E), (F), (G), (H), (K), (L), and (M). Approval for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality), (D)(ii), and (J) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, except as it relates to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The GHG PSD deficiency was addressed on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19596).
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Interstate transport for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (Noninterference with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in any other State) Statewide 4/5/11 8/20/12 (77 FR 50033) Approved except as it relates to GHGs. The GHG PSD deficiency was addressed on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19596). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    § 52.172 [Amended]
    3. Section 52.172 is amended by removing paragraph (b) and redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively. 4. Section 52.181 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a)(5) as paragraph (a)(7) and adding paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) to read as follows:
    § 52.181 Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (a) * * *

    (5) November 6, 2012—submittal of Regulation 19, Chapter 9, Prevention of Significant Deterioration which provided the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the Arkansas PSD program.

    (6) January 7, 2014—submittal of Regulation 19, Chapter 9, Prevention of Significant Deterioration which updated the Arkansas PSD program to provide for the issuance of greenhouse gas plantwide applicability limit permits.

    [FR Doc. 2015-16388 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696; FRL-9929-25-OAR] RIN 2060-AR81 Performance Specification 18—Performance Specifications and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Chloride Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing performance specifications and test procedures for hydrogen chloride (HCl) continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) to provide sources and regulatory agencies with criteria and test procedures for evaluating the acceptability of HCl CEMS. The final performance specification (Performance Specification 18) includes requirements for initial acceptance, including instrument accuracy and stability assessments. This action also finalizes quality assurance (QA) procedures for HCl CEMS used for compliance determination at stationary sources. The QA procedures (Procedure 6) specify the minimum QA requirements necessary for the control and assessment of the quality of CEMS data submitted to the EPA.

    This action establishes consistent requirements for ensuring and assessing the quality of HCl data measured by CEMS. The affected systems are those used for determining compliance with emission standards for HCl on a continuous basis as specified in an applicable permit or regulation. The affected industries and their North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Candace Sorrell, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division (AQAD), Measurement Technology Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709; telephone number: (919) 541-1064; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review II. Background III. Changes Included in the Final Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6 IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses A. Dynamic Spiking B. Duplicate Trains When Performing RATA C. Stratification Test Requirements D. Calibration Range Above Span E. RATA Acceptance Criteria for Low Concentration Sources V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    The major entities that would potentially be affected by the final Performance Specification 18 (PS-18) and the QA requirements of Procedure 6 for gaseous HCl CEMS are those entities that are required to install a new HCl CEMS, relocate an existing HCl CEMS, or replace an existing HCl CEMS under any applicable subpart of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63. Table 1 of this preamble lists the current federal rules by subpart and the corresponding source categories to which the PS-18 and Procedure 6 potentially would apply.

    Table 1—Source Categories That Would Potentially be Subject to PS-18 and Procedure 6 Subpart(s) Source category 40 CFR part 63 Subpart LLL Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. Subpart UUUUU Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.

    The requirements of PS-18 and Procedure 6 may also apply to stationary sources located in a state, district, reservation, or territory that adopts PS-18 or Procedure 6 in its implementation plan.

    We plan to amend 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units to offer PS-18 and Procedure 6 as an alternative to Performance Specification 15 (PS-15) for continuous monitoring of HCl. On February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8442), we proposed amendments to appendix B of subpart UUUUU that clarify that PS-18 and Procedure 6 will be allowed and how they are to be implemented under subpart UUUUU. Note, prior to the time that these amendments are finalized, the alternative test method approval process of 40 CFR 63.7(f) is available as a way for affected facilities to request approval to use PS-18/Procedure 6 in lieu of PS-15.

    With regard to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, which affects Portland cement manufacturing facilities and includes HCl monitoring requirements, no amendments will be needed as Subpart LLL already allows for use of any promulgated performance specification for HCl CEMS in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.

    Table 2 lists the corresponding NAICS codes for the source categories listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

    Table 2—NAICS for Potentially Regulated Entities Industry NAICS Codes Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units a 221112
  • b 221122
  • c 921150 Portland Cement Manufacturing Plants 327310 a Industry in Indian Country. b Federal, state, local/tribal government owned. c Industry in Indian Country.

    Tables 1 and 2 are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather they provide a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the potential applicability of PS-18 and test procedures (Procedure 6) to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air quality management, measurement standards and implementation, etc. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the promulgation and key technical documents on the TTN Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promulgated.html.

    C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 8, 2015. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, William Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    II. Background

    The EPA recently promulgated the Portland Cement Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule (75 FR 54970, September 9, 2010; 78 FR 10006, February 12, 2013) and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule (77 FR 9303, February 16, 2012; 78 FR 24075, April 24, 2013). Both rules specify the use of extractive Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and PS-15 when affected facilities opt or are required to continuously measure HCl emissions. To facilitate use of alternative technologies to FTIR and to aid in measuring the low levels of HCl specified in those rules, the EPA has developed and is promulgating these new specifications and quality control (QC) procedures (PS-18 and Procedure 6) for HCl CEMS as an alternative to the use of PS-15.

    Multiple technologies are available for HCl emissions monitoring. The goals of PS-18 and Procedure 6 are (1) to allow for the use of different HCl CEMS sampling and analytical technologies as long as the required performance criteria set out in the performance specification (PS) are met; and (2) to establish consistent requirements for ensuring and assessing the quality of data measured by a HCl CEMS.

    Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6 were proposed on May 14, 2014 (79 FR 27690). The initial public comment period was extended (from 30 to 60 days; ending July 13, 2014) in response to commenter requests. We reviewed and considered comments on the proposed PS-18 and Procedure 6 and have made several changes to the specifications and QA procedures finalized with this action to address concerns and improve the proposed performance specifications and procedures.

    Under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the agency may make a rule immediately effective “for good cause found and published with the rule.” For the reasons discussed below, the EPA believes there is “good cause” to make this amendment effective upon publication in the Federal Register. This rule establishes a new measurement option, and not a new underlying requirement. The sooner the new option is available, more flexibility will be provided to regulated parties.

    III. Changes Included in the Final Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6

    This rule finalizes PS-18 and Procedure 6, as proposed, except with five revisions in response to public comments. First, we expanded the options for using dynamic spiking (DS) with extractive systems and clarified the spiking procedures for integrated path systems through the use of “method of standard additions” in daily QC checks and as a replacement for the quarterly relative accuracy audit (RAA). Next, we eliminated the requirement for paired or duplicate trains when performing relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) using Method 26A. This change was based on data provided by stakeholders and the EPA's Office of Research and Development, which showed that this reference method (RM) generated data acceptable to allay concerns about the data quality at concentrations near the compliance limit. In response to commenters who claimed that stratification testing is overly burdensome and unwarranted, we revised PS-18 to offer three RM traverse point options that can be used without the need for stratification testing and added clarifying language concerning the stratification testing procedures. We removed calibration range above span requirements in both PS-18 and Procedure 6 because we decided, after considering concerns raised by commenters, that above span compliance requirements are best handled on a rule-specific basis within individual subparts regulating differing industries/categories. The procedures for assuring the quality of the data when an applicable regulation requires measurements above span were not removed. Lastly, we added flexibility to both PS-18 and Procedure 6 in the relative accuracy criteria.

    IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses

    A comprehensive summary of the comments received on the proposed PS-18 and procedures (Procedure 6) and our responses to those comments can be found in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses document,1 which is available in the docket for this action (see Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696). Some of the major comments received on the PS and QA procedures and our responses to those comments are summarized by subject in the following paragraphs.

    1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Response to Comments on Proposed Rule: Performance Specification 18—Specifications and Test Procedures for Gaseous HCl Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Air Quality Assessment Division (AQAD), Research Triangle Park, NC; May 2015.

    A. Dynamic Spiking

    Under the proposed PS-18, we required DS into the CEMS using a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable standard to demonstrate initial performance at sources with emission levels near the detection limit of the CEMS.

    1. Expanded Use of Dynamic Spiking as an Optional QC Check

    Several comments received on the proposal recommended that the EPA allow for optional use of DS procedures for all certification and QA procedures as alternatives to using external calibration standards. Commenters opined that a choice between performing DS or daily zero and upscale checks should be available to the manufacturer and CEMS user for all CEMS technologies, and that the regulation should not mandate the use of either technique to exclude particular technologies.

    After consideration of comments, we have revised the final PS and QA procedures to allow for optional use of DS procedures for the following:

    (1) The upscale (mid-level) portion of the 7-day calibration drift test,

    (2) The daily mid-level CD check, and

    (3) The quarterly data accuracy assessments.

    In addition, if the source meets the criteria of section 5.5 in Procedure 6, we are allowing for a dynamic spiking audit (DSA) as a replacement for the RATA once every 2 years.

    A DS procedure does not provide sufficient information to replace the 7-day or daily zero CD check, the initial measurement error (ME) test, or completely replace the relative accuracy (RA) comparison with a RM. The 7-day and daily zero CD checks using exclusively zero gas provide an absolute check of the instrument zero. Should hysteresis be a concern, humidified zero gas may be used.

    After consideration, we decided that DS was not a suitable replacement for the 7-day or daily zero CD check. We added an additional procedure for use of a DS as an option for the 7-day and daily mid-level CD checks to section 11.8 of PS-18 and section 4.1 of Procedure 6 in the final rule. The acceptance criteria for use of a DS as a mid-level CD check is the same as that for the classic CD check procedure, ±5 percent of span for a single spike; an equation has been added to appendix A of PS-18 for calculating this value. It is important to note that under the final rule, the 7-day and daily upscale CD checks (whether done using the classic procedure and pure calibration gases or done using a DS procedure) are limited to the use of a mid-level gas. The reason for this limitation is to (1) ensure that the upscale calibration is closer to the measured values, (2) mitigate hysteresis effects, and (3) ensure that the CD values determined using either the classic procedure or a DS procedure are on a consistent basis.

    We have retained the requirement for use of pure calibration gases as the only option for the ME test. We retained this requirement because we want (at least) an initial direct assessment of the linearity of the system; we do not believe that the nominal costs associated with hysteresis or gas use are critical concerns for this requirement for a one time test.

    Use of a DSA as an option for quarterly data accuracy assessment was included in the proposal for Procedure 6; and section 5.2.3 of Procedure 6 has been revised to include clarifying information on spike levels, number of spikes, and audit calculations.

    The final rule requires yearly conduct of a RATA involving comparison against a RM unless the optional criteria are met to reduce this requirement to every other year. The RATA provides quantitative assessment of the CEMS as well as confirmation of the continued representativeness of the CEMS sampling location. The DS option confirms the quantitative output of the CEMS comparison but lacks the traversing necessary to evaluate representativeness of the CEMS sampling point.

    2. Removal of the Dynamic Spiking Requirement for Low Emission Sources

    We received several comments on the proposed specifications requiring a DS verification test whenever the HCl measurements are less than or equal to 20 percent of the applicable standard (in section 11.9.4.3) arguing that the provisions are unnecessary. One commenter asserted that there is no purpose or precedent for requiring alternative or additional QA testing, in addition to a RATA, because a unit is operating well below the applicable standard or the RM quantification limit and that having such a requirement does not appreciably provide any more assurances that the HCl CEMS is operating properly than demonstrated by meeting the RA requirements. One commenter asserted that kilns with very low or no HCl emissions should not be required to conduct extra tests and that DS procedures equivalent to those used in PS-15 DS should be allowed as an alternative to the RA test and not in addition to the RA test to validate installed CEMS.

    Upon review of these comments, we have decided that requiring a DS, merely because emissions are low, may present a disincentive to maintaining low emissions without appreciably assuring better operation of HCl CEMS. Therefore, we have revised PS-18 to remove this requirement for low HCl emission sources.

    B. Duplicate Trains When Performing RATA

    The proposed PS-18 required (1) paired or duplicate trains when performing RATAs using Method 26A as the RM and (2) invalidation of data pairs not meeting specified relative difference criteria (sections 11.9.4.4 and 11.9.4.6).

    Several commenters requested that the requirement for paired trains be removed when Method 26A is used as the RM when conducting a RATA. Commenters argued that dual trains will add unnecessary time, more expense, and will complicate the testing process. These commenters generally opined that the additional burdens associated with requiring dual trains will not increase accuracy and will make it more unlikely that facilities will choose to implement HCl CEMS.

    Commenters generally expressed that both Method 26 and 26A have been widely used for a number of years to develop data both to set standards and to show compliance, and that Method 26A is very durable, well-designed, and provides accurate/high quality data. One commenter acknowledged that variability is higher as measurements get closer to the detection limit; however, the commenter asserted that this is true for any analytical method, not just Method 26A. Another commenter noted that Method 26A has a known negative bias below 20 ppmv (parts per million by volume); however, this bias would show up in both trains (if a dual train was used) and would not have any impact on determining accuracy.

    One commenter reported that PS-12A is the only known PS that requires the use of paired RM sampling trains (see PS-12A, section 8.4.2), and requires dual trains when using Method 29. The commenter further reported that paired trains are recommended but not required in PS-11 (see section 8.6(1)(i)). The commenter suggested that the EPA adopt an alternative standard in which the EPA would recommend the use of paired trains, but not require them, similar to the requirements of PS-11.

    One commenter stated that random uncontrolled events can occur that can affect the results of a RM test, and if such an event occurs during a RATA, the sample may not meet the relative difference (RD) performance criteria and would count as one of a maximum of three exclusions/rejections allowed in the proposed PS-18. This commenter contended that if dual trains are employed, there is twice the probability of a random event occurring that could result in a rejection. One commenter stated that requiring dual trains could result in the discarding of otherwise valid RM runs.

    Commenters asserted that if the RM data is of poor quality or there is a large enough error in the reference point, either that data point will have to be discarded (if allowed) or the instrument will not pass the RATA. One commenter opined that facilities should have the choice to use single trains and risk failing the RATA due to suspect RM data.

    We acknowledge that requiring duplicate Method 26A trains during RATA tests adds some complexity and cost to initial and ongoing quality demonstration of CEMS performance. Our primary concern is the confidence in RM data at low concentrations. We also acknowledge that the PS-18 proposal only requires duplicate sampling for Method 26A and does not address duplicate Method 320/Method 321 as a requirement during RATA testing. Furthermore, from the data provided by stakeholders and by the EPA's Office of Research and Development (evaluating the use of paired Method 26A trains), we are convinced that Method 26A performs as a prescriptive method to generate data acceptable to allay concerns about the quality of this RM at concentrations at the compliance limits of current MACT rules. We have revised PS-18 to remove the requirement for paired reference Method 26A sampling trains during RATA tests.

    C. Stratification Test Requirements

    Several commenters opined that stratification testing is overly burdensome and unwarranted.

    One commenter opined that the stratification test would be overly burdensome for sources using Method 26A because test results would not be readily available onsite, which would force sources to use instrumental methods (e.g., Method 320) that yield real time HCl data. Another commenter stated that the requirements for a stratification test for HCl are unwarranted because extractive CEM or cross-stack tunable diode laser (TDL) instruments are only effective in measuring HCl in the vapor phase, and stratification only occurs with non-vapor droplets and higher-mass aerosols. The commenter asserted that gas phase measurements have always been associated with a homogeneous mixture of molecules across a stack or duct under turbulent flow conditions, which is always the case at plants with HCl emission streams. The commenter asserted that other reasons why a stratification test is not warranted include (1) the fact that other extractive HCl RMs, including Methods 320, 321, and ASTM D6348-12, do not require a stratification test, and (2) if stratification exists and is statistically significant, the error would be revealed by the RA test.

    One commenter asserted that there may be units that would be subject to PS-18 under subpart UUUUU and other rules (e.g., 40 CFR part 75) that have already performed stratification testing at their RM sampling location. The commenter suggested that to avoid unnecessary repetitive stratification testing, the EPA include an exemption from the stratification testing requirement for RM locations that have been previously evaluated.

    Another commenter stated that the proposed stratification test procedures and acceptance criteria specified in section 11.9.3 of the proposal (1) are unnecessary for most sources and do not need to be performed, (2) contain confusing references to the CEMS and RM sampling points, (3) provide inappropriate acceptance criteria, and (4) are not supported by any data.

    One commenter suggested that the stratification test sections be revised to (1) eliminate the test when the monitor and RA test locations are downstream of induced draft (ID) fan or other well mixed location, (2) eliminate the test for sources that have no measurable HCl during mill on operation, (3) explicitly state stratification tests should not be done during transient conditions including mill off operation, (4) specify that only an oxygen (O2) traverse is necessary if the only potential source of stratification is air in-leakage, (5) specify a stratification test, when necessary, be done at the RA test location and not the CEMS location, if different, and (6) specify that level of detection (LOD) criteria for allowing the alternative sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) tests are based on the RM LOD and not the CEMS LOD.

    One commenter also suggested that, unless the EPA can demonstrate that HCl stratification is an actual issue, the EPA should revise PS-18 to incorporate the identical requirements in PS-2, section 8.13.2, that requires sampling three points on a line, and require stratification tests only where there is a reason to expect stratification actually exists. The commenter also asserted that there is no need to acquire and use a series of EPA Protocol SO2 calibration gases and comprehensive series of procedures intended for test runs.

    We disagree with the commenters that stratification testing is unnecessary and overly burdensome. Contrary to the assertions of some commenters that stratification testing is not necessary, gaseous pollutants can be stratified. While turbulent flow and other conditions may eliminate stratification under certain conditions, the EPA does not agree that those conditions can be easily defined nor that if stratification exists, it would always be revealed by the RA test. It is the EPA's position that to ensure collection of representative RM samples, it is necessary to confirm the absence of stratification before allowing single point or 3-point sampling that does not include the centroid of the duct.

    However, we do recognize that there is a need to provide one or more options for RM sample point selection that do not require stratification testing and we also understand that the proposed language of section 11.9.3 may have caused some confusion. Therefore, we have revised PS-18 to offer three RM traverse point options that can be used without the need for stratification testing. These options are a 3-point traverse (commonly known as the a “3-point long line”) that includes the centroid of the duct, a 6-point traverse as allowed under 40 CFR part 75, or a 12-point traverse, as was requested by one commenter. Testers desiring to test at a single point or at three points within two meters of a single port (commonly known as a “3-point short line”) will need to conduct stratification testing to demonstrate the absence of stratification or only minimal stratification, respectively.

    Additionally, after consideration of comments received on stratification testing, we have also revised the final PS-18 to:

    (1) Clarify that the purpose of stratification testing is only for selection of RM sampling points;

    (2) Simplify the use of SO2 as a surrogate for stratification testing without restriction to offer a simpler option when using Method 26A as the RM;

    (3) Clarify (as commenters have recommended) that stratification testing must be conducted at the same location as the RM testing; and

    (4) Clarify that stratification testing should not be conducted during transient conditions.

    D. Calibration Range Above Span

    Commenters expressed concern over the proposed requirements related to calibration range above span or CRAS (defined as the upper limit of the measurement range based on a conservatively high estimate of the range of HCl measurements expected from the source category). Specifically, commenters expressed concern that the proposed CRAS requirements:

    (1) Conflict with the definition of “span” in both 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUUUU (subpart UUUUU), appendix A, and in 40 CFR part 75 (section 72.2).

    (2) Conflict with the recently promulgated 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL (subpart LLL) requirements.

    (3) Would likely create one hour of unnecessary CEMS data loss each time it is performed in view of the time required for the CEMS to achieve and stabilize at the high concentration level and subsequently recover to the normal operating level.

    (4) Require that the HCl CEMS be adjusted when the calibration drift exceeds 0.5 ppm (parts per million) at the zero or at 15-20 ppm levels. Commenters stated that upscale or CRAS levels would impose arbitrary adjustments simply chasing noise and that it should be changed to a requirement to inspect the CEMS and determine the proper corrective action.

    Commenters stated that the span and range of a CEMS depend on the type of technology used and that the EPA references the mercury CEMS as the precedent for the above span requirement. Commenters asserted that this can be problematic because, whereas mercury CEMSs have a linear response, other technologies may not have a linear response.

    After considering concerns raised by commenters, we decided that above span calibration requirements are best handled on a rule-specific basis within individual subparts regulating differing industries/categories. Therefore, we revised PS-18 and Procedure 6 to remove calibration range above span requirements and made them an option in Procedure 6. Subpart LLL-specific above span calibration technical revisions have been made under that rulemaking (see 79 FR 68821; November 19, 2014).

    E. RATA Acceptance Criteria for Low Concentration Sources

    The proposed PS-18 section 5.3.5 referenced an alternative criterion for RA that would apply in instances where the emission level for the test is less than 50 percent of the applicable standard. The proposed alternative criterion was for when the RM result is less than 50 percent of the emission standard and the emission standard is used in the denominator of the equation for calculating RA to be less than or equal to 15 percent. We received comments that asserted that this requirement is inconsistent with other alternative RA options used in other performance specifications. Some commenters supported the use of an absolute value; i.e., plus or minus 1 ppm if the RM is less than 3 ppm, which they reported would be similar to the requirements for mercury CEMS under subpart UUUUU.

    We recognize that calibration standards and measurement technology exist to demonstrate the quality of HCl emission measurements at or above 1 ppm and that existing CEMS measurement technology can meet PS-18 RA requirements (see Docket Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696-0030 and 0031). For HCl emission limits equal to or less than 1 ppm, RA is measured nearer the quantitation limit of current instrument technology, and an alternative RA acceptance criterion similar to that in PS-2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B may be applicable. Therefore, we have revised the alternative criterion for RA in section 13.4 of PS-18 to allow, where the average RM level during the test is less than 75 percent of the applicable emission limit, substitution of the equivalent emission limit in parts per million by volume wet (ppmvw) in the denominator of the equation for calculating RA. Note that this revision applies to both PS-18 and section 6 of Procedure 6.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action provides performance criteria and QA test procedures for assessing the acceptability of HCl CEMS performance and data quality. These criteria and QA test procedures do not add information collection requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable regulation.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action provides facilities with an alternative to PS-15 and FTIRs for measuring HCl which is currently required in several rules.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action finalizes performance specifications that can be used as an additional option to PS-15 for HCl continuous emissions monitoring. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action will help to ensure that emission control devices are operated properly and maintained as needed, thereby helping to ensure compliance with emission standards, which would benefit all affected populations.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitoring systems, Hydrogen chloride, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    Part 60, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401-7601.

    2. Appendix B to part 60 is amended by adding Performance Specification 18 to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 60—Performance Specifications

    Performance Specification 18—Performance Specifications and Test Procedures for Gaseous Hydrogen Chloride (HCI) Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

    1.0 Scope and Application

    1.1 Analyte. This performance specification (PS) is applicable for measuring gaseous concentrations of hydrogen chloride (HCl), CAS: 7647-01-0, on a continuous basis in the units of the applicable standard or in units that can be converted to units of the applicable standard(s).

    1.2 Applicability.

    1.2.1 This specification is used to evaluate the acceptability of HCl continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) at the time of installation or soon after and whenever specified in the regulations. The specification includes requirements for initial acceptance including instrument accuracy and stability assessments and use of audit samples if they are available.

    1.2.2 The Administrator may require the operator, under section 114 of the Clean Air Act, to conduct CEMS performance evaluations at other times besides the initial test to evaluate the CEMS performance. See 40 CFR part 60, §§ 60.13(c) and 63.8(e)(1).

    1.2.3 A source that demonstrates their CEMS meets the criteria of this PS may use the system to continuously monitor gaseous HCl under any regulation or permit that requires compliance with this PS. If your CEMS is capable of reporting the HCl concentration in the units of the applicable standard, no additional CEMS components are necessary. If your CEMS does not report concentrations in the units of the existing standard, then other CEMS components (e.g., oxygen (O2), temperature, stack gas flow, moisture and pressure) may be necessary to convert the units reported by your CEMS to the units of the standard.

    1.2.4 These specification test results are intended to be valid for the life of the system. As a result, the HCl measurement system must be tested and operated in a configuration consistent with the configuration that will be used for ongoing continuous emissions monitoring.

    1.2.5 Substantive changes to the system configuration require retesting according to this PS. Examples of such conditions include, but are not limited to: major changes in dilution ratio (for dilution based systems); changes in sample conditioning and transport, if used, such as filtering device design or materials; changes in probe design or configuration and changes in materials of construction. Changes consistent with instrument manufacturer upgrade that fall under manufacturer's certification do not require additional field verification. Manufacturer's upgrades require recertification by the manufacturer for those requirements allowed by this PS, including interference, level of detection (LOD), and light intensity qualification.

    1.2.6 This specification is not designed to evaluate the ongoing CEMS performance nor does it identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary procedures to assess CEMS performance over an extended period of time. The requirements in appendix F, Procedure 6 are designed to provide a way to assess CEMS performance over an extended period of time. The source owner or operator is responsible to calibrate, maintain, and operate the CEMS properly.

    2.0 Summary of Performance Specification

    2.1 This specification covers the procedures that each CEMS must meet during the performance evaluation test. Installation and measurement location specifications, data reduction procedures, and performance criteria are included.

    2.2 The technology used to measure gaseous HCl must provide a distinct response and address any appropriate interference correction(s). It must accurately measure gaseous HCl in a representative sample (path or point sampling) of stack effluent.

    2.3 The relative accuracy (RA) must be established against a reference method (RM) (i.e., Method 26A, Method 320, ASTM International (ASTM) D6348-12, including mandatory annexes, or Method 321, as appropriate for the source concentration and category). Method 26 may be approved as a RM by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis if not otherwise allowed or denied in an applicable subpart of the regulations.

    2.4 A standard addition (SA) procedure using a reference standard is included in appendix A to this performance specification for use in verifying LOD. For extractive CEMS, where the SA is done by dynamic spiking (DS), the appendix A procedure is allowed as an option for assessing calibration drift and is also referenced by Procedure 6 of appendix F to this part for ongoing quality control tests.

    3.0 Definitions

    3.1 Calibration Cell means a gas containment cell used with cross stack or integrated path (IP) CEMS for calibration and to perform many of the test procedures required by this performance specification. The cell may be a removable sealed cell or an evacuated and/or purged cell capable of exchanging reference and other calibration gases as well as zero gas standards. When charged, it contains a known concentration of HCl and/or interference gases. The calibration cell is filled with zero gas or removed from the optical path during stack gas measurement.

    3.2 Calibration Drift (CD) means the absolute value of the difference between the CEMS output response and an upscale reference gas or a zero-level gas, expressed as a percentage of the span value, when the CEMS is challenged after a stated period of operation during which no unscheduled adjustments, maintenance or repairs took place.

    3.3 Centroidal Area means a central area that is geometrically similar to the stack or duct cross section and is no greater than 10 percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional area.

    3.4 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) means the total equipment required to measure the pollutant concentration or emission rate continuously. The system generally consists of the following three major subsystems:

    3.4.1 Sample Interface means that portion of the CEMS used for one or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport, sample conditioning, defining the optical measurement path, and protection of the monitor from the effects of the stack effluent.

    3.4.2 HCl Analyzer means that portion of the HCl CEMS that measures the total vapor phase HCl concentration and generates a proportional output.

    3.4.3 Data Recorder means that portion of the CEMS that provides a permanent electronic record of the analyzer output. The data recorder may record other pertinent data such as effluent flow rates, various instrument temperatures or abnormal CEMS operation. The data recorder may also include automatic data reduction capabilities and CEMS control capabilities.

    3.5 Diluent Gas means a major gaseous constituent in a gaseous pollutant mixture. For combustion sources, either carbon dioxide (CO2) or oxygen (O2) or a combination of these two gases are the major gaseous diluents of interest.

    3.6 Dynamic Spiking (DS) means the procedure where a known concentration of HCl gas is injected into the probe sample gas stream for extractive CEMS at a known flow rate to assess the performance of the measurement system in the presence of potential interference from the flue gas sample matrix.

    3.7 Independent Measurement(s) means the series of CEMS data values taken during sample gas analysis separated by two times the procedure specific response time (RT) of the CEMS.

    3.8 Integrated Path CEMS (IP-CEMS) means an in-situ CEMS that measures the gas concentration along an optical path in the stack or duct cross section.

    3.9 Interference means a compound or material in the sample matrix other than HCl whose characteristics may bias the CEMS measurement (positively or negatively). The interference may not prevent the sample measurement, but could increase the analytical uncertainty in the measured HCl concentration through reaction with HCl or by changing the electronic signal generated during HCl measurement.

    3.10 Interference Test means the test to detect CEMS responses to interferences that are not adequately accounted for in the calibration procedure and may cause measurement bias.

    3.11 Level of Detection (LOD) means the lowest level of pollutant that the CEMS can detect in the presence of the source gas matrix interferents with 99 percent confidence.

    3.12 Liquid Evaporative Standard means a reference gas produced by vaporizing National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable liquid standards of known HCl concentration and quantitatively diluting the resultant vapor with a carrier gas.

    3.13 Measurement Error (ME) is the mean difference between the concentration measured by the CEMS and the known concentration of a reference gas standard, divided by the span, when the entire CEMS, including the sampling interface, is challenged.

    3.14 Optical Path means the route light travels from the light source to the receiver used to make sample measurements.

    3.15 Path Length means, for an extractive optical CEMS, the distance in meters of the optical path within a gas measurement cell. For an IP-CEMS, path length means the distance in meters of the optical path that passes through the source gas in the stack or duct.

    3.16 Point CEMS means a CEMS that measures the source gas concentration, either at a single point at the sampling probe tip or over a path length for IP-CEMS less than 10 percent of the equivalent diameter of the stack or duct cross section.

    3.17 Stack Pressure Measurement Device means a NIST-traceable gauge or monitor that measures absolute pressure and conforms to the design requirements of ASME B40.100-2010, “Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17).

    3.18 Reference Gas Standard means a NIST-traceable gas standard containing a known concentration of HCl certified in accordance with an EPA traceability protocol in section 7.1 of this PS.

    3.19 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference between the gas concentration or the emission rate determined by the CEMS and the value determined by the RM, plus the confidence coefficient of a series of nine test runs, divided by the average of the RM or the applicable emission standard.

    3.20 Response Time (RT) means the time it takes for the measurement system, while operating normally at its target sample flow rate, dilution ratio, or data collection rate to respond to a known step change in gas concentration, either from a low- or zero-level to a high-level gas concentration or from a high-level to a low or zero-level gas concentration, and to read 95 percent of the change to the stable instrument response. There may be several response times (RTs) for an instrument related to different functions or procedures (e.g., DS, LOD, and ME).

    3.21 Span Value means an HCl concentration approximately equal to two times the concentration equivalent to the emission standard unless otherwise specified in the applicable regulation, permit or other requirement. Unless otherwise specified, the span may be rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.

    3.22 Standard Addition means the addition of known amounts of HCl gas (either statically or dynamically) to the actual measurement path or measured sample gas stream.

    3.23 Zero gas means a gas or liquid with an HCl concentration that is below the LOD of the measurement system.

    4.0 Interferences

    Sample gas interferences will vary depending on the instrument or technology used to make the measurement. Interferences must be evaluated through the interference test in this PS. Several compounds including carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), formaldehyde (CH2O), methane (CH4), and water (H2O) are potential optical interferences with certain types of HCl monitoring technology. Ammonia is a potential chemical interference with HCl.

    5.0 Safety

    The procedures required under this PS may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This PS may not address all of the safety issues associated with these procedures. It is the responsibility of the user to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicable regulatory limitations prior to performing these procedures. The CEMS user's manual and materials recommended by the RM should be consulted for specific precautions to be taken.

    6.0 Equipment and Supplies

    Equipment and supplies for CEMS will vary depending on the measurement technology and equipment vendors. This section provides a description of the equipment and supplies typically found in one or more types of CEMS.

    6.1 Sample Extraction System. The portion of an extractive CEMS that collects and transports the sample to the pressure regulation and sample conditioning module. The extraction system must deliver a representative sample to the measurement instrument. The sample extraction system typically consists of a sample probe and a heated umbilical line.

    6.2 Sample Conditioning Module. The portion of an extractive CEMS that removes particulate matter and moisture from the gas stream and provides a sample gas stream to the CEMS analysis module or analyzer. You must keep the particle-free gas sample above the dew point temperature of its components.

    6.3 HClAnalyzer. The portion of the CEMS that detects, quantifies and generates an output proportional to the sample gas HCl concentration.

    6.4 System Controller. The portion of the CEMS that provides control of the analyzer and other sub-systems (e.g., sample extraction, sample conditioning, reference gas) as necessary for continuous operation and periodic maintenance/QC activities.

    6.5 Data Recorder. The portion of the CEMS that provides a record of analyzer output. The data recorder may record other pertinent data such as effluent flow rates, various instrument temperatures or abnormal CEMS operation. The data recorder output range must include the full range of expected HCl concentration values in the gas stream to be sampled including zero and span value.

    6.6 Reference Gas System(s). Gas handling system(s) needed to introduce reference and other gases into the measurement system. For extractive CEMS, the system must be able to introduce gas flow sufficient to flood the sampling probe and prevent entry of gas from the effluent stream. For IP-CEMS, the system must be able to introduce a known concentration of HCl, at known cell length, pressure and temperature, into the optical path used to measure HCl gas concentration.

    6.7 Moisture Measurement System. If correction of the measured HCl emissions for moisture is required, you must install, operate, maintain, and quality assure a continuous moisture monitoring system for measuring and recording the moisture content of the flue gases. The following continuous moisture monitoring systems are acceptable: An FTIR system validated according to Method 301 or section 13.0 of Method 320 in appendix A to part 63 of this chapter; a continuous moisture sensor; an oxygen analyzer (or analyzers) capable of measuring O2 both on a wet basis and on a dry basis; a stack temperature sensor and a moisture look-up table, i.e., a psychrometric chart (for saturated gas streams following wet scrubbers or other demonstrably saturated gas streams, only); or other continuous moisture measurement methods approved by the Administrator. Alternatively, for any type of fuel, you may determine an appropriate site-specific default moisture value (or values), using measurements made with Method 4—Determination of Moisture Content In Stack Gases, in appendix A-3 to of this part. If this option is selected, the site-specific moisture default value(s) must represent the fuel(s) or fuel blends that are combusted in the unit during normal, stable operation, and must account for any distinct difference(s) in the stack gas moisture content associated with different process operating conditions. At least nine Method 4 runs are required for determining each site-specific default moisture percentage. Calculate each site-specific default moisture value by taking the arithmetic average of the Method 4 runs. Each site-specific moisture default value shall be updated whenever the current value is non-representative, due to changes in unit or process operation, but in any event no less frequently than annually.

    7.0 Reagents and Standards

    7.1 Reference Gases. Reference gases (e.g., cylinder gases or liquid evaporative standards) used to meet the requirements of this PS must be NIST certified or NIST-traceable and vendor certified to ±5.0 percent accuracy. HCl cylinder gases must be certified according to Reference 5 in section 16 of this PS through a documented unbroken chain of comparisons each contributing to the reported uncertainty. Liquid evaporative standards must be certified using the gravimetrically-based procedures of the latest version of the EPA Traceability Protocol for Qualification and Certification of Evaporative HCl Gas Standards and Humidification of HCl Gas Standards from Cylinders (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696-0026.pdf).

    7.2 Cylinder gas and/or liquid evaporative standards must be used within their certification periods.

    7.3 High concentration cylinder gas or liquid evaporative HCl standards may be diluted for use in this specification. You must document the quantitative introduction of HCl standards into the system using Method 205, found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, or other procedure approved by the Administrator.

    8.0 CEMS Measurement Location Specifications and Pretest Preparation

    8.1 Prior to the start of your initial PS tests, you must ensure that the CEMS is installed according to the manufacturer's specifications and the requirements in this section. You may use either point or IP sampling technology.

    8.2 CEMS Installation. Install the CEMS at an accessible location where the pollutant concentration or emission rate measurements are directly representative of the HCl emissions or can be corrected so as to be representative of the total emissions from the affected facility. The CEMS need not be installed at the same location as the relative accuracy test location. If you fail the RA requirements in this specification due to the CEMS measurement location and a satisfactory correction technique cannot be established, the Administrator may require the CEMS to be relocated.

    8.2.1 Single point sample gas extraction should be (1) no less than 1.0 m (3.3 ft.) from the stack or duct wall or (2) within the centroidal area of the stack or duct cross section.

    8.2.2 IP-CEMS measurements should (1) be conducted totally within the inner area bounded by a line 1.0 m (3.3 ft.) from the stack or duct wall, (2) have at least 70 percent of the path within the inner 50 percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional area, or (3) be located over any part of the centroidal area.

    8.2.2.1 You must measure the IP-CEMS path length from the inner flange of the sampling ports or the inner end of the instrument insertion into the stack cavity using a laser tape measure, mechanical measurement tape, or similar device accurate to ±1.5 mm (0.059 in).

    8.2.2.2 You must ensure that any purge flow used to protect IP-CEMS instrument windows from stack gas does not alter the measurement path length. Purge flow of less than or equal to 10 percent of the gas velocity in the duct meets this requirement.

    8.2.3 CEMS and Data Recorder Scale Check. After CEMS installation, record and document the measurement range of the HCl CEMS. The CEMS operating range and the range of the data recording device must encompass all potential and expected HCl concentrations, including the concentration equivalent to the applicable emission limit and the span value.

    9.0 Quality Control [Reserved] 10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved] 11.0 Performance Specification Test Procedure

    After completing the CEMS installation, setup and calibration, you must complete the PS test procedures in this section. You must perform the following procedures and meet the performance requirements for the initial demonstration of your CEMS:

    a. Interference Test;

    b. Beam Intensity Test (IP-CEMS only);

    c. Temperature Verification Procedure (IP-CEMS only);

    d. Pressure Verification Procedure (IP-CEMS only);

    e. Level of Detection Determination;

    f. Response Time Test;

    g. Measurement Error Test;

    h. Calibration Drift Test; and

    i. Relative Accuracy Test.

    11.1 Interference Test

    11.1.1 Prior to its initial use in the field, you must demonstrate that your monitoring system meets the performance requirements of the interference test in section 13.5 to verify that the candidate system measures HCl accurately in the presence of common interferences in emission matrices.

    11.1.2 Your interference test must be conducted in a controlled environment. The equipment you test for interference must include the combination of the analyzer, related analysis software, and any sample conditioning equipment (e.g., dilution module, moisture removal equipment or other interferent scrubber) used to control interferents.

    11.1.3 If you own multiple measurement systems with components of the same make and model numbers, you need only perform this interference test on one analyzer and associated interference conditioning equipment combination. You may also rely on an interference test conducted by the manufacturer or a continuous measurement system integrator on a system having components of the same make and model(s) of the system that you use.

    11.1.4 Perform the interference check using an HCl reference gas concentration of approximately five times the LOD.

    11.1.5 Introduce the interference test gases listed in Table 1 in section 17.0 of this PS to the analyzer/conditioning system separately or in any combination. The interference test gases need not be of reference gas quality.

    11.1.5.1 For extractive CEMS, the interference test gases may be introduced directly into the inlet to the analyzer/conditioning system after the probe extension coupling.

    11.1.5.2 For IP-CEMS, the interference test gases may be added with the HCl in a calibration cell or separately in a temperature-controlled cell. The effective concentration of the gas in the cell must meet the requirements in Table 1 corrected for absolute pressure, temperature and the nominal stack sampling path length of the CEMS.

    11.1.6 The interference test must be performed by combining an HCl reference gas with each interference test gas (or gas mixture). You must measure the baseline HCl response, followed by the response after adding the interference test gas(es) while maintaining a constant HCl concentration. You must perform each interference gas injection and evaluation in triplicate.

    Note: The baseline HCl gas may include interference gases at concentrations typical of ambient air (e.g., 21 percent O2, 400 parts per million (ppm) CO2, 2 percent H2O), but these concentrations must be brought to the concentrations listed in Table 1 when their interference effects are being evaluated.

    11.1.7 You should document the gas volume/rate, temperature, and pressure used to conduct the interference test. A gas blending system or manifold may be used.

    11.1.8 Ensure the duration of each interference test is sufficient to condition the HCl measurement system surfaces before a stable measurement is obtained.

    11.1.9 Measure the HCl response of the analyzer/sample conditioning system combination to the test gases in ppmv. Record the responses and determine the overall interference response using Table 2 in section 17.0.

    11.1.10 For each interference gas (or mixture), calculate the mean difference (ΔMCavg) between the measurement system responses with and without the interference test gas(es) using Equation 1 in section 12.2. Summarize the results following the format contained in Table 2 in section 17.

    11.1.11 Calculate the percent interference (I) for the gas runs using Equation 2 in section 12.2.

    11.1.12 The total interference response (i.e., the sum of the interference responses of all tested gaseous components) must not exceed the criteria set forth in section 13.5 of this PS.

    11.2 Beam Intensity Test for IP-CEMS

    11.2.1 For IP-CEMS, you must establish the tolerance of your system to beam intensity attenuation.

    11.2.1.1 Your beam intensity test may be conducted in either a controlled environment or on-site during initial setup and demonstration of your CEMS.

    11.2.1.2 If you have multiple measurement systems with components of the same make and model numbers, you need only perform this attenuation check on one system and you may also rely on an attenuation test conducted by the manufacturer on a system having components of the same make and model(s) of the system that you use.

    11.2.2 Insert one or more neutral density filter(s) or otherwise attenuate the beam intensity by a known percentage (e.g., 90 percent of the beam intensity).

    11.2.3 Perform a high-level HCl reference gas measurement.

    11.2.4 Record and report the attenuated beam intensity, the measured HCl calibration gas concentration at full beam intensity, the measured HCl gas concentration with attenuated beam intensity, and the percent difference between the two HCl measurements with and without attenuation of the beam intensity. The percent difference must not exceed the criteria set forth in section 13.6 of this PS.

    11.2.5 In the future, you may not operate your IP-CEMS at a beam intensity lower than that established based on the attenuation used during this test. However, you may repeat the test to establish a lower beam intensity limit or level.

    11.3 Temperature Measurement Verification Procedure for IP-CEMS

    11.3.1 Any measurement instrument or device that is used as a reference in verification of temperature measurement must have an accuracy that is traceable to NIST.

    11.3.2 You must verify the temperature sensor used in IP-CEMS measurements on-site as part of the initial installation and verification procedures.

    11.3.3 Comparison to Calibrated Temperature Measurement Device.

    11.3.3.1 Place the sensor of a calibrated temperature reference device adjacent to the sensor used to measure stack temperature for your IP-CEMS. The calibrated temperature reference device must satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in Table 3 of this PS. The calibrated temperature reference device must also have a range equal to or greater than the range of your IP-CEMS temperature sensor.

    11.3.3.2 Allow sufficient time for the response of the calibrated temperature reference device to reach equilibrium. With the process and control device operating under normal conditions, concurrently record the temperatures measured by your IP-CEMS system (Mt) and the calibrated temperature reference device (Vt). You must meet the accuracy requirements specified in section 13.7 of this PS.

    11.3.3.3 If your IP-CEMS temperature sensor does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of this PS, check all system components and take any corrective action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this verification procedure until the accuracy requirement of this specification is satisfied.

    11.4 Pressure Measurement Verification Procedure for IP-CEMS

    11.4.1 For stack pressure measurement verification, you must select a NIST-traceable gauge or monitor that conforms to the design requirements of ASME B40.100-2010, “Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments,” (incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) as a reference device.

    11.4.2 As an alternative for a calibrated pressure reference device with NIST-traceable accuracy, you may use a water-in-glass U-tube manometer to verify your IP-CEMS pressure measurement equipment, provided there is also an accurate measurement of absolute atmospheric pressure at the manometer location.

    11.4.3 Allow sufficient time for the response of the reference pressure measurement device to reach equilibrium. With the process and control device operating under normal conditions, concurrently record the pressures measured by your IP-CEMS system (MP) and the pressure reference device (Vp). You must meet the accuracy requirements specified in section 13.8 of this PS.

    11.4.4 If your IP-CEMS pressure sensor does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of this PS, check all system components and take any corrective action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this verification procedure until the accuracy requirement of this specification is satisfied.

    11.5 Level of Detection Determination

    11.5.1 You must determine the minimum amount of HCl that can be detected above the background in a representative gas matrix.

    11.5.2 You must perform the LOD determination in a controlled environment such as a laboratory or manufacturer's facility.

    11.5.3 You must add interference gases listed in Table 1 of this PS to a constant concentration of HCl reference gas.

    11.5.3.1 You may not use an effective reference HCl gas concentration greater than five times the estimated instrument LOD.

    11.5.3.2 For extractive CEMS, inject the HCl and interferents described in section 11.1.5 directly into the inlet to the analyzer.

    11.5.3.3 For IP-CEMS, the HCl and interference test gases may be added to a calibration cell or separately in a temperature-controlled cell that is part of the measurement path. The effective concentration of the gas in the cell must meet the requirements in Table 1 corrected for absolute pressure, temperature and the nominal stack sampling path length of the CEMS.

    11.5.4 Collect seven or more consecutive measurements separated by twice the RT (described in section 11.6) to determine the LOD.

    11.5.5 Calculate the standard deviation of the measured values and define the LOD as three times the standard deviation of these measurements.

    11.5.5.1 The LOD for extractive units must be determined and reported in ppmv.

    11.5.5.2 The LOD for IP units must be determined and reported on a ppm-meter basis and the site- or installation-specific LOD must be calculated based on the actual measurement path length and gas density of the emissions at the specific site installation in ppmv.

    11.5.6 You must verify the controlled environment LOD of section 11.5.2 of this PS for your CEMS during initial setup and field certification testing. You must use the SA procedure in appendix A of this PS with the following exceptions:

    11.5.6.1 For the LOD verification in the field, you must make three independent SA measurements spiking the native source concentration by no more than three times the controlled environment LOD concentration determined in section 11.5.5.

    11.5.6.2 For extractive CEMS, you must perform the SA as a dynamic spike by passing the spiked source gas sample through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners and other monitoring system components used during normal sampling, and as much of the sampling probe as practical. For IP-CEMS, you must perform the SA procedure by adding or passing a known concentration reference gas into a calibration cell in the optical path of the CEMS; you must also include the source measurement optical path while performing the SA measurement.

    11.5.6.3 The amount detected, or standard addition response (SAR), is based on the average difference of the native HCl concentration in the stack or duct relative to the native stack concentration plus the SA. You must be able to detect the effective spike addition (ESA) above the native HCl present in the stack gas matrix. For extractive CEMS, the ESA is calculated using Equation A7 in appendix A of this PS. For IP-CEMS, the ESA is calculated as Ci,eff using Equation 4 of this PS.

    11.5.6.4 For extractive CEMS, calculate the SAR using Equation A4 in appendix A of this PS. For IP-CEMS, calculate the SAR using Equation A8.

    11.5.6.5 If your system LOD field verification does not demonstrate a SAR greater than or equal to your initial controlled environment LOD, you must increase the SA concentration incrementally and repeat the field verification procedure until the SAR is equal to or greater than LOD. The site-specific standard addition detection level (SADL) is equal to the standard addition needed to achieve the acceptable SAR, and SADL replaces the controlled environment LOD. For extractive CEMS, the SADL is calculated as the ESA using Equation A7 in appendix A of this PS. For IP-CEMS, the SADL is the SA calculated using Equation A8 in appendix A of this PS. As described in section 13.1 of this PS, the SADL must be less than 20 percent of the applicable emission limit.

    11.6 Response Time Determination. You must determine ME-, LOD- and SA-RT

    11.6.1 For ME- or LOD-RT, start the upscale RT determination by injecting zero gas into the measurement system as required by the procedures in section 11.7 or 11.5, respectively. You may use humidified zero gas. For standard addition RT, start the upscale RT determination by measuring the native stack gas concentration of HCl.

    11.6.1.1 For extractive CEMS measuring ME- or LOD-RT, the output has stabilized when there is no change greater than 1.0 percent of full scale for 30 seconds.

    11.6.1.2 For standard addition RT that includes the stack gas matrix the final stable response may continue to vary by more than 1 percent, but may be considered stable if the variability is random and not continuously rising or falling.

    11.6.2 When the CEMS output has stabilized, record the response in ppmv and introduce an upscale (high level) or spike reference gas as required by the relevant procedure.

    11.6.3 Record the time (upscale RT) required to reach 95 percent of the change to the final stable value.

    11.6.4 Next, for ME or LOD RT, reintroduce the zero gas and record the time required to reach 95 percent of the change to the stable instrument response at the zero gas reading. For SA RT, introduce zero gas to the IP-CEMS cell or stop the spike gas flow to the extractive CEMS as required by the specified procedure and record the time required to reach 95 percent of the change to the stable instrument response of the native gas reading. This time is the downscale RT.

    (Note: For CEMS that perform a series of operations (purge, blow back, sample integration, analyze, etc.), you must start adding reference or zero gas immediately after these procedures are complete.)

    11.6.5 Repeat the entire procedure until you have three sets of data, then determine the mean upscale and mean downscale RTs for each relevant procedure. Report the greater of the average upscale or average downscale RTs as the RT for the system.

    11.7 Measurement Error (ME) Test

    11.7.1 On the same day and as close in time as practicable to when the ME test is conducted, perform and meet requirements for a calibration drift (CD) test using a zero gas as used in the Seven-Day Drift Test (see section 11.8) and document and report the results. To meet this requirement, the ME test may be conducted during the Seven-Day CD Test.

    11.7.2 Extractive CEMS ME Test.

    11.7.2.1 Introduce reference gases to the CEMS probe, prior to the sample conditioning and filtration system.

    11.7.2.2 Measure three upscale HCl reference gas concentrations in the range shown in Table 4 of this PS.

    11.7.2.3 Introduce the gases into the sampling probe with sufficient flow rate to replace the entire source gas sample.

    11.7.2.4 Continue to add the reference gas until the response is stable as evidenced when the difference between two consecutive measurements is less than the LOD or within five percent of each other.

    11.7.2.5 Make triplicate measurements for each reference gas for a total of nine measurements. Introduce different reference gas concentrations in any order but do not introduce the same gas concentration twice in succession.

    11.7.2.6 At each reference gas concentration, determine the average of the three CEMS responses (MC l). Calculate the ME using Equation 3A in section 12.3.

    11.7.2.7 If you desire to determine the system RT during this test, you must inject zero gas immediately before and after each injection of the high-level gas standard.

    11.7.2.8 For non-dilution systems, you may adjust the system to maintain the correct flow rate at the analyzer during the test, but you may not make adjustments for any other purpose. For dilution systems, you must operate the measurement system at the appropriate dilution ratio during all system ME checks, and you may make only the adjustments necessary to maintain the proper ratio.

    11.7.3 IP-CEMS ME Test.

    11.7.3.1 Conduct a 3-level system ME test by individually adding the known concentrations of HCl reference gases into a calibration cell of known volume, temperature, pressure and path length.

    Note: The optical path used for IP-CEMS ME checks must include the native HCl measurement path. You must also collect native stack concentration HCl measurements before and after each HCl standard measurement. Bracketing HCl reference gas measurements with native stack HCl measurements must be used in the calculations in Equation 5 in section 12.4.2 to correct the upscale measurements for stack gas HCl concentration changes.

    11.7.3.2 Introduce HCl reference gas into your calibration cell in a range of concentrations that produce responses equivalent to the source concentrations shown in Table 4 of this PS for your path length.

    11.7.3.3 Make triplicate measurements for each reference gas standard for a total of nine measurements. Introduce different calibration concentrations in any order but do not introduce the same reference gas concentration twice in succession.

    11.7.3.4 You must calculate the effective concentration (Ci,eff) of the HCl reference gas equivalent to the stack concentration by correcting for calibration cell temperature, pressure, path length, line strength factor (LSF) and, if necessary, the native stack gas HCl concentration using Equation 4 in section 12.0.

    11.7.3.5 You may use the LSF provided by your instrument manufacturer or determine an instrument-specific LSF as a function of temperature using a heated gas cell and equivalent concentrations (Ci,eff) between 50 and 150 percent of the emission limit.

    11.7.3.6 At each reference gas concentration, average the three independent CEMS measurement responses corrected for native HCl stack concentration. Calculate the ME using Equation 6A in section 12.4.3.

    11.7.4 You may use Figure 1 in section 17.0 to record and report your ME test results.

    11.7.5 If the ME specification in section 13.3 is not met for all three reference gas concentrations, take corrective action and repeat the test until an acceptable 3-level ME test is achieved.

    11.8 Seven-Day Calibration Drift (CD) Test

    11.8.1 The CD Test Period. Prior to the start of the RA tests, you must perform a seven-day CD test. The purpose of the seven-day CD test is to verify the ability of the CEMS to maintain calibration for each of seven consecutive unit operating days as specified in section 11.8.5 of this PS.

    11.8.2 The CD tests must be performed using the zero gas and mid-level reference gas standards as defined in Table 4 of this PS.

    11.8.3 Conduct the CD test on each day during continuous operation of the CEMS and normal facility operations following the procedures in section 11.7 of this PS, except that the zero gas and mid-level gas need only be introduced to the measurement system once each.

    11.8.4 If periodic automatic or manual adjustments are made to the CEMS zero and upscale response factor settings, conduct the CD test immediately before these adjustments.

    Note: Automatic signal or mathematical processing of all measurement data to determine emission results may be performed throughout the entire CD process.

    11.8.5 Determine the magnitude of the CD at approximately 24-hour intervals, for 7 consecutive unit operating days. The 7 consecutive unit operating days need not be 7 consecutive calendar days.

    11.8.6 Record the CEMS response for single measurements of zero gas and mid-level reference gas. You may use Figure 2 in section 17 of this PS to record and report the results of your 7-day CD test.

    11.8.6.1 For extractive CEMS, calculate the CD using Equation 3B in section 12.3. Report the absolute value of the differences as a percentage of the span value.

    11.8.6.2 For IP-CEMS, you must include the source measurement optical path while performing the upscale CD measurement; you must exclude the source measurement optical path when determining the zero gas concentration. Calculate the CD for IP CEMS using Equations 4, 5, 6B, and 7 in section 12.4.

    11.8.7 The zero-level and mid-level CD for each day must be less than 5.0 percent of the span value as specified in section 13.2 of this PS. You must meet this criterion for 7 consecutive operating days past the 7-day CD test.

    11.8.8 Dynamic Spiking Option for Seven-Day CD Test. For extractive CEMS, you have the option to conduct a mid-level dynamic spiking procedure for each of the 7 days in lieu of the mid-level reference gas injection described in sections 11.8.2 and 11.8.3. If this option is selected, the daily zero CD check is still required.

    11.8.8.1 To conduct each of the seven daily mid-level dynamic spikes, you must use the DS procedure described in appendix A of this PS using a single spike of the mid-level reference gas (see Table 4).

    11.8.8.2 You must perform the dynamic spike procedure by passing the spiked source gas sample through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners and other monitoring system components used during normal sampling, and as much of the sampling probe as practical.

    11.8.8.3 Calculate the mid-level CD as a percent of span using Equation A6 of appendix A to this PS and calculate the zero drift using Equation 3B in section 12.3. Record and report the results as described in sections 11.8.6 and 11.8.7.

    11.9 Relative Accuracy Test

    11.9.1 Unless otherwise specified in an applicable regulation, use Method 26A in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, Method 320 or Method 321, both found in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348-12 including all annexes, as applicable, as the RMs for HCl measurement. Obtain and analyze RM audit samples, if they are available, concurrently with RM test samples according to the same procedure specified for performance tests in the general provisions of the applicable part. If Method 26 is not specified in an applicable subpart of the regulations, you may request approval to use Method 26 in appendix A-8 to this part as the RM on a site-specific basis under §§ 63.7(f) or 60.8(b). Other RMs for moisture, O2, etc., may be necessary. Conduct the RM tests in such a way that they will yield results representative of the emissions from the source and can be compared to the CEMS data.

    11.9.1.1 When Method 26A is used as the RM, you must sample sufficient gas to reach three times your method detection limit for Method 26A in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, or for a minimum of one hour, whichever is greater.

    11.9.1.2 When Method 320 or Method 321, both found in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348-12, are used as the RM, you must collect gas samples that are at stack conditions (hot and wet) and you must traverse as required in section 11.9.3.

    11.9.2 Conduct the diluent (if applicable), moisture (if needed), and pollutant measurements simultaneously. However, diluent and moisture measurements that are taken within an hour of the pollutant measurements may be used to calculate dry pollutant concentration and emission rates.

    11.9.3 Reference Method Measurement Location and Traverse Point(s) Selection.

    11.9.3.1 Measurement Location. Select, as appropriate, an accessible RM measurement location at least two equivalent diameters downstream from the nearest control device, point of pollutant generation, or other point at which a change in the pollutant concentration or emission rate may occur, and at least one half equivalent diameter upstream from the effluent exhaust or a control device. When pollutant concentration changes are due solely to diluent leakage (e.g., air heater leakages) and pollutants and diluents are simultaneously measured at the same location, a half diameter may be used in lieu of two equivalent diameters. The equivalent duct diameter is calculated according to Method 1 in appendix A-1 to this part. The CEMS and RM sampling locations need not be the same.

    11.9.3.2 Traverse Point Selection. Select traverse points that assure acquisition of representative RM samples over the stack or duct cross section according to one of the following options: (a) sample at twelve traverse points located according to section 11.3 of Method 1 in appendix A-1 to this part, (b) sample at 6 Method 1 traverse points according to section 6.5.6(b)(1) of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter, or (c) sample at three points on a measurement line (“3-point long line”) that passes through the centroidal area of the duct in the direction of any potential stratification. If this line interferes with the CEMS measurements, you may displace the line up to 20 cm (12 in.) or 5.0 percent of the equivalent diameter of the cross section, whichever is less, from the centroidal area. Locate the three traverse points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the measurement line. Alternatively, you may conduct a stratification test following the procedures in sections 11.9.3.2.1 through 11.9.3.2.4 to justify sampling at a single point or three points located on the measurement line at 0.4, 1.2, and 2.0 m from the stack wall (“3-point short line”). Stratification testing must be conducted at the sampling location to be used for the RM measurements during the RA test and must be made during normal facility operating conditions. You must evaluate the stratification by measuring the gas on the same moisture basis as the HCl CEMS (wet or dry). Stratification testing must be repeated for each RA test program to justify single point or “3-point short line” sampling.

    11.9.3.2.1 Use a probe of appropriate length to measure the HCl concentration or an alternative analyte, as described in this section, using 12 traverse points located according to section 11.3 of Method 1 in appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60 for a circular stack or nine points at the centroids of similarly-shaped, equal area divisions of the cross section of a rectangular stack.

    11.9.3.2.2 You may substitute a stratification test for SO2 for the HCl stratification test. If you select this option, you must follow the test procedures in Method 6C of appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60 or Method 320 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 63.

    11.9.3.2.3 Calculate the mean measured concentration for all sampling points (MNavg).

    11.9.3.2.4 Calculate the percent stratification (St) of each traverse point using Equation 8 in section 12.5.

    11.9.3.2.5 The gas stream is considered to be unstratified and you may perform the RA testing at a single point that most closely matches the mean if the concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean concentration for all traverse points by: (a) No more than 5.0 percent of the mean concentration; or (b) 0.2 ppm (for HCl) or 3 ppm (for SO2) absolute, whichever is less restrictive.

    11.9.3.2.6 If the criterion for single point sampling (5.0 percent, 0.2 ppm for HCl or 3 ppm for SO2 are not met, but the concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean concentration for all traverse points by no more than 10.0 percent of the mean, the gas stream is considered to be minimally stratified, and you may take RA samples using the “3-point short line”. Alternatively, you may use the 3-point short line if each traverse point differs from the mean value by no more than 0.4 ppm (for HCl) or 5 ppm (for SO2).

    11.9.3.2.7 If the concentration at any traverse point differs from the mean concentration by more than 10 percent, the gas stream is considered stratified and you must sample using one of the options in section 11.9.3.2 above.

    11.9.3.3 Conduct all necessary RM tests within 3 cm (1.2 in.) of the traverse points, but no closer than 3 cm (1.2 in.) to the stack or duct wall.

    11.9.4 In order to correlate the CEMS and RM data properly, record the beginning and end of each RM run (including the time of day in hours, minutes, and seconds) using a clock synchronized with the CEM clock used to create a permanent time record with the CEMS output.

    11.9.5 You must conduct the RATA during representative process and control operating conditions or as specified in an applicable regulation, permit or subpart.

    11.9.6 Conduct a minimum of nine RM test runs. NOTE: More than nine RM test runs may be performed. If this option is chosen, up to three test run results may be excluded so long as the total number of test run results used to determine the CEMS RA is greater than or equal to nine. However, all data must be reported including the excluded test runs.

    11.9.7 Analyze the results from the RM test runs using Equations 9-14 in section 12.6. Calculate the RA between the CEMS results and the RM.

    11.10 Record Keeping and Reporting

    11.10.1 For systems that use a liquid evaporative standard generator to deliver HCl reference gas standards, record supporting data for these devices, including liquid feed calibrations, liquid standard concentration(s) and NIST-traceability, feed rate and gas flow calibrations for all diluent and HCl gas flows. All calibrations must include a stated uncertainty, and the combined uncertainty of the delivered HCl reference gas concentration must be calculated and reported.

    11.10.2 Record the results of the CD test, the RT test, the ME test, the RA test, and for IP-CEMS, the results of the beam intensity, temperature and pressure verification procedures. Also keep records of the RM and CEMS field data, calculations, and reference gas certifications necessary to confirm that the performance of the CEMS met the performance specifications.

    11.10.3 For systems that use Method 205 to prepare HCl reference gas standards, record results of Method 205 performance test field evaluation, reference gas certifications, and gas dilution system calibration.

    11.10.4 Record the LOD for the CEMS. For extractive CEMS, record the LOD in ppmv. For IP-CEMS, record the LOD on a ppm-meter basis along with a calculation of the installation specific LOD in ppmv. For both CEMS types, you must also record the field verified SADL.

    11.10.5 Record the results of the interference test.

    11.10.6 Report the results of all certification tests to the appropriate regulatory agency (or agencies), in hardcopy and/or electronic format, as required by the applicable regulation or permit.

    12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis 12.1 Nomenclature Ci = Zero HCl reference gas concentration used for test i (ppmv); Ci,eff = Equivalent concentration of the reference gas value, Ci, at the specified conditions (ppmv); CC = Confidence coefficient (ppmv); CDextractive = Calibration drift for extractive CEMS (percent); CDIP = Calibration drift for IP-CEMS (percent); CD0 = Calibration drift at zero HCl concentrations for an IP-CEMS (percent); davg = Mean difference between CEMS response and the reference gas (ppmv); di = Difference of CEMS response and the RM value (ppmv); I = Total interference from major matrix stack gases, (percent); LSF = Line strength factor for IP-CEMS instrument specific correction for temperature and gas matrix effects derived from the HITRAN and/or manufacturer specific database (unitless); ΔMCavg = Average of the 3 absolute values of the difference between the measured HCl reference gas concentrations with and without interference from selected stack gases (ppmv); MCi = Measured zero or HCl reference gas concentration i (ppmv); MC l = Average of the measured zero or HCl reference gas concentration i (ppmv); MCint = Measured HCl concentration of the HCl reference gas plus the individual or combined interference gases (ppmv); MEextractive = Measurement error for extractive CEMS (percent); MEIP = Measurement error for IP-CEMS (percent); MNavg = Average concentration at all sampling points (ppmv); MNbi = Measured native concentration bracketing each calibration check measurement (ppmv); MNi = Measured native concentration for test or run i (ppmv); n = Number of measurements in an average value; PLCell = Path length of IP-CEMS calibration cell (m); PLStack = Path length of IP-CEMS stack optical path (m); RA = Relative accuracy of CEMS compared to a RM (percent); RMi = RM concentration for test run i (ppmv); RMavg = Mean measured RM value (ppmv); S = Span of the instrument (ppmv); Sd = Standard deviation of the differences (ppmv); Sti = Stratification at traverse point i (percent); SADL = Standard addition detection level (ppmv); t0.975 = One-sided t-value at the 97.5th percentile obtained from Table 5 in section 17.0 for n-1 measurements; Treference = Temperature of the calibration cell for IP-CEMS (degrees Kelvin); Tstack = Temperature of the stack at the monitoring location for IP-CEM (degrees Kelvin). 12.2 Calculate the Difference Between the Measured HCl Concentration With and Without Interferents for Each Interference Gas (Or Mixture) for Your CEMS as: ER07JY15.068

    Calculate the total percent interference as:

    ER07JY15.069 12.3 Calculate the ME or CD at Concentration i for an Extractive CEMS as: ER07JY15.070 ER07JY15.071 12.4 Calculate the ME or CD at Concentration i for IP-CEMS That Use a Calibration Cell as Follows:

    12.4.1 Calculate the equivalent concentration Ci,eff using Equation 4:

    ER07JY15.072

    12.4.2 Calculate the average native concentration before and after each calibration check measurement as:

    ER07JY15.073

    12.4.3 Calculate the ME or CD at concentration i for an IP-CEM as:

    ER07JY15.074

    12.4.4 Calculate the zero CD as a percent of span for an IP-CEMS as:

    ER07JY15.075 12.5 Calculate the Percent Stratification at Each Traverse Point as: ER07JY15.076 12.6 Calculate the RA Using RM and CEMS Data

    12.6.1 Determine the CEMS final integrated minute average pollutant concentration or emission rate for each RM test period. Consider system RT, if important, and confirm that the results have been corrected to the same moisture, temperature and diluent concentration basis.

    12.6.2 When Method 26A (or if approved for use, Method 26), found in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 of this part, is used as the RM, compare each CEMS integrated average value against the corresponding RM value for identical test periods. Make these comparisons on the same basis (e.g., wet, dry, ppmv, or units of the standard). To convert results generate by Method 26A or 26 in mg/DSCM to ppmv, use the conversion factor 0.662 ppm/(mg/DSCM).

    12.6.3 If the RM is Method 320 or Method 321, found in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348-12, make a direct comparison of the average RM results and CEMS average value for identical test periods.

    12.6.4 For each test run, calculate the arithmetic difference of the RM and CEMS results using Equation 9.

    ER07JY15.077

    12.6.5 Calculate the standard deviation of the differences (S d) of the CEMS measured and RM results using Equation 10.

    ER07JY15.078

    12.6.6 Calculate the confidence coefficient (CC) for the RATA using Equation 11.

    ER07JY15.079

    12.6.7 Calculate the mean difference (d avg) between the RM and CEMS values in the units of ppmv or the emission standard using Equation 12.

    ER07JY15.080

    12.6.8 Calculate the average RM value using Equation 13.

    ER07JY15.081

    12.6.9 Calculate RA of the CEMS using Equation 14.

    ER07JY15.082 13.0 Method Performance

    13.1 Level of Detection. You may not use a CEMS whose LOD or SADL is greater than 20 percent of the applicable regulatory limit or other action level for the intended use of the data.

    13.2 Calibration Drift. The zero- and mid-level calibration drift for the CEMS must not exceed 5.0 percent of the span value for 7 consecutive operating days.

    13.3 Measurement Error. The ME must be less than or equal to 5.0 percent of the span value at the low-, mid-, and high-level reference gas concentrations.

    13.4 Relative Accuracy. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable regulation or permit, the RA of the CEMS, whether calculated in units of HCl concentration or in units of the emission standard, must be less than or equal to 20.0 percent of the RM when RM avg is used in the denominator of Equation 14.

    13.4.1 In cases where the RA is calculated on a concentration (ppmv) basis, if the average RM emission level for the test is less than 75 percent of the HCl concentration equivalent to the emission standard, you may substitute the HCl concentration equivalent to the standard in the denominator of Equation 14 in place of RMavg.

    13.4.2 Similarly, if the RA is calculated in units of the emission standard and the HCl emission level measured by the RMs is less than 75 percent of the emission standard, you may substitute the emission standard in the denominator of Equation 14 in place of RMavg.

    13.4.3 The alternative calculated RA in paragraph 13.4.1 or 13.4.2 must be less than or equal to 15.0 percent.

    13.5 Interference Test.

    13.5.1 The sum of the interference response(s) from Equation 2 must not be greater than 2.5 percent of the calibration span or ±3.0 percent of the equivalent HCl concentration used for the interference test, whichever is less restrictive. The results are also acceptable if the sum of the interference response(s) does not exceed six times the LOD or 0.5 ppmv for a calibration span of 5 to 10 ppm, or 0.2 ppmv for a calibration span of less than 5 ppmv.

    13.6 IP-CEMS Beam Intensity Test. For IP-CEMS, the percent difference between the measured concentration with and without attenuation of the light source must not exceed ±3.0 percent.

    13.7 IP-CEMS Temperature Measurement Verification. Your temperature sensor satisfies the accuracy required if the absolute relative difference between measured value of stack temperature (Mt) and the temperature value from the calibrated temperature reference device (Vt) is ≤1.0 percent or if the absolute difference between Mt and Vt is ≤2.8° C (5.0 °F), whichever is less restrictive.

    13.8 IP-CEMS Pressure Sensor Measurement Verification. Your pressure sensor satisfies the accuracy required if the absolute relative difference between the measured value of stack pressure (MP) and the pressure value from the calibrated pressure reference device (VP) is ≤5.0 percent or if the absolute difference between Mp and VP is ≤0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column), whichever is less restrictive.

    14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] 15.0 Waste Management [Reserved] 16.0 Bibliography

    1. Method 318—Extractive FTIR Method for the Measurement of Emissions From the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries, 40 CFR, part 63, subpart HHHHHHH, appendix A.

    2. “EPA Protocol for the Use of Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectrometry in Analyses of Gaseous Emissions from Stationary Industrial Sources,” February, 1995.

    3. “Measurement of Gaseous Organic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive FTIR Spectroscopy,” EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0165, Work Assignment 3-08.

    4. “Method 301—Field Validation of Pollutant Measurement Methods from Various Waste Media,” 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.

    5. EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-12/531, May 2012.

    17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data Table 1—Interference Test Gas Concentrations Potential interferent gas 1 Approximate concentration (balance N2) CO2 15% ± 1% CO2.2 CO 100 ± 20 ppm. CH2O 20 ± 5 ppm. CH4 100 ± 20 ppm. NH3 10 ± 5 ppm (extractive CEMS only). NO2 250 ± 50 ppm. SO2 200 ± 20 ppm. O2 3% ± 1% O2.2 H2O 10% ± 1% H2O.2 N2 Balance.2 1 Any of these specific gases can be tested at a lower level if the manufacturer has provided reliable means for limiting or scrubbing that gas to a specified level in CEMS field installations. 2 Gases for short path IP cell interference tests cannot be added above 100 percent stack equivalent concentration. Add these gases at the indicated percentages to make up the remaining cell volume. BILLING CODE P ER07JY15.083 BILLING CODE C Table 3—Design Standards for Temperature Sensors If the sensor is a . . . You can use the following design standards as guidance in selecting a sensor for your IP-CEMS 1. Thermocouple a. ASTM E235-88 (1996), “Specification for Thermocouples, Sheathed, Type K, for Nuclear or Other High-Reliability Applications.” b. ASTM E585/E585M-04, “Specification for Compacted Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed, Base Metal Thermocouple Cable.” c. ASTM E608/E608M-06, “Specification for Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base Metal Thermocouples.” d. ASTM E696-07, “Specification for Tungsten-Rhenium Alloy Thermocouple Wire.” e. ASTM E1129/E1129M-98 (2002), “Standard Specification for Thermocouple Connectors.” f. ASTM E1159-98 (2003), “Specification for Thermocouple Materials, Platinum-Rhodium Alloys, and Platinum.” g. ISA-MC96.1-1982, “Temperature Measurement Thermocouples.” 2. Resistance temperature detector ASTM E1137/E1137M-04, “Standard Specification for Industrial Platinum Resistance Thermometers.” Table 4—Performance Specification Test Zero and Reference Gas Ranges Test Units HCl Zero and Reference Gas Concentrations in Terms of Percent of Span a Zero Low Level Mid Level High Level Section Calibration Drift % of Span <LOD NA 50-60 b NA 11.8 Measurement Error % of Span NA 20-30 50-60 80-100 11.7 a Reference gas concentration must be NIST traceable. (see section 7.1) b Mid-level is required. For DS calibration drift option, choose a concentration that yields a value in this range at the analyzer. Table 5—Student's t-Values n-1 a t-value n-1 a t-value n-1 a t-value 1 12.71 11 2.201 21 2.080 2 4.303 12 2.179 22 2.074 3 3.182 13 2.160 23 2.069 4 2.776 14 2.145 24 2.064 5 2.571 15 2.131 25 2.060 6 2.447 16 2.120 26 2.056 7 2.365 17 2.110 27 2.052 8 2.306 18 2.101 28 2.048 9 2.262 19 2.093 29 2.045 10 2.228 20 2.086 30 2.042 a The value n is the number of independent pairs of measurements. Either discrete (independent) measurements in a single run, or run averages can be used. ER07JY15.085 ER07JY15.086 PS-18 Appendix A Standard Addition Procedures 1.0 Scope and Application

    1.1 This appendix to Performance Specification (PS) 18 describes the procedure and performance requirements for standard addition (SA) as a quality check for hydrogen chloride (HCl) continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS).

    1.2 This appendix is applicable to quality checks of both extractive and integrated path (IP) technologies used to measure HCl emissions.

    1.3 For extractive CEMS, this procedure must be used, as a level of detection (LOD) verification of all field-installed CEMS. Additionally, it is allowed by Procedure 6 in appendix F to this part as an alternative to upscale calibration drift (CD) tests, cylinder gas audits and relative accuracy audits (RAAs), and may be used for quality assurance purposes under other applicable regulations or permits that require HCl monitoring.

    1.4 For IP-CEMS, this procedure must be used as a LOD verification of all field-installed CEMS.

    2.0 Summary of the Appendix for Standard Addition

    As used here, SA is a gas phase method of standard additions (either static or dynamic) used to verify the accuracy of CEMS measurements in the presence of the sample matrix. For extractive CEMS, it consists of spiking a known quantity of HCl dynamically into the measurement system as an addition to the native HCl and the native source gas matrix. For IP-CEMS, this procedure consists of introducing a known quantity of HCl into the optical path that also includes the native source gas.

    3.0 Definitions. (See PS-18 and Procedure 6 of Appendix F to Part 60 for the Definitions Used in This Appendix.) 4.0 Interferences. Interferences are discussed in PS-18, section 4.0

    5.0 Safety. The procedures required under this appendix may involve hazardous materials, operations and equipment. This procedure may not address all of the safety problems associated with these procedures. You as the facility or operator must establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicable regulatory limitations prior to performing these procedures. As the CEMS user, you should consult instrument operation manuals, material safety data sheets, compressed gas safety requirements, and other Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations for specific precautions to be taken.

    6.0 Equipment and Supplies. An example of equipment and supplies is described in section 6 of PS-18.

    7.0 Reagents and Standards. SA materials must meet the requirements defined for reference gases in section 7 of PS-18 to perform this procedure with the following exception. You may use gases certified by the gas vendor to +5 percent to perform the daily calibration drift assessment in section 4.1 of Procedure 6 in appendix F of this part.

    Note:

    For extractive CEMS the concentrations of reference gases required for SA are likely to be significantly higher than the concentration of reference gases associated with PS-18 requirements.

    8.0 Standard Addition and Dynamic Spiking Procedure. The standard addition procedure consists of measuring the native source gas concentration, addition of reference gas, and measurement of the resulting SA elevated source gas concentration. For extractive CEMS, HCl is spiked dynamically and thus, one must account for the dilution of sample gas from the addition of the HCl reference gas. For IP-CEMS, standard addition of an HCl reference gas is made by either adding an HCl reference gas to a flow through cell or inserting a sealed reference gas cell into the measurement path of the CEMS. The enclosed cell or a fixed cell must contain an HCl concentration that accounts for the difference in path length of the cell used for SA relative to the measurement path.

    8.1 SA Concentration and Measurement Replicates.

    8.1.1 You must inject HCl gas to create a measured concentration based on the requirements of the particular performance test (e.g., LOD verification, CD, DSA).

    8.1.2 Each dynamic spike (DS) or standard addition (SA) replicate consists of a measurement of the source emissions concentration of HCl (native stack concentration) with and without the addition of HCl. With a single CEMS, you must alternate the measurement of the native and SA-elevated source gas so that each measurement of SA-elevated source gas is immediately preceded and followed by a measurement of native stack gas. Introduce the SA gases in such a manner that the entire CEMS is challenged. Alternatively, you may use an independent continuous HCl monitor to measure the native source concentration before and after each standard addition as described in section 8.1.4.

    8.1.3 Unless specified otherwise by an applicable rule, your SA-elevated concentration may not exceed 100 percent of span when the SA and native HCl concentration are combined.

    8.1.4 As an alternative to making background measurements pre- and post-SA, you may use an independent continuous HCl monitor as a temporary unit to measure native stack HCl concentration while simultaneously using the CEMS to measure the SA-elevated source concentration. If you use an independent continuous HCl monitor you must make one concurrent background or native HCl measurement using both the installed CEMS and the independent continuous HCl monitor, immediately before the SA procedure in section 8.2 or 8.3 begins, to confirm that the independent monitoring system measures the same background concentration as the CEMS being qualified with this PS.

    8.2 SA Procedure for Extractive CEMS (Dynamic Spiking)

    8.2.1 Your HCl spike addition must not alter the total volumetric sample system flow rate or basic dilution ratio of your CEMS (if applicable).

    8.2.2 Your spike gas flow rate must not contribute more than 10 percent of the total volumetric flow rate through the CEMS.

    8.2.3 You must determine a dilution factor (DF) or relative concentration of HCl for each dynamic spike. Calibrated, NIST-traceable flow meters accurate to within 2.0 percent or highly accurate tracer gas measurements are required to make the necessary DF determinations at the accuracy required for this PS. Calibrated, NIST-traceable flow meters (e.g., venturi, orifice) accurate to within 2.0 percent should be recertified against an NIST-traceable flow meter annually. Note: Since the spiking mass balance calculation is directly dependent on the accuracy of the DF determination, the accuracy of measurements required to determine the total volumetric gas flow rate, spike gas flow rate, or tracer gas standard addition concentration is critical to your ability to accurately perform the DS procedure and calculate the results.

    8.2.4 You must monitor and record the total sampling system flow rate and sample dilution factor (DF) for the spiking and stack gas sampling systems to ensure they are known and do not change during the spiking procedure. Record all data on a data sheet similar to Table A1 in section 13 of this appendix.

    8.2.4.1 You may either measure the spike gas flow and the total flow with calibrated flow meters capable of NIST traceable accuracy to ± 2.0 percent or calculate the flow using a stable tracer gas included in your spike gas standard.

    8.2.4.2 If you use flow measurements to determine the spike dilution, then use Equation A1 in section 11.2.1 of this appendix to calculate the DF. Determination of the spike dilution requires measurement of HCl spike flow (Qspike) and total flow through the CEM sampling system (Qprobe).

    8.2.4.3 If your CEMS is capable of measuring an independent stable tracer gas, you may use a spike gas that includes the tracer to determine the DF using Equation A2 or A3 (sections 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 of this appendix) depending on whether the tracer gas is also present in the native source emissions.

    8.2.4.4 For extractive CEMS, you must correct the background measurements of HCl for the dilution caused by the addition of the spike gas standard. For spiking systems that alternate between addition of HCl and zero gas at a constant DF, the background measurements between spikes will not be equal to the native source concentration.

    8.2.5 Begin by collecting unspiked sample measurements of HCl. You must use the average of two unspiked sample measurements as your pre-spike background.

    Note: Measurements should agree within 5.0 percent or three times the level of detection to avoid biasing the spike results.

    8.2.5.1 Introduce the HCl gas spike into the permanent CEMS probe, upstream of the particulate filter or sample conditioning system and as close to the sampling inlet as practical.

    8.2.5.2 Maintain the HCl gas spike for at least twice the DS response time of your CEMS or until the consecutive measurements agree within 5.0 percent. Collect two independent measurements of the native plus spiked HCl concentration.

    8.2.5.3 Stop the flow of spike gas for at least twice the DS response time of your CEMS or until the consecutive measurements agree within 5.0 percent. Collect two independent measurements of the native HCl concentration.

    8.2.6 Repeat the collection of sample measurements in section 8.2.5 until you have data for each spike concentration including a final set of unspiked sample measurements according to section 8.2.5.3.

    8.2.7 Verify that the CEMS responded as expected for each spike gas injection, and that the data quality is not impacted by large shifts in the native source concentration. Discard and repeat any spike injections as necessary to generate a complete set of the required replicate spike measurements.

    8.2.8 Calculate the standard addition response (SAR) for extractive CEMS, using Equation A4 in section 11.2, of this appendix.

    8.2.9 If the DS results do not meet the specifications for the appropriate performance test in PS-18 or Procedure 6 of appendix F of this part, you must take corrective action and repeat the DS procedure.

    8.3 SA Procedure for IP-CEMS (Static Spiking).

    8.3.1 For IP-CEMS, you must make measurements of native source gas HCl concentration and an HCl standard addition using a calibration cell added to the optical measurement path.

    8.3.2 Introduce zero gas into a calibration cell located in the optical measurement path of the instrument. Continue to flush the zero gas into the cell for at least the SA response time of your CEMS or until two consecutive measurements taken are within 5.0 percent, then collect two independent measurements. Alternatively you may measure native concentrations without the calibration cell in the optical path.

    8.3.3 Introduce the HCl spike gas into the calibration cell. Continue to flush the spike gas into the cell for at least the SA response time of your CEMS or until two consecutive measurements taken are within 5.0 percent of one another. Then collect two independent measurements of the SA addition to the native concentration. Alternatively you may insert a sealed calibration cell, containing HCl at the appropriate concentration, into the optical path to measure the SA addition to the native concentration.

    8.3.4 Repeat the collection of SA-elevated and native HCl measurements in sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3 until you have data for each SA concentration. Then, make a final native HCl measurement. The measured concentrations must be corrected for calibration cell and stack temperature, pressure and stack measurement path length.

    8.3.5 Calculate the standard addition response (SAR) for an IP-CEMS, using Equation A8 in section 11.3 of this appendix.

    8.3.6 If the SA results do not meet the specifications for the appropriate performance test in PS-18 or Procedure 6 of appendix F of this part, you must take corrective action and repeat the SA procedure.

    9.0 Quality Control [Reserved] 10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved]

    11.0 Calculations and Data Analysis. Calculate the SA response for each measurement and its associated native HCl measurement(s), using equations in this section. (Note: For cases where the emission standard is expressed in units of lb/MMBtu or corrected to a specified O2 or CO2 concentration, an absolute accuracy specification based on a span at stack conditions may be calculated using the average concentration and applicable conversion factors. The appropriate procedures for use in cases where a percent removal standard is more restrictive than the emission standard are the same as in 40 CFR part 60, PS-2, sections 12 and 13.)

    11.1 Nomenclature.

    Cspike = Actual HCl reference gas concentration spiked (e.g., bottle or reference gas concentration) ppmv; Ctracer spiked = Tracer gas concentration injected with spike gas (“reference concentration”) ppmv; DF = Spiked gas dilution factor; DSCD = Calibration drift determined using DS procedure (percent); DSE = Dynamic spike error (ppmv); ESA = Effective spike addition (ppmv); MCSA = Measured SA-elevated source gas concentration (ppmv); MCspiked = Measured HCl reference gas concentration i (ppmv); MCnative = Average measured concentration of the native HCl (ppmv); Mnative tracer = Measured tracer gas concentration present in native effluent gas (ppmv); Mspiked tracer = Measured diluted tracer gas concentration in a spiked sample (ppmv); Qspike = Flow rate of the dynamic spike gas (Lpm); Qprobe = Average total stack sample flow through the system (Lpm); S = Span (ppmv); SAR = Standard addition response (ppmv)

    11.2 Calculating Dynamic Spike Response and Error for Extractive CEMS.

    11.2.1 If you determine your spike DF using spike gas and stack sample flow measurements, calculate the DF using equation A1:

    ER07JY15.087

    11.2.2 If you determine your spike DF using an independent stable tracer gas that is not present in the native source emissions, calculate the DF for DS using equation A2:

    ER07JY15.088

    11.2.3 If you determine your spike dilution factor using an independent stable tracer that is present in the native source emissions, calculate the dilution factor for dynamic spiking using equation A3:

    ER07JY15.089

    11.2.4 Calculate the SA response using Equation A4:

    ER07JY15.090

    11.2.5 Calculate the DS error using Equation A5.

    ER07JY15.091

    11.2.6 Calculating CD using DS. When using the DS option for determining mid-level CD, calculate the CD as a percent of span using equation A6:

    ER07JY15.092

    11.2.7 The effective spike addition (ESA) is the expected increase in the measured concentration as a result of injecting a spike. Calculate ESA using Equation A7:

    ER07JY15.093

    11.3 Standard Addition Response for IP-CEMS. If you use an IP-CEMS and a calibration cell, calculate the SA response using Equation A8.

    ER07JY15.094 13. Tables and Figures. ER07JY15.095
    3. Appendix F to part 60 is amended by adding Procedure 6 to read as follows: Appendix F to Part 60—Quality Assurance Procedures

    Procedure 6. Quality Assurance Requirements for Gaseous Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance Determination at Stationary Sources

    1.0 Applicability and Principle

    1.1 Applicability. Procedure 6 is used to evaluate the effectiveness of quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures and evaluate the quality of data produced by any hydrogen chloride (HCl) gas, CAS: 7647-01-0, continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) that is used for determining compliance with emission standards for HCl on a continuous basis as specified in an applicable permit or regulation.

    1.1.1 This procedure specifies the minimum QA requirements necessary for the control and assessment of the quality of CEMS data submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a delegated authority. If you are responsible for one or more CEMS used for HCl compliance monitoring you must meet these minimum requirements and you are encouraged to develop and implement a more extensive QA program or to continue such programs where they already exist.

    1.1.2 Data collected as a result of QA and QC measures required in this procedure are to be submitted to the EPA or the delegated authority in accordance with the applicable regulation or permit. These data are to be used by both the delegated authority and you, as the CEMS operator, in assessing the effectiveness of the CEMS QC and QA procedures in the maintenance of acceptable CEMS operation and valid emission data.

    1.2 Principle

    1.2.1 The QA procedures consist of two distinct and equally important functions. One function is the assessment of the quality of the CEMS data by estimating accuracy. The other function is the control and improvement of the quality of the CEMS data by implementing QC policies and corrective actions. These two functions form an iterative control loop. When the assessment function indicates that the data quality is inadequate, the control effort must be increased until the data quality is acceptable. In order to provide uniformity in the assessment and reporting of data quality, this procedure specifies the assessment procedures to evaluate response drift and accuracy. The procedures specified are based on Performance Specification 18 (PS-18) in appendix B to this part.

    (Note: Because the control and corrective action function encompasses a variety of policies, specifications, standards and corrective measures, this procedure treats QC requirements in general terms to allow you, as source owner or operator to develop the most effective and efficient QC system for your circumstances.)

    2.0 Definitions

    See PS-18 of this subpart for the primary definitions used in this Procedure.

    3.0 QC Requirements

    3.1 You, as a source owner or operator, must develop and implement a QC program. At a minimum, each QC program must include written procedures and/or manufacturer's information which should describe in detail, complete, step-by-step procedures and operations for each of the following activities:

    (a) Calibration Drift (CD) checks of CEMS;

    (b) CD determination and adjustment of CEMS;

    (c) Integrated Path (IP) CEMS temperature and pressure sensor accuracy checks;

    (d) IP CEMS beam intensity checks;

    (e) Routine and preventative maintenance of CEMS (including spare parts inventory);

    (f) Data recording, calculations, and reporting;

    (g) Accuracy audit procedures for CEMS including reference method(s); and

    (h) Program of corrective action for malfunctioning CEMS.

    3.2 These written procedures must be kept on site and available for inspection by the delegated authority. As described in section 5.4, whenever excessive inaccuracies occur for two consecutive quarters, you must revise the current written procedures, or modify or replace the CEMS to correct the deficiency causing the excessive inaccuracies.

    4.0 Daily Data Quality Requirements and Measurement Standardization Procedures

    4.1 CD Assessment. An upscale gas, used to meet a requirement in this section must be either a NIST-traceable reference gas or a gas certified by the gas vendor to ±5.0 percent accuracy.

    4.1.1 CD Requirement. Consistent with 40 CFR 60.13(d) and 63.8(c), you, as source owners or operators of CEMS must check, record, and quantify the CD at two levels, using a zero gas and mid-level gas at least once daily (approximately every 24 hours). Perform the CD check in accordance with the procedure in applicable performance specification (e.g., section 11.8 of PS-18 in appendix B of this part). The daily zero- and mid-level CD must not exceed two times the drift limits specified in the applicable performance specification (e.g., section 13.2 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part.)

    4.1.2 Recording Requirement for CD Corrective action. Corrective actions taken to bring a CEMS back in control after exceeding a CD limit must be recorded and reported with the associated CEMS data. Reporting corrective action must include the unadjusted concentration measured prior to resetting the calibration and the adjusted value after resetting the calibration to bring the CEMS back into control.

    4.1.3 Dynamic Spiking Option for Mid-level CD. For extractive CEMS, you have the option to conduct a daily dynamic spiking procedure found in section 11.8.8 of PS-18 of appendix B of this part in lieu of the daily mid-level CD check. If this option is selected, the daily zero CD check is still required.

    4.1.4 Out of Control Criteria for Excessive CD. As specified in § 63.8(c)(7)(i)(A), a CEMS is out of control if the zero or mid-level CD exceeds two times the applicable CD specification in the applicable PS or in the relevant standard. When a CEMS is out of control, you as owner or operator of the affected source must take the necessary corrective actions and repeat the tests that caused the system to go out of control (in this case, the failed CD check) until the applicable performance requirements are met.

    4.1.5 Additional Quality Assurance for Data above Span. This procedure must be used when required by an applicable regulation and may be used when significant data above span is being collected.

    4.1.5.1 Any time the average measured concentration of HCl exceeds 150 percent of the span value for greater than two hours, conduct the following `above span' CEMS response check.

    4.1.5.1.1 Within a period of 24 hours (before or after) of the `above span' period, introduce a higher, `above span' HCl reference gas standard to the CEMS. Use `above span' reference gas that meets the requirements of section 7.0 of PS-18 and target a concentration level between 75 and 125 percent of the highest hourly concentration measured during the period of measurements above span.

    4.1.5.1.2 Introduce the reference gas at the probe for extractive CEMS or for IP-CEMS as an equivalent path length corrected concentration in the instrument calibration cell.

    4.1.5.1.3 At no time may the `above span' concentration exceed the analyzer full-scale range.

    4.1.5.2 Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The `above span' response check is successful if the value measured by the CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas.

    4.1.5.3 If the `above span' response check is conducted during the period when measured emissions are above span and there is a failure to collect at least one data point in an hour due to the response check duration, then determine the emissions average for that missed hour as the average of hourly averages for the hour preceding the missed hour and the hour following the missed hour.

    4.1.5.4 In the event that the `above span' response check is not successful (i.e., the CEMS measured value is not within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas), then you must normalize the one-hour average stack gas values measured above the span during the 24-hour period preceding or following the `above span' response check for reporting based on the CEMS response to the reference gas as shown in Eq. 6-1:

    ER07JY15.096 4.2 Beam Intensity Requirement for HCl IP-CEMS.

    4.2.1 Beam Intensity Measurement. If you use a HCl IP-CEMS, you must quantify and record the beam intensity of the IP-CEMS in appropriate units at least once daily (approximately 24 hours apart) according to manufacturer's specifications and procedures.

    4.2.2 Out of Control Criteria for Excessive Beam Intensity Loss. If the beam intensity falls below the level established for the operation range determined following the procedures in section 11.2 of PS-18 of this part, then your CEMS is out-of-control. This quality check is independent of whether the CEMS daily CD is acceptable. If your CEMS is out-of-control, take necessary corrective action. You have the option to repeat the beam intensity test procedures in section 11.2 of PS-18 to expand the acceptable range of acceptable beam intensity. Following corrective action, repeat the beam intensity check.

    4.3 Out Of Control Period Duration for Daily Assessments. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the hour in which the owner or operator conducts a daily performance check (e.g., calibration drift or beam intensity check) that indicates an exceedance of the performance requirements established under this procedure. The end of the out-of-control period is the completion of daily assessment of the same type following corrective actions, which shows that the applicable performance requirements have been met.

    4.4 CEMS Data Status During Out-of-Control Period. During the period the CEMS is out-of-control, the CEMS data may not be used in calculating compliance with an emissions limit nor be counted towards meeting minimum data availability as required and described in the applicable regulation or permit.

    5.0 Data Accuracy Assessment

    You must audit your CEMS for the accuracy of HCl measurement on a regular basis at the frequency described in this section, unless otherwise specified in an applicable regulation or permit. Quarterly audits are performed at least once each calendar quarter. Successive quarterly audits, to the extent practicable, shall occur no closer than 2 months apart. Annual audits are performed at least once every four consecutive calendar quarters.

    5.1 Temperature and Pressure Accuracy Assessment for IP CEMS.

    5.1.1 Stack or source gas temperature measurement audits for HCl IP-CEMS must be conducted and recorded at least annually in accordance with the procedure described in section 11.3 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part. As an alternative, temperature measurement devices may be replaced with certified instruments on an annual basis. Units removed from service may be bench tested against an NIST traceable sensor and reused during subsequent years. Any measurement instrument or device that is used to conduct ongoing verification of temperature measurement must have an accuracy that is traceable to NIST.

    5.1.2 Stack or source gas pressure measurement audits for HCl IP-CEMS must be conducted and recorded at least annually in accordance with the procedure described in section 11.4 of PS-18 in appendix B of this part. As an alternative, pressure measurement devices may be replaced with certified instruments on an annual basis. Units removed from service may be bench tested against an NIST traceable sensor and reused during subsequent years. Any measurement instrument or device that is used to conduct ongoing verification of pressure measurement must have an accuracy that is traceable to NIST.

    5.1.3 Out of Control Criteria for Excessive Parameter Verification Inaccuracy. If the temperature or pressure verification audit exceeds the criteria in sections 5.3.4.5 and 5.3.4.6, respectively, the CEMS is out-of-control. If the CEMS is out-of-control, take necessary corrective action to eliminate the problem. Following corrective action, you must repeat the failed verification audit until the temperature or pressure measurement device is operating within the applicable specifications, at which point the out-of-control period ends.

    5.2 Concentration Accuracy Auditing Requirements. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable rule or permit, you must audit the HCl measurement accuracy of each CEMS at least once each calendar quarter, except in the case where the affected facility is off-line (does not operate). In that case, the audit must be performed as soon as is practicable in the quarter in which the unit recommences operation. Successive quarterly audits must, to the extent practicable, be performed no less than 2 months apart. The accuracy audits shall be conducted as follows:

    5.2.1 Relative Accuracy Test Audit. A RATA must be conducted at least once every four calendar quarters, except as otherwise noted in sections 5.2.5 or 5.5 of this procedure. Perform the RATA as described in section 11.9 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part. If the HCl concentration measured by the RM during a RATA (in ppmv) is less than or equal to 20 percent of the concentration equivalent to the applicable emission standard, you must perform a Cylinder Gas Audit (CGA) or a Dynamic Spike Audit (DSA) for at least one subsequent (one of the following three) quarterly accuracy audits.

    5.2.2 Quarterly Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA). A quarterly RAA may be conducted as an option to conducting a RATA in three of four calendar quarters, but in no more than three quarters in succession. To conduct an RAA, follow the test procedures in section 11.9 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part, except that only three test runs are required. The difference between the mean of the RM values and the mean of the CEMS responses relative to the mean of the RM values (or alternatively the emission standard) is used to assess the accuracy of the CEMS. Calculate the RAA results as described in section 6.2. As an alternative to an RAA, a cylinder gas audit or a dynamic spiking audit may be conducted.

    5.2.3 Cylinder Gas Audit. A quarterly CGA may be conducted as an option to conducting a RATA in three of four calendar quarters, but in no more than three consecutive quarters. To perform a CGA, challenge the CEMS with a zero-level and two upscale level audit gases of known concentrations within the following ranges:

    Audit point Audit range 1 (Mid-Level) 50 to 60% of span value. 2 (High-Level) 80 to 100% of span value.

    5.2.3.1 Inject each of the three audit gases (zero and two upscale) three times each for a total of nine injections. Inject the gases in such a manner that the entire CEMS is challenged. Do not inject the same gas concentration twice in succession.

    5.2.3.2 Use HCl audit gases that meet the requirements of section 7 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part.

    5.2.3.3 Calculate results as described in section 6.3.

    5.2.4 Dynamic Spiking Audit. For extractive CEMS, a quarterly DSA may be conducted as an option to conducting a RATA in three of four calendar quarters, but in no more than three quarters in succession.

    5.2.4.1 To conduct a DSA, you must challenge the entire HCl CEMS with a zero gas in accordance with the procedure in section 11.8 of PS-18 in appendix B of this part. You must also conduct the DS procedure as described in appendix A to PS-18 of appendix B to this part. You must conduct three spike injections with each of two upscale level audit gases. The upscale level gases must meet the requirements of section 7 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part and must be chosen to yield concentrations at the analyzer of 50 to 60 percent of span and 80 to 100 percent of span. Do not inject the same gas concentration twice in succession.

    5.2.4.2 Calculate results as described in section 6.4. You must calculate the dynamic spiking error (DSE) for each of the two upscale audit gases using the combination of Equation A5 and A6 in appendix A to PS-18 in appendix B to this part to determine CEMS accuracy.

    5.2.5 Other Alternative Quarterly Audits. Other alternative audit procedures, as approved by the Administrator, may be used for three of four calendar quarters.

    5.3 Out of Control Criteria for Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. If the results of the RATA, RAA, CGA, or DSA do not meet the applicable performance criteria in section 5.3.4, the CEMS is out-of-control. If the CEMS is out-of-control, take necessary corrective action to eliminate the problem. Following corrective action, the CEMS must pass a test of the same type that resulted in the out-of-control period to determine if the CEMS is operating within the specifications (e.g., a RATA must always follow an out-of-control period resulting from a RATA).

    5.3.1 If the audit results show the CEMS to be out-of-control, you must report both the results of the audit showing the CEMS to be out-of-control and the results of the audit following corrective action showing the CEMS to be operating within specifications.

    5.3.2 Out-Of-Control Period Duration for Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the completion of the sampling for the failed RATA, RAA, CGA or DSA. The end of the out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the completion of the sampling of the subsequent successful audit.

    5.3.3 CEMS Data Status During Out-Of-Control Period. During the period the CEMS is out-of-control, the CEMS data may not be used in calculating emission compliance nor be counted towards meeting minimum data availability as required and described in the applicable regulation or permit.

    5.3.4 Criteria for Excessive Quarterly and Yearly Audit Inaccuracy. Unless specified otherwise in the applicable regulation or permit, the criteria for excessive inaccuracy are:

    5.3.4.1 For the RATA, the CEMS must meet the RA specifications in section 13.4 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part.

    5.3.4.2 For the CGA, the accuracy must not exceed 5.0 percent of the span value at the zero gas and the mid- and high-level reference gas concentrations.

    5.3.4.3 For the RAA, the RA must not exceed 20.0 percent of the RMavg as calculated using Equation 6-2 in section 6.2 of this procedure whether calculated in units of HCl concentration or in units of the emission standard. In cases where the RA is calculated on a concentration (ppmv) basis, if the average HCl concentration measured by the RM during the test is less than 75 percent of the HCl concentration equivalent to the applicable standard, you may substitute the equivalent emission standard value (in ppmvw) in the denominator of Equation 6-2 in the place of RMavg and the result of this alternative calculation of RA must not exceed 15.0 percent.

    5.3.4.4 For DSA, the accuracy must not exceed 5.0 percent of the span value at the zero gas and the mid- and high-level reference gas concentrations or 20.0 percent of the applicable emission standard, whichever is greater.

    5.3.4.5 For the gas temperature measurement audit, the CEMS must satisfy the requirements in section 13.7 in PS-18 of appendix B to this part.

    5.3.4.6 For the gas pressure measurement audit, the CEMS must satisfy the requirements in section 13.8 in PS-18 of appendix B to this part.

    5.4 Criteria for Acceptable QC Procedures. Repeated excessive inaccuracies (i.e., out-of-control conditions resulting from the quarterly or yearly audits) indicate that the QC procedures are inadequate or that the CEMS is incapable of providing quality data. Therefore, whenever excessive inaccuracies occur for two consecutive quarters, you must revise the QC procedures (see section 3.0) or modify or replace the CEMS.

    5.5 Criteria for Optional QA Test Frequency. If all the quality criteria are met in sections 4 and 5 of this procedure, the CEMS is in-control.

    5.5.1 Unless otherwise specified in an applicable rule or permit, if the CEMS is in-control and if your source emits ≤75 percent of the HCl emission limit for each averaging period as specified in the relevant standard for eight consecutive quarters that include a minimum of two RATAs, you may revise your auditing procedures to use CGA, RAA or DSA each quarter for seven subsequent quarters following a RATA.

    5.5.2 You must perform at least one RATA that meets the acceptance criteria every 2 years.

    5.5.3 If you fail a RATA, RAA, CGA, or DSA, then the audit schedule in section 5.2 must be followed until the audit results meet the criteria in section 5.3.4 to start requalifying for the optional QA test frequency in section 5.5.

    6.0 Calculations for CEMS Data Accuracy

    6.1 RATA RA Calculation. Follow Equations 9 through 14 in section 12 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part to calculate the RA for the RATA. The RATA must be calculated either in units of the applicable emission standard or in concentration units (ppmv).

    6.2 RAA Accuracy Calculation. Use Equation 6-2 to calculate the accuracy for the RAA. The RA may be calculated in concentration units (ppmv) or in the units of the applicable emission standard.

    ER07JY15.097 Where: RA = Accuracy of the CEMS (percent) MNavg = Average measured CEMS response during the audit in units of applicable standard or appropriate concentration. RMavg = Average reference method value in units of applicable standard or appropriate concentration.

    6.3 CGA Accuracy Calculation. For each gas concentration, determine the average of the three CEMS responses and subtract the average response from the audit gas value. For extractive CEMS, calculate the ME at each gas level using Equation 3A in section 12.3 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part. For IP-CEMS, calculate the ME at each gas level using Equation 6A in section 12.4.3 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part.

    6.4 DSA Accuracy Calculation. DSA accuracy is calculated as a percent of span. To calculate the DSA accuracy for each upscale spike concentration, first calculate the DSE using Equation A5 in appendix A of PS-18 in appendix B to this part. Then use Equation 6-3 to calculate the average DSA accuracy for each upscale spike concentration. To calculate DSA accuracy at the zero level, use equation 3A in section 12.3 of PS-18 in appendix B to this part.

    ER07JY15.098 7.0 Reporting Requirements

    At the reporting interval specified in the applicable regulation or permit, report for each CEMS the quarterly and annual accuracy audit results from section 6 and the daily assessment results from section 4. Unless otherwise specified in the applicable regulation or permit, include all data sheets, calculations, CEMS data records (i.e., charts, records of CEMS responses), reference gas certifications and reference method results necessary to confirm that the performance of the CEMS met the performance specifications.

    7.1 Unless otherwise specified in the applicable regulations or permit, report the daily assessments (CD and beam intensity) and accuracy audit information at the interval for emissions reporting required under the applicable regulations or permits.

    7.1.1 At a minimum, the daily assessments and accuracy audit information reporting must contain the following information:

    a. Company name and address.

    b. Identification and location of monitors in the CEMS.

    c. Manufacturer and model number of each monitor in the CEMS.

    d. Assessment of CEMS data accuracy and date of assessment as determined by a RATA, RAA, CGA or DSA described in section 5 including:

    i. The RA for the RATA;

    ii. The accuracy for the CGA, RAA, or DSA;

    iiii. Temperature and pressure sensor audit results for IP-CEMS;

    iv. The RM results, the reference gas certified values;

    v. The CEMS responses;

    vi. The calculation results as defined in section 6; and

    vii. Results from the performance audit samples described in section 5 and the applicable RMs.

    e. Summary of all out-of-control periods including corrective actions taken when CEMS was determined out-of-control, as described in sections 4 and 5.

    7.1.2 If the accuracy audit results show the CEMS to be out-of-control, you must report both the audit results showing the CEMS to be out-of-control and the results of the audit following corrective action showing the CEMS to be operating within specifications.

    8.0 Bibliography

    1. EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-12/531, May 2012.

    2. Method 205, “Verification of Gas Dilution Systems for Field Instrument Calibrations,” 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.

    9.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts—[Reserved]
    [FR Doc. 2015-16385 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 45 CFR Part 155 [CMS-9944-F2] RIN 0938-AS19 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016; Correcting Amendment AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a technical error that appeared in the final rule published in the February 27, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 10749) entitled “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016.”

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This correction document is effective July 7, 2015.

    Application Date: The correction is applicable as of April 28, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Wu, (301) 492-4305. Krutika Amin, (301) 492-5153. Lindsey Murtagh, 301-492-4106. Rachel Arguello, 301-492-4263. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In FR Doc. 2015-03751 (80 FR 10749 through 10877), the final rule entitled “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016,” there was a technical error in the regulation text that is identified and corrected in this correcting amendment.

    II. Summary of Errors in the Regulation Text

    On page 10867 of the HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016 final rule, there was a technical error in § 155.420(d)(2)(ii). In the preamble, we acknowledged that Exchanges may need more time to implement the necessary functional IT changes, and stated that we were making § 155.420(d)(2)(ii) effective January 1, 2017. However, in the regulatory text, we inadvertently omitted the phrase “Effective January 1, 2017 or earlier . . .” before the phrase “at the option of the Exchange”.

    III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delay in Effective Date

    We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, this notice and comment procedure can be waived if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

    Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

    This document corrects a technical error in the HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016 final rule and is not a substantive change to the standards set forth in the final rule. Therefore, we believe that undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate this correction and delay the effective date for this change is unnecessary. In addition, we believe it is important for the public to have the correct information as soon as possible, and believe it is contrary to the public interest to delay when they become effective. For the reasons stated previously, we find there is good cause to waive notice and comment procedures and the 30-day delay in the effective date for this correction notice.

    List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 155

    Administrative practice and procedure, Health care access, Health insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State and local governments, Cost-sharing reductions, Advance payments of premium tax credit, Administration and calculation of advance payments of the premium tax credit, Plan variations, Actuarial value.

    Accordingly, 45 CFR part 155 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

    PART 155—EXCHANGE ESTABLISHMENT STANDARDS AND OTHER RELATED STANDARDS UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT 1. The authority citation for part 155 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Title I of the Affordable Care Act, sections 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1321, 1322, 1331, 1332, 1334, 1402, 1411, 1412, 1413, Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (42 U.S.C. 18021-18024, 18031-18033, 18041-18042, 18051, 18054, 18071, and 18081-18083).

    2. Section 155.420 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 155.420 Special enrollment periods.

    (d) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) Effective January 1, 2017 or earlier at the option of the Exchange, the enrollee loses a dependent or is no longer considered a dependent through divorce or legal separation as defined by State law in the State in which the divorce or legal separation occurs, or if the enrollee, or his or her dependent, dies.

    Dated: June 29, 2015. Madhura Valverde, Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services. [FR Doc. 2015-16532 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 20 [WT Docket No. 10-4; FCC 14-138] The Commission's Rules To Improve Wireless Coverage Through the Use of Signal Boosters 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 Order on Reconsideration regarding the Commission's rules to Improve Wireless Coverage Through the Use of Signal Boosters, FCC 14-138. This document is consistent with the Order on Reconsideration, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the new information collection requirements.

    DATES:

    47 CFR 20.21(f)(1)(iv)(A)(2) published at 79 FR 70790, November 28, 2014, are effective on July 7, 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 June 17, 2015, OMB approved certain information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Order on Reconsideration, FCC 14-138, published at 79 FR 70790, November 28, 2014. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1189. 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 June 17, 2015, for the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 20.21(f)(1)(iv)(A)(2). 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 3060-1189.

    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: 3060-1189.

    OMB Approval Date: June 17, 2015.

    OMB Expiration Date: June 30, 2018.

    Title: Signal Boosters, sections 1.1307(b)(1), 20.3, 20.21(a)(2), 20.21(a)(5), 20.21(e)(2), 20.21(e)(8)(i)(G), 20.21(e)(9)(i)(H), 20.21(f), 20.21(h), 22.9, 24.9, 27.9. 90.203, 90.219(b)(l)(i), 90.219(d)(5), and 90.219(e)(5).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Not for profit institutions and Individuals or household.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 632,595 respondents and 635,215 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours-40 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, On occasion reporting requirement and Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(I), 303(g), 303(r) and 332.

    Total Annual Burden: 324,470 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: This information collection affects individuals or households; thus, there are impacts under the Privacy Act. However, the government is not directly collecting this information and the R&O directs carriers to protect the information to the extent it is considered Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI).

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

    Needs and Uses: On September 19, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopted an Order on Reconsideration in WT Docket No. 10-4, FCC No. 14-138, in which it took the following action, among others: Required that Consumer Signal Boosters certified for fixed operation only be labeled to notify consumers that such devices may only be used in fixed, in-building locations. Therefore, the new labeling requirement which requires OMB review and approval is as follows:

    The labeling requirement is covered under 47 CFR 20.21(f)(1)(iv)(A)(2). The new requirement is needed in order to ensure that consumers are properly informed about which devices are suitable for their use and how to comply with our rules, the Commission required that all Consumer Signal Boosters certified for fixed, in-building operation include a label directing consumers that the device may only be operated in a fixed, in-building location. The Verizon Petitioners state that this additional labeling requirement is necessary to inform purchasers of fixed Consumer Signal Boosters that they may not lawfully be installed and operated in a moving vehicle or outdoor location. We recognize that our labeling requirement imposes additional costs on entities that manufacture Consumer Signal Boosters; however, on balance, we find that such costs are outweighed by the benefits of ensuring that consumers purchase appropriate devices. Accordingly, all fixed Consumer Signal Boosters, both Provider-Specific and Wideband, manufactured or imported on or after one year from the effective date of the rule change must include the following advisory (1) in on-line point-of-sale marketing materials, (2) in any print or on-line owner's manual and installation instructions, (3) on the outside packaging of the device, and (4) on a label affixed to the device: “This device may be operated ONLY in a fixed location for in-building use.”

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16536 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Part 219 [Docket No. FRA-2001-11213, Notice No. 19] Alcohol and Drug Testing: Reporting Positive Results for Tramadol as a Controlled Substance AGENCY:

    Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces that FRA will begin reporting post-accident toxicological test results for tramadol to the employee and the railroad Medical Review Officers. FRA will also begin including post-accident toxicological test results for tramadol in its post-accident toxicology reports. Because tramadol was not a controlled substance when FRA began testing for it, FRA has kept post-accident toxicological test results for tramadol confidential.

    DATES:

    This document is effective July 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jerry Powers, FRA Drug and Alcohol Program Manager, W33-310, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-493-6313 or [email protected]; or Sam Noe, FRA Drug and Alcohol Program Specialist, telephone 615-719-2951, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FRA's Post-Accident Toxicological Testing Program

    Since 1985, as part of its accident investigation program, FRA has routinely conducted alcohol and drug tests on railroad employees involved in serious train accidents that meet certain criteria specified in FRA's regulations. See 49 CFR 219.201.1 This post-accident testing is used to determine if alcohol misuse or drug abuse played a role in the occurrence or severity of an accident. Since the program's inception, FRA has routinely conducted post-accident tests for alcohol and certain drugs the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classifies as controlled substances.

    1 All references to sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in this document refer to sections within title 49 of the CFR.

    Controlled substances are drugs or chemicals that are prohibited or strictly regulated because of their potential for abuse or addiction. See 77 FR 29307, 29307, May 17, 2002. The DEA oversees the classification of controlled substances into five schedules. Section I contains illicit drugs such as marijuana and heroin, which have no legitimate medical use under Federal law. Schedules II-V contain legal drugs that are available only by prescription. See generally The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).

    FRA has historically conducted post-accident tests for the following controlled substances: Marijuana, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), and selected opioids, amphetamines, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines. Under 49 CFR 219.211(b), FRA reports post-accident test results for these substances to the employee tested and the employing railroad's Medical Review Officer (MRO). See 49 CFR 219.211(b).

    In 2013, FRA amended its alcohol and drug testing regulations to establish post-accident testing for non-controlled substances.2 See 78 FR 14217, Mar. 5, 2013. In the final rule adopting this revision, FRA provided notice of the addition of two non-controlled substances to its standard post-accident testing panel: Tramadol and sedating antihistamines. FRA also made clear that the agency did not intend to report the results of post-accident tests for these non-controlled substances to the employee involved or relevant MRO and instead intended to use the results for research and data purposes only. See id. at 14217 and 14219.

    2 A non-controlled substance is any substance that is not currently regulated under 21 U.S.C. 801-971 or 21 CFR part 1308. See § 219.5. Non-controlled substances can include prescription medications, over-the-counter products, dietary supplements, and herbal preparations. See id.

    DEA's Determination To Schedule Tramadol as a Controlled Substance

    In 2014, after FRA issued its final rule establishing post-accident testing for non-controlled substances, the DEA placed tramadol 3 on the CSA's Schedule IV. See 79 FR 37623-37630, Jul. 2, 2014. The DEA's determination stated that it took into account a scientific and medical evaluation the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) prepared which recommended including tramadol in Schedule IV of the CSA. See id. at 37623. The HHS evaluation analyzed tramadol taking into consideration eight factors listed in 21 U.S.C. 811(c), as well as tramadol's abuse potential, legitimate medical use, and dependence liability. See id. at 37623-37624. In response to public comment, DEA explained that tramadol is considered an opioid because it produces pharmacological effects similar to those produced by other opioids. Id. at 37626. The DEA also noted “tramadol is a widely prescribed drug, with nearly 40 million prescriptions written in 2012.” Id. at 37627 (citations omitted).

    3 The DEA's decision to designate tramadol as a Schedule IV controlled substance applied to the substance 2-[(dimethylamino)methyl]-1-(3-methoxyphenyl)cyclohexanol (tramadol), including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers. See id. at 37623.

    Reporting of Tramadol Positives

    Because the DEA now designates tramadol a controlled substance, FRA's alcohol and drug regulations apply to tramadol use and possession the same as they apply to use and possession of any other controlled substance, such as synthetic opioids and valium. For example, FRA's regulations place certain limitations on a railroad employee's use and possession of controlled substances—those limitations now apply to the use and possession of tramadol by railroad employees. The regulations prohibit a railroad employee from using or possessing a controlled substance while assigned by a railroad to perform covered service,4 except as provided by § 219.103. See 49 CFR 219.101(a)(1). (Section 219.103 provides that subject to certain conditions and limitations, a covered employee may use and possess Schedule II through IV controlled substances if a medical practitioner prescribes or authorizes the use.) The regulations also prohibit a railroad employee who performs covered service from using a controlled substance at any time, whether on or off duty, except as § 219.103 permits. See 49 CFR 219.102. A railroad employee who uses or possesses a controlled substance, including tramadol, in violation of one of these prohibitions is subject to the removal, return-to-service, and follow-up testing requirements of § 219.104.

    4 Covered service is service in the United States that is subject to the hours of service laws at 49 U.S.C. 21103, 21104, or 21105. See 49 CFR 219.5. Covered service does not include any period the employee is relieved of all responsibilities and is free to come and go. See id.

    FRA is issuing this document to (1) make railroads and railroad employees aware of the DEA's classification of tramadol as a controlled substance and (2) remind railroads and individuals subject to FRA's regulations of the effect of the DEA's designation of tramadol as a controlled substance on FRA's post-accident testing program. Issuance of this document does not provide precedent that FRA will notify the industry whenever DEA designates additional drugs as controlled substances or whenever FRA decides to conduct post-accident testing for additional controlled substances. This document is also not an exhaustive discussion of all FRA requirements governing controlled substances.

    Because DEA has designated tramadol as a Schedule IV controlled substance, on July 7, 2015 FRA will begin reporting post-accident test results for tramadol pursuant to § 219.211(b), which provides that post-accident test results for controlled substances will be reported to a railroad's MRO and the employee. FRA also intends to include post-accident test results for tramadol in toxicology reports as § 219.211(f)(2) requires.

    Railroads and MROs must also treat post-accident test results for tramadol consistent with all applicable FRA requirements for controlled substances. For example, like post-accident test results for any controlled substance, an MRO must review tramadol results with respect to any claim of use or administration of tramadol consistent with § 219.103 that could account for the laboratory findings, and must report the results of this review to the employing railroad and FRA. See § 219.211(c). Railroads and MROs must also treat post-accident test results for tramadol as confidential under § 219.211(b). FRA encourages any railroad, railroad employee, or MRO that has questions about post-accident test results for tramadol to contact FRA's Drug and Alcohol Program Manager for guidance.

    Finally, the requirements of §§ 219.101, 219.102, 219.103, and 219.104 now apply to covered employees' use and possession of tramadol.

    Robert C. Lauby, Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16531 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
    80 129 Tuesday, July 7, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2457; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-209-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that some operators have inadvertently removed the existing insulation blankets from the upper wing box area. This proposed AD would require inspecting for and replacing missing insulation blankets in the upper wing box area. We are proposing this AD to detect and replace missing insulation blankets from the upper wing box area, which could result in inadequate thermal protection to prevent fuel ignition in the event of an undetected bleed air leak due to a cracked or ruptured bleed-air duct.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2457; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Morton Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7355; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-2457; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-209-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-35, dated October 17, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was discovered that some operators have inadvertently removed the existing insulation blankets from the upper wing box area while incorporating Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 670BA-36-016 to comply with [Canadian] AD CF-2012-06 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2012-12-02, Amendment 39-17081 (77 FR 36129, June 18, 2012)].

    Without insulation blankets on the upper wing box area, there may be inadequate thermal protection to prevent fuel ignition in the event of an undetected bleed air leak due to a cracked or ruptured bleed-air duct.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection and rectification [i.e., replacement], as required, of the insulation blankets in the upper wing box area.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2457.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23, 2014. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of the insulation blankets in the upper wing box area to find if the blankets are installed, and replacement of missing insulation blankets. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 470 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $159,800, or $340 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take up to 70 work-hours and require parts costing up to $665, for a cost of up to $6,615 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-2457; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-209-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 21, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23, 2014.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that some operators have inadvertently removed the existing insulation blankets from the upper wing box area. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace missing insulation blankets from the upper wing box area, which could result in inadequate thermal protection to prevent fuel ignition in the event of an undetected bleed air leak due to a cracked or ruptured bleed-air duct.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    Within 800 flight hours or 4 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection of the insulation blankets in the upper wing box area to determine whether any insulation blanket is missing in specified areas, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23, 2014.

    (1) If no insulation blanket is missing, no further action is required by this AD.

    (2) If any insulation blanket is missing, within 1,200 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the missing insulation blankets, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23, 2014; except, where Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23, 2014, specifies contacting Bombardier for “an approved disposition to complete this service bulletin,” this AD requires corrective action to be done using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-35, dated October 17, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2457.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16465 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Part 506 [BOP Docket No. 1156-P] RIN 1120-ABXX Inmate Commissary Account Deposit Procedures AGENCY:

    Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to amend its regulations on inmate commissary account deposit procedures and requirements to provide clarification. Specifically, the amendments will clarify that, regardless of the form or method of the deposit (by mail or electronic deposit), the Bureau is authorized to obtain transaction information about the sender, and the sender is required to provide such information to the Bureau and its authorized service providers if the sender seeks to deposit funds in an inmate's commissary account.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street NW., Washington, DC 20534.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Posting of Public Comments

    Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

    If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

    If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment contains so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on www.regulations.gov.

    Personal identifying information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the “For Further Information Contact” paragraph.

    The Proposed Rule: The Bureau proposes to amend and clarify its inmate commissary account regulations, published on July 2, 2004 (69 FR 40315). The proposed revisions are explained below.

    Section 506.1 Purpose

    In this regulation, we reiterate the purpose of the inmate commissary account deposit program, as stated in the current regulation. We also state that the Bureau operates and maintains individual inmate commissary accounts in a manner that preserves the safety, security, and good order of Bureau institutions, and protects the public.

    Section 506.2 Methods of depositing funds into an inmate commissary account

    In this regulation, the Bureau clarifies that funds from family, friends, or other sources, may be deposited into an inmate commissary account by mail or electronic deposit. Subparagraph (a) simply paraphrases language in current § 506.2(a).

    Subparagraph (b) allows for electronic deposits, which may be sent from persons in the community through service providers (for example, a financial institution as defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2), bank, money service business, or money service provider or processor), and forwarded to the individual inmate's commissary account, as authorized and directed by the Bureau.

    Section 506.3 Consent to collection and use of sender's transactional and personal identification data

    This regulation will clarify that persons sending or depositing, or attempting to send or deposit, funds to an inmate's commissary account under this subpart are required to provide all related transactional data, including the sender's personal identification information, to (1) the Bureau; and (2) the service provider(s) (for example, a financial institution, bank, money service business, or money service provider or processor) in accordance with the provisions of its agreement for providing service to the Bureau.

    System of records BOP-006, Inmate Trust Fund Accounts and Commissary Record System, currently authorizes the Bureau to collect “personal identification data for persons who send or receive funds to/from inmates. This regulation serves to put the public on notice that such data will be collected whenever funds are sent or attempted to be sent to an inmate, regardless of the form of the deposit.

    This regulation will also clarify that by sending or depositing, or attempting to send or deposit, funds to an inmate's commissary account under this subpart, a person consents to the collection, review, use, disclosure, and retention of, all related transactional data, including the sender's personal identification information, by both (1) the Bureau, pursuant to the applicable Privacy Act system(s) of records; and (2) the service provider in accordance with the provisions of its agreement for providing service to the Bureau.

    This rule is in compliance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. (the RFPA), which allows federal agencies to have access to or obtain copies of the financial records of any customer from a financial institution only if the financial records are reasonably described and . . . the financial records are disclosed in response to a formal written request which meets certain notice and other technical requirements. 12 U.S.C. 3402(5).

    RFPA provides that a financial institution cannot release a customer's financial records unless and until the federal government authority seeking the records certifies in writing to the financial institution that the authority has complied with the applicable provisions of the RFPA or unless the release of such records falls within one of the RFPA's delineated exceptions.

    The Bureau allows transfers into inmate accounts via the use of “money transmitters,” or “monetary service” providers which do not qualify as “financial institutions” under the RFPA. Except as provided in Section 3414 of the RFPA (which allows for disclosures in connection with terrorism investigations and other exigent circumstances), a “financial institution” means “any office of a bank, savings bank, card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of Title 15 [of the United States Code], industrial loan company, trust company, savings association, building and loan, or homestead association (including cooperative banks), credit union or consumer finance institution located in any State or territory of the United States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands.” 12 U.S.C. 3401(1).

    The “monetary service” providers that facilitate outside deposits into inmate accounts are not among the entities covered by the definition of “financial institution” above. Therefore, such entities are not “financial institutions” for purposes of the RFPA's general restrictions on providing personally identifiable records to federal government authorities.

    Further, the legitimate law enforcement purpose for this rule is to use transactional information of people who deposit funds into inmate accounts in order to detect unlawful activity. Continuous and routine deposits into an inmate's account, sometimes from fraudulent sources, have been linked to unlawful conducting of a business by an inmate or other inmate-involved unlawful activity, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, fraudulent income tax returns, gambling, attempted criminal assault, and other such unlawful activities. This rule is intended to provide notice to those members of the public who deposit funds into inmate accounts that their transactional information will be retained for the purpose of detecting unlawful activity.

    Executive Order 12866

    The Director certifies that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget for review.

    Executive Order 13132

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications for which we would prepare a Federalism Assessment.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation. By approving it, the Director certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities because: This rule is about the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not cause State, local and tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. We do not need to take action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 506

    Prisoners.

    L.C. Eichenlaub, Deputy Director, Bureau of Prisons.

    Under the rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we propose to revise 28 CFR part 506 to read as follows:

    PART 506—INMATE COMMISSARY ACCOUNT Sec. 506.1 Purpose. 506.2 Methods of depositing funds into an inmate commissary account. 506.3 Consent to collection and use of sender's transactional and personal identification data. Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 31 U.S.C. 1321.

    § 506.1 Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to describe the Bureau's operation and maintenance of individual inmate commissary accounts in a manner that preserves the safety, security, and good order of Bureau institutions, and protects the public. Family, friends, or other sources may send and deposit funds into these accounts, and inmates may withdraw funds from these accounts, as authorized by the Bureau.

    § 506.2 Methods of depositing funds into an inmate commissary account.

    Family, friends, and other sources, (such as senders of tax refunds, dividends from stocks, or state benefits) may send or deposit funds into an inmate's commissary account by the following methods:

    (a) By mail. Funds for deposit must be sent to the centralized inmate commissary account address we provide. Deposits must be in the form of a money order made out to the inmate's full name and complete register number. Personal checks will be returned to the sender, if an adequate return address is provided. The deposit envelope must not contain any enclosure(s) intended for delivery to the inmate. Any such enclosure(s) will be disposed.

    (b) By electronic deposit. Electronic deposits of funds may be sent from persons in the community through service providers (for example, a financial institution, bank, money service business, or money service provider or processor), and forwarded to the individual inmate's commissary account, as authorized and directed by the Bureau.

    § 506.3 Consent to collection and use of sender's transactional and personal identification data.

    Persons sending or depositing, or attempting to send or deposit, funds to an inmate's commissary account under this subpart are required to provide, and consent to the collection, review, use, disclosure, and retention of, all related transactional data, including the sender's personal identification information, to:

    (a) The Bureau, pursuant to the applicable Privacy Act system(s) of records; and

    (b) The service provider(s) (for example, a financial institution, bank, money service business, or money service provider or processor) involved with the inmate commissary account program as authorized and directed by the Bureau in accordance with its agreement for providing service to the Bureau.

    [FR Doc. 2015-16637 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
    80 129 Tuesday, July 7, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ashley Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Ashley Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Vernal, Utah. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcvKAAS.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on August 19, 2015.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Ashley National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, 355 North Vernal Avenue, Vernal, Utah.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Ashley NF Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Louis Haynes, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 435-781-5105 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is:

    1. Establish meeting schedule for 2015 and 2016;

    2. Vote for the election of the chairperson; and

    3. Identify potential field trip dates to review completed projects.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by July 29, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Attention: Louis Haynes, RAC Coordinator, Ashley NF Supervisor's Office, 355 North Vernal Avenue, Vernal, Utah 84078; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 435-781-5142.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: June 24, 2015. John R. Erickson, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16592 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Emmett, Idaho. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held August 4, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the USDA Service Center, 1805 Highway 16, Emmett, Idaho.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Emmett Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Newton, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 208-365-7001 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is:

    1. Outline meeting objectives,

    2. Agenda review,

    3. Discussion of administrative needs, and

    4. Review projects submitted for Title II funding.

    The meeting is open to the public. This is the second of two meetings of the RAC to determine which projects will be considered for funding. This first meeting was an initial sort of projects with possible approval of projects; the second meeting allows for additional public input and presentations needed for project clarification. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Richard Newton, RAC Designated Federal Officer, Emmett Ranger District, 1805 Highway 16 #5, Emmett, ID; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 208-374-5623.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Cecelia R. Seesholtz, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16596 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Emmett, Idaho. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held July 21, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the USDA Service Center, 1805 Highway 16, Emmett, Idaho.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Emmett Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Newton, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 208-365-7001 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is:

    1. Outline meeting objectives,

    2. Selection of a new Chairman,

    3. Discussion of administrative needs, and

    4. Review projects submitted for Title II funding.

    The meeting is open to the public. This is the first of two meetings of the RAC to determine which projects will be considered for funding. This first meeting will function as an initial sort of projects with possible approval of projects; the second meeting will allow for additional public input and presentations needed for project clarification. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Richard Newton, RAC Designated Federal Officer, Emmett Ranger District, 1805 Highway 16 #5, Emmett, ID; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 208-374-5623.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Cecelia R. Seesholtz, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16591 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Vote on Final Agenda and Other Logistics for September Meeting Regarding the School to Prison Pipeline in Oklahoma AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Oklahoma Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, July 31, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. CST for the purpose of voting on the final agenda of speakers and other logistics for the September 11, 2015, meeting on the school to prison pipeline in Oklahoma. The Committee approved a project proposal on the topic at its March 27, 2015, meeting.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-337-8169, conference ID: 9565292. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement at the end of the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Member of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by August 31, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=269 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions, Vicki Limas, Chair Discussion and Vote on Agenda for meeting on School to Prison Pipeline in Oklahoma: Oklahoma Advisory Committee Planning Next Steps Open Comment Adjournment
    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, July 31, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

    Public Call Information:

    Dial: 888-337-8169 Conference ID: 9565292 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or [email protected].

    Dated: July 1, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16572 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce.

    Title: Property Management.

    OMB Control Number: 0610-0103.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Ad hoc submission (only when a recipient makes a request).

    Number of Respondents: 150 (54 incidental use requests; 96 for requests to release EDA's Property interest).

    Average Hours per Response: 45 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 413.

    Needs and Uses: A recipient must request in writing EDA's approval to undertake an incidental use of property acquired or improved with EDA's investment assistance (see 13 CFR 314.3 of EDA's regulations). This collection of information allows EDA to determine whether an incidental use of property acquired or improved with EDA investment assistance is appropriate. If a recipient wishes EDA to release its real property or tangible personal property interests before the expiration of the property's estimated useful life, the recipient must submit a written request to EDA and disclose to EDA the intended future use of the real property or the tangible personal property for which the release is requested (see 13 CFR 314.10 of EDA's regulations). This collection of information allows EDA to determine whether to release its real property or tangible personal property interests.

    Affected Public: Current recipients of EDA construction (Public Works or Economic Adjustment) assistance, to include (1) cities or other political subdivisions of a state, including a special purpose unit of state or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; (2) states; (3) institutions of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education; (4) public or private non-profit organizations or associations; (5) District Organizations; and (6) Indian Tribes or a consortia of Indian Tribes.

    Frequency: Ad hoc.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to release EDA's property interest.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Department PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16597 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce.

    Title: Requirements for Approved Construction Investments.

    OMB Control Number: 0610-0096.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 4,200.

    Average Hours per Response: 2.

    Burden Hours: 8,400.

    Needs and Uses: The Summary of EDA Construction Standards (commonly referred to as the “bluebook”) and the Standard Terms and Conditions for Construction Projects, as well as any special conditions incorporated into the terms and conditions at the time of award, supplement the requirements that apply to EDA-funded construction projects. The information collected is used to monitor recipients' compliance with EDA's statutory and regulatory requirements and specific terms and conditions relating to individual awards. EDA also uses the information requested to analyze and evaluate program performance.

    Affected Public: Current recipients of EDA construction (Public Works or Economic Adjustment) assistance, to include (1) cities or other political subdivisions of a state, including a special purpose unit of state or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; (2) states; (3) institutions of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education; (4) public or private non-profit organizations or associations; (5) District Organizations; and (6) Indian Tribes or a consortia of Indian Tribes.

    Frequency: Ad hoc.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Department PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16594 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce.

    Title: Award Amendment Requests and Project Service Maps.

    OMB Control Number: 0610-0102.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 632 (600 requests for amendments to construction awards, 30 requests for amendments to non-construction awards, 2 project service maps).

    Average Hours per Response: 2 hours for an amendment to a construction award, 1 hour for an amendment to a non-construction award, 6 hours for a project service map.

    Burden Hours: 1,242.

    Needs and Uses: A recipient must submit a written request to EDA to amend an investment award and provide such information and documentation as EDA deems necessary to determine the merit of altering the terms of an award (see 13 CFR 302.7(a) of EDA's regulations). EDA may require a recipient to submit a project service map and information from which to determine whether services are provided to all segments of the region being assisted (see CFR 302.16(c) of EDA's regulations).

    Affected Public: Current recipients of EDA construction (Public Works or Economic Adjustment) assistance, to include (1) cities or other political subdivisions of a state, including a special purpose unit of state or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; (2) states; (3) institutions of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education; (4) public or private non-profit organizations or associations; (5) District Organizations; and (6) Indian Tribes or a consortia of Indian Tribes and (7) (for training, research, and technical assistance awards only) individuals and for-profit businesses.

    Frequency: Ad hoc.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Department PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16598 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-801] Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 9, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from the Russian Federation (Russia).1 For the final results, we continue to find that MCC EuroChem has not sold subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR).

    1See Solid Urea From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 19069 (April 9, 2015) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Romani or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0198, and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 9, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results. The POR is July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. We received no comments.

    The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is solid urea, a high-nitrogen content fertilizer which is produced by reacting ammonia with carbon dioxide. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) item number 3102.10.00.00. Previously, such merchandise was classified under item number 480.3000 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    The Department made no changes to its calculations announced in the Preliminary Results.

    Final Results of Review

    For the final results of this review, we determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for MCC EuroChem for the POR.

    Assessment Rates

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 and the Final Modification, 2 the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate all appropriate entries for MCC EuroChem without regard to antidumping duties.

    2See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification).

    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by MCC EuroChem for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.3

    3 For a full discussion, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of solid urea from Russia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for MCC EuroChem will be 0.00 percent, the weighted average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer of the merchandise for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 64.93 percent, the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.4 The rate established in the LTFV investigation for the Soviet Union was applied to each new independent state, including Russia. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    4See Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 52 FR 19557 (May 26, 1987). Also note that following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the antidumping duty order on solid urea from the Soviet Union was transferred to the individual members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. See Solid Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Transfer of the Antidumping Order on Solid Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic States and Opportunity to Comment, 57 FR 28828 (June 29, 1992).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16636 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-601] Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The administrative review covers four exporters, of which the Department selected two mandatory respondents for individual examination (i.e., Changshan Peer Bearing Co. Ltd. (CPZ/SKF); and Yantai CMC Bearing Co., Ltd. (Yantai CMC)). The period of review (POR) is June 1, 2013, through May 31, 2014.

    We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise have been made below normal value (NV). In addition, we preliminarily determine, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), to treat affiliated producers, CPZ/SKF and Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. (SGBC) as a single entity.1 If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    1 The collapsed entity is hereinafter referred to as CPZ/SGBC. For further discussion, see memorandum from The Team to Melissa Skinner, Director Office II, dated June 30, 2015, entitled “Whether to Collapse Changshan Peer Bearing Company Ltd. and Shanghai General Bearing Company Ltd. in the 2013-2014 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China,” (Collapsing Memorandum).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Bailey or Blaine Wiltse, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193 or (202) 482-6345, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes tapered roller bearings. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.2

    2 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated June 30, 2015 entitled “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 2013-2014 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), issued concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As noted above, there are two mandatory respondents in this administrative review: CPZ/SGBC and Yantai CMC. For CPZ/SGBC, we calculated constructed export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

    For Yantai CMC, we preliminarily find that this respondent is ineligible for a separate rate because it has failed to demonstrate an absence of de facto government control in this administrative review. Therefore, we did not calculate a separate margin for Yantai CMC.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B0824 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as the Appendix to this notice.

    Rate for Non-Examined Companies Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of the rate applied to individual respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for separate-rate respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act notes a preference that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using rates for individually-examined respondents which are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where all rates are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, the Department may use “any reasonable method” for assigning a rate to non-examined respondents.

    For these preliminary results, we calculated a margin of zero percent for CPZ/SGBC. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the application of the rate from the previous administrative review to the non-examined separate-rate companies is consistent with precedent 3 and the most appropriate method to determine the separate rate in the instant review. Pursuant to this method, we are preliminarily assigning the margin of 0.65 percent, the most recent margin calculated for the non-examined separate-rate respondents,4 to the non-examined separate-rate respondents in the instant review.

    3See e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 8338, 8342 (February 14, 2011), unchanged in Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940 (August 19, 2011).

    4 This margin is from the 2012-2013 administrative review. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of the New Shipper Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 4244 (January 27, 2015).

    Preliminary Results of Review

    Because Yantai CMC did not demonstrate that it was entitled to a separate rate, the Department preliminarily finds Yantai CMC to be part of the PRC-wide entity.5 The rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity is 92.84 percent.

    5See Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at 8-9. Pursuant to the Department's change in practice, the Department no longer considers the NME entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. See 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, 65970 (November 4, 2013). Under this practice, the NME entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the entity, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate is not subject to change.

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2013, through May 31, 2014:

    Exporters Weighted-average percent margin Changshan Peer Bearing Co., Ltd./Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd 0.00 Percent. Xinchang Kaiyuan Automotive Bearing Co., Ltd.* 0.65 Percent. Ningbo Xinglun Bearings Import & Export Co., Ltd.* 0.65 Percent. * This company demonstrated that it qualified for a separate rate in this administrative review. Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.6 Rebuttals to case briefs may be filed no later than five days after case briefs are filed and all rebuttal briefs must be limited to comments raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.7

    6 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    7See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.8 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.9 If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.10

    8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    9Id.

    10See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit in Room 18022 and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 5 p.m. ET on the due date.

    Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.11 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of this review. For each individually-examined respondent in this review (i.e., CPZ/SGBC) which has a weighted-average dumping margin which is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).12 Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific ad valorem dumping margin is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    11See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    12 In these preliminary results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012). The Department will limit the application of this assessment rate to CPZ/SKF's entries of subject merchandise because SGBC's entries were not subject to the antidumping duty order on TRBs during the POR. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    For the respondents which were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review and which qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the dumping margin assigned to the non-examined separate-rate companies in the 2012-2013 administrative review of TRBs from the PRC.13

    13See “Rate for Non-Examined Companies Which Are Eligible for a Separate Rate” section, above.

    For the final results, if we continue to treat Yantai CMC as part of the PRC-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 92.84 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were exported by Yantai CMC.

    For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.14

    14 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, 92.84 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Discussion of the Methodology a. Non-Market Economy Country b. Separate Rates c. Separate Rate for Non-Selected Companies d. Collapsing of CPZ With Another Producer of TRBs e. Surrogate Country f. Date of Sale g. Normal Value Comparisons 5. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2015-16647 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Changed Circumstances Review of Lanling Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd. AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 23, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of preliminary results of a changed circumstance review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) 1 in response to a request from Lanling Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd. (Qingshui), a producer/exporter of fresh and peeled garlic from the PRC.2 Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216, the Department preliminarily determined that Qingshui is the successor-in-interest to Cangshan Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd. (Cangshan Qingshui) for purposes of the AD order on fresh garlic from the PRC, and, as such, is entitled to Cangshan Qingshui's cash deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. As no parties submitted comments or requested a hearing, the Department continues to find that Qingshui is the successor-in-interest to Cangshan Qingshui for these final results.

    1See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 59209 (November 16, 1994) (Order).

    2See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Changed Circumstances Review of Lanling Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd., 80 FR 15192 (March 23, 2015) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4340.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Based on a request from Qingshui, the Department initiated a CCR on Qingshui to determine whether it is the successor-in-interest to Cangshan Qingshui, for purposes of determining antidumping duties due as a result of the Order. The Department preliminarily determined that Qingshui is the successor-in-interest to Cangshan Qingshui and is entitled to its cash deposit rate with respect to entries of merchandise subject to the AD order on fresh garlic from the PRC.3 The Department provided interested parties 30 days from the date of publication of the preliminary results to submit comments or request a public hearing in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). No parties submitted comments or requests for a public hearing.

    3See Preliminary Results.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of the order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings: 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, 2005.99.9700, and of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to that effect.

    Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Because no party submitted comments opposing the Department's Preliminary Results, and the record contains no other information or evidence that calls into question the Preliminary Results, the Department determines that Qingshui is the successor-in-interest to Cangshan Qingshui.

    Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

    As a result of this determination, the Department finds that Qingshui is entitled to the cash deposit rate previously assigned to Cangshan Qingshui as determined in the new shipper review of Cangshan Qingshui.4 Consequently, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect estimated antidumping duties for all shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Qingshui, and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register at $3.06 per kilogram, which is the current antidumping duty cash deposit rate for Cangshan Qingshui.5 This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until further notice.

    4See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Semiannual Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Jinxiang Merry Vegetable Co., Ltd. and Cangshan Qingshui Vegetable Foods Co., Ltd.; 2012-2013, 79 FR 62103 (October 16, 2014) with accompanying issues and decision memorandum (NSR).

    5See id.

    Notification to Parties

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16644 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket Number: 150414364-5364-01] National Institute of Standards and Technology Plan for Providing Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeks comments on the NIST Plan for Providing Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research (NIST Public Access Plan). NIST is taking steps to make its scientific data and publications more readily available and accessible by the public, as directed in several recent White House memoranda. The NIST Public Access Plan applies to the results of research funded wholly or in part by NIST, presented in peer-reviewed scholarly publications and as research data. This document outlines NIST's plan for implementing new responsibilities and procedures to manage the public access of scientific data and publications. The NIST Public Access Plan was reviewed by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget; they approved it on December 4, 2014. Comments received on the NIST Public Access Plan will inform NIST as it revises its directives that implement the Plan.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on August 21, 2015 to be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: 301-975-8620, Attn: Katherine Sharpless.

    Mail: Katherine Sharpless, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive Stop 4701, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4701.

    Please be aware that all comments will be publicly posted online at http://www.nist.gov/data. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. All comments will be made public; therefore personal, proprietary, or confidential information should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Sharpless by phone at 301-975-3121 or by email at [email protected]

    Please direct media inquiries to Jennifer Huergo, NIST Office of Public Affairs, by phone at 301-975-6343 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one of our Nation's oldest Federal laboratories (for more information, visit www.nist.gov). As a bureau in the Department of Commerce, the NIST mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. From early electrical measurement research to today's quantum information science, NIST has long been, and continues to be, a center for high-impact research meeting the needs of academia, industry, and government. The NIST laboratories conduct world-class research, often in close collaboration with industry, which advances the nation's technology infrastructure and helps U.S. companies continually improve products and services.

    NIST publishes this notice to seek comments on the NIST Plan for Providing Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research (NIST Public Access Plan), posted at www.nist.gov/data. The NIST Public Access Plan documents NIST's plan to implement new responsibilities and procedures to manage the public access of scientific data and publications. Comments received on the NIST Public Access Plan will inform NIST as it revises its directives that implement the Plan.

    NIST is taking steps to make its scientific data and publications more readily available and accessible by the public, as directed in several recent White House memoranda, Office of Management and Budget Memoranda M-10-06, Open Government Directive, and M-13-13, Open Data Policy—Managing Information as an Asset; and the February 22, 2013, Office of Science and Technology Policy Memorandum, Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research.

    The NIST Public Access Plan applies to the results of research funded wholly or in part by NIST, presented in peer-reviewed scholarly publications and as research data. Research data means the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings, but not any of the following: preliminary analyses,1 drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues. This “recorded” material excludes physical objects (e.g., laboratory samples). Research data does not include: Trade secrets, commercial information, materials necessary to be held confidential by a researcher until they are published, or similar information which is protected under law; and personnel and medical information and similar information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, such as information that could be used to identify a particular person in a research study.2

    1 For purposes of NIST's Public Access Plan, NIST considers the contents of laboratory notebooks to be preliminary analyses.

    2 For purposes of this notice, NIST is adopting the definition of “research data” provided in 2 CFR 200.315(e)(3). http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title2-vol1/pdf/CFR-2014-title2-vol1-sec200-315.pdf.

    Putting new plans in place to manage public access to NIST data and publications stands to significantly benefit the public and NIST by ensuring that the integrity of NIST data and publications is maintained throughout their life cycles, and by increasing the visibility of NIST measurements, standards, technology, and research activities. Stakeholder consultation is a critical step in the development of NIST's plan for managing public access to research results.

    In May 2013, NIST co-sponsored two public comment meetings at the National Academy of Sciences on providing public access to federally supported R&D data and publications.3 The stakeholder input gathered at these public meetings and information from ongoing dialogue with other Federal agencies were considered in the development of the NIST Public Access Plan. NIST invites respondents to comment on the following questions that pertain to the implementation of its public access policy:

    3Public Comment Meeting Concerning Public Access to Federally Supported R&D Publications Workshop, held May 14-15, 2013, and Public Comment Meeting Concerning Public Access to Federally Supported R&D Data Workshop, held May 16-17, 2013, at the National Academy of Sciences.

    • What are the best practices (from academia, industry, and other stakeholder communities) in managing public access of data?

    • What are the biggest challenges to implementing a public access policy, and how can these challenges be addressed?

    • What criteria could the NIST laboratories use in prioritizing the public release of datasets?

    • How can NIST improve its plan to provide greater public access to NIST data?

    All comments must be received in accordance with the DATES section of the notice above.

    Richard Cavanagh, Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16508 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE024 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Four Points by Sheraton (formerly Sheraton Colonial), 1 Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01880; telephone: (781) 245-9300; fax: (781) 245-0842.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The committee plans to address elements of 2016-2018 Atlantic herring fishery specifications, including the specification of management uncertainty, the stockwide Atlantic herring annual catch limit (ACL), domestic annual harvesting (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), U.S. at-sea processing (USAP), Border Transfer (BT), fixed gear set-aside (FGSA), and Research Set-Aside (RSA). They also plan to develop options (as appropriate) for 2016-2018 Atlantic herring sub-ACLs (by management area) and gear/area catch caps for river herring and shad (RH/S). The committee will develop recommendations for seasonal sub-ACLs in any management areas. Additionally, they will discuss and develop options (as appropriate) to modify management measures related to Atlantic herring RSAs. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16564 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Appointments to Performance Review Board for Senior Executive Service AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Appointment of Performance Review Board for Senior Executive Service.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee For Purchase from People Who Are Blind Or Severely Disabled (Committee) has announced appointments to the Committee Performance Review Board.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    For Further Information or to Submit Comments Contact: Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    All appointments are made pursuant to Section 4314 of Chapter 43 of Title 5 of the United States Code.

    Appointments

    The following individuals are appointed as members of the Committee Performance Review Board responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities on performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for Senior Executive Service employees:

    Perry E. Anthony, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Department of Education. James M. Kesteloot, Private Citizen. Lisa Wilusz, Director, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Department of Agriculture. DATES:

    Effective Date: July 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16529 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted to OMB within 30 days of the notice's publication. Comments, identified by “Process for Review of Swaps for Mandatory Clearing (OMB Control No. 3038-0097),” should be mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments may also be submitted directly to OMB within 30 days of the notice's publication by email at [email protected]

    Comments may be also be submitted, regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, identified by “Process for Review of Swaps for Mandatory Clearing (OMB Control No. 3038-0097),” by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, via its Comments Online process: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

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

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eileen Chotiner, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5467; email: [email protected] and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0097.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Title: “Process for Review of Swaps for Mandatory Clearing,” (OMB Control No. 3038-0097).

    Abstract: The Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations require a derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) that wishes to accept a swap for clearing to be eligible to clear the swap and to submit the swap to the Commission for a determination as to whether the swap is required to be cleared. Commission Regulation 39.5 sets forth the process for these submissions. The Commission uses the information in this collection to determine whether a DCO that wishes to accept a swap for clearing is eligible to clear the swap and whether the swap should be required to be cleared.

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 40 hours per response.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Derivatives clearing organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 14.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 560 hours.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: July 1, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16611 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Threat Reduction Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Federal Advisory Committee meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense announces the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, July 15, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Thursday, July 16, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    CENTRA Technology Inc., Arlington, Virginia.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency/J2/5/8R-AC, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 767-4453. Fax: (703) 767-4206.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to difficulties beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer, the Department of Defense was unable to finalize the meeting announcement for the scheduled meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee on July 15-16, 2015, to ensure compliance with 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    Purpose of Meeting: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The TRAC will obtain, review and evaluate classified information related to the Committee's mission to advise on technology security, Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (C-WMD), counter terrorism and counter proliferation.

    Agenda: All discussions for the two-day meeting will be classified. On Wednesday, July 15, the Chair will open the meeting with remarks that outline the topics that will be covered in the two-day meeting. Following the opening remarks, the TRAC will receive a brief on the Office of Net Assessment and China. Following that brief, a representative from the Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee will brief the TRAC on Russian Weapons Technology. The TRAC will then receive an overview brief on the National Nuclear Security Agency. Following the briefing, the TRAC will receive an overview brief that focuses on Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology. The first day will conclude with a TRAC-only session to discuss the information presented and how it relates to previous and current TRAC studies. The TRAC will continue to meet on July 16, 2015. The Chair will open the day with brief comments that summarize the previous day and outline the current day. Following his comments, the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency & U.S. Strategic Center for Combatting Weapons of Mass Destruction & Standing Joint Force Headquarters—Elimination, will provide an overview of the organization to the TRAC. Following that, the TRAC will discuss the findings and recommendations from the Nuclear Strategic Stability focused information gathering group. Following that, the TRAC will discuss two new taskings: one that will focus on emerging issues for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency & U.S. Strategic Center for Combatting Weapons of Mass Destruction & Standing Joint Force Headquarters—Elimination, and the other will focus on North Korea. Following that, the Chair will lead a discussion on a new tasking, which will focus entirely on Russia and China. The Chair will conclude the meeting by providing an outline for the way forward and expectations for the next plenary that will take place in the fall.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with the Department of Defense FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that the public interest requires all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because the discussions will be concerned with classified information and matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). Such classified matters are inextricably intertwined with the unclassified material and cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without disclosing secret material.

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency/J/2/5/8R-ACP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 767-4453. Fax: (703) 767-4206.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Committee at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer. The Designated Federal Officer's contact information is listed in the section immediately above or it can be obtained from the General Services Administration's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=1663&aid=41.

    Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Committee may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all TRAC members.

    Dated: July 1, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16578 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.259A.] Final Waiver and Extension of the Project Period; Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program AGENCY:

    Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Final waiver and extension of the project period.

    SUMMARY:

    For the 24-month projects funded in fiscal year (FY) 2013 under the Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program (NHCTEP), the Secretary waives the requirements that generally prohibit project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. The Secretary also extends the project period of the seven current grants for up to an additional 24 months. This enables the current NHCTEP grantees to request and continue to receive Federal funding annually for project periods through FY 2016 and possibly through FY 2017.

    DATES:

    The waiver and extension of the project period is effective July 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Linda Mayo, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11075, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7241. Telephone: (202) 245-7792, or by email at: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 10, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 7379) a proposed waiver of 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2) and extension of the project period (proposed waiver and extension) in order to—

    (1) Enable the Secretary to provide additional funds to the current NHCTEP grantees with FY 2015 funds and possibly FY 2016 funds for project periods through FY 2016 and possibly through FY 2017; and

    (2) Request comments on the proposed waiver and extension.

    There are no substantive differences between the proposed waiver and extension and the final waiver and extension.

    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the proposed waiver and extension, we received six comments. Generally, we do not address comments that raise concerns not related to the proposed waiver and extension.

    Analysis of Comments and Discussion

    An analysis of the comments received in response to the proposed waiver and extension follows.

    Comment: Almost all commenters supported the proposed waiver and extension of the NHCTEP project period. The commenters provided various reasons for their support of the waiver and extension, including the great need for funding beyond the two-year project period.

    One commenter, who supported the proposed waiver and extension, stated that an abrupt suspension in the NHCTEP grantees' training services, as well as outreach, recruitment, academic, and retention efforts, would be detrimental to students who would then have to rely on welfare services instead of vocational training opportunities.

    Another commenter stated that the continuity of funding would be a tremendous stabilizing benefit to the program and students. The commenter further stated that NHCTEP grantees have placed students in well-paying jobs with opportunities for advancement and the continuity of support would be more effective in maintaining their high-quality services. The commenter expressed the view that the extension would also help maximize their recruitment efforts, as well as positively affect the direct participation and completion of the Native Hawaiian students enrolled in NHCTEP-funded projects.

    Two commenters indicated that the continuation of an existing NHCTEP grantee's program and its consortium of sub-grantees would allow them to continue to provide valued career and technical education (CTE) services to Native Hawaiian students, including special needs students. Also, the commenters stated that continuation grant awards would allow the consortium to continue providing specialized CTE training that would maximize both the participation and completion of Native Hawaiian students.

    Finally, a commenter stated that the proposed waiver and extension would allow NHCTEP-funded projects more time to prepare Native Hawaiian high school students for postsecondary training or the workforce.

    Discussion: We appreciate the support of the commenters and agree that extending the current NHCTEP grant period will allow current NHCTEP grantees to continue to work toward accomplishing the goals and objectives stated in their 2013 NHCTEP grant applications, including providing specialized CTE training to Native Hawaiian students. We agree that it is important that there not be a lapse in programming provided by NHCTEP grantees to CTE students.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter asked why the Department used the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for this proposed waiver and extension. The commenter characterized the waiver and extension as a general statement of policy that would not fall within the APA's notice and comment rulemaking requirements, and inquired as to why the Department treated the waiver and extension differently. The commenter also cited the APA's exception of interpretive rules and statements of policy from the requirement for rules to have an effective date no fewer than 30 days after their date of publication.

    Discussion: The APA defines a “rule” as “an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy” and requires agencies to follow notice and comment procedures when formulating, amending, or repealing rules. 5 U.S.C. 551, 553. As the commenter notes, the APA provides some exceptions to this requirement. For instance, absent another statute to the contrary, the APA exempts “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” from its notice and comment rulemaking requirements. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). In addition, the APA exempts “matter[s] relating to . . . loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from notice and comment rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

    However, the General Education Provisions Act limits applicability of the APA's grants exemption to regulations (1) governing the first grant program under a new or substantially revised program authority, or (2) where the Secretary finds that use of notice and comment rulemaking would cause “extreme hardship to the intended beneficiaries of the program affected by such regulations.” 20 U.S.C. 1232(d). Neither of those two exceptions was applicable. As a result, the Department followed its standard practice of utilizing notice and comment rulemaking procedures for rules governing its grant programs.

    The commenter is correct that the proposed waiver and extension could arguably be construed as an interpretive rule, which would not require use of the APA's notice and comment procedures. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). However, it is the Department's general practice to err on the side of providing the public with more openness, accessibility and transparency into its actions whenever practicable. This is especially true where, as here, no party is likely to be adversely affected by the Department's decision to seek notice and comment.

    Changes: None.

    Background

    NHCTEP, authorized by section 116 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (the Perkins Act), supports grants to community-based organizations primarily serving and representing Native Hawaiians. Under this program, grantees carry out projects that provide organized educational activities offering a sequence of courses that—

    (a) Provides individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and careers in current or emerging professions;

    (b) Provides technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and

    (c) Includes competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, technical and occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all aspects of an industry, including entrepreneurship, of an individual. Projects may include prerequisite courses (other than remedial courses) that meet the definitional requirements of section 3(5)(A) of the Perkins Act (20 U.S.C. 2302(5)(A)).

    On June 14, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 35877) a notice inviting applications for NHCTEP grants (2013 NIA). Although the Secretary invited applications with a proposed project period of five years in previous NHCTEP competitions, in 2013, in anticipation of congressional reauthorization of the Perkins Act, the Department invited applications with proposed project periods of two years. The project periods for the NHCTEP projects funded under the 2013 NIA are scheduled to end in FY 2015. Because there is the potential for changes in the Perkins Act for NHCTEP beyond 2015, we do not believe it is in the public interest to hold a new NHCTEP competition in FY 2015 for projects that may then operate for just one year, or to announce a competition under which eligible entities would be expected to proceed through the application preparation and submission process while lacking critical information about the future of the program. Further, we do not think that it is in the public interest to have a lapse in the services currently provided by the NHCTEP grantees.

    For these reasons, the Secretary waives the requirements of 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2) that generally prohibit project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds and extends the NHCTEP project period for up to 24 months. The waiver and extension will allow the current NHCTEP grantees to request and receive Federal funding annually for project periods through FY 2016 and possibly through FY 2017. We will fund the extended project period by using funds appropriated for FY 2015 or FY 2016, depending on whether the grants are extended for one or two years.

    Any activities carried out during the period of a NHCTEP continuation award will have to be consistent with, or a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantee's application as approved in the FY 2013 NHCTEP competition. The requirements applicable to continuation awards for this competition set forth in the 2013 NIA and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 will apply to any continuation awards sought by the current NHCTEP grantees. We will base our decisions regarding continuation awards on the program narratives, budgets, budget narratives, and program performance reports submitted by the current grantees, and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253.

    The waiver and extension will not exempt the current NHCTEP grantees from the appropriation account closing provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), nor will they extend the availability of funds previously awarded to current NHCTEP grantees. As a result of 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), appropriations available for a limited period may be used for payment of valid obligations for only five years after the expiration of their period of availability for Federal obligation. After that time, the unexpended balance of those funds is canceled and returned to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and is unavailable for restoration for any purpose (31 U.S.C. 1552(b)).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that the final waiver and extension and the activities required to support additional years of funding will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that will be affected by this waiver and extension are the seven currently funded NHCTEP grantees and any potential applicants.

    The Secretary further certifies that the final waiver and extension will not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the extension of an existing project imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional years of funding will not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This waiver and extension does not contain any information collection requirements.

    Intergovernmental Review

    NHCTEP is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: July 1, 2015. Johan E. Uvin, Acting Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16622 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0026] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Internship/Residency and Loan Debt Burden Forbearance Forms AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 6, 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-0026 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 2E103, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ian Foss, 202-377-3681.

    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: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Internship/Residency and Loan Debt Burden Forbearance Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0018.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 27,042.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 6,393.

    Abstract: These forms serve as the means by which borrowers in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan), Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) and the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Programs may request forbearance of repayment on their loans if they meet certain conditions. The U.S. Department of Education and other loan holders uses the information collected on these forms to determine whether a borrower meets the eligibility requirements for the specific type of forbearance.

    Dated: July 1, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16581 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0028] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Deferment Request Forms AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 6, 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-0028 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 2E103, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ian Foss, 202-377-3681.

    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: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Deferment Request Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0011.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,345,642.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 535,303.

    Abstract: These forms serve as the means by which borrowers in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan), Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) and the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Programs may request deferment of repayment on their loans if they meet certain statutory and regulatory criteria. The U.S. Department of Education and other loan holders uses the information collected on these forms to determine whether a borrower meets the eligibility requirements for the specific deferment type being submitted.

    Dated: July 1, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16582 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1083-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (Petrohawk 41455-26) to be effective 6/26/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150626-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1084-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: July 1-31 2015 Auction to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150626-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1085-000.

    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, L.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2015/6/26 Housekeeping Filing to be effective 6/27/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150626-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1086-000.

    Applicants: Southeast Supply Header, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Moving Negotiated Rates to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1087-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: U2GC FT-1 8-1-2015 Non-conforming Agreements to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5231.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1088-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement Update (APS July 2015) to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5243.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16609 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-80-000] Advanced Energy Management Alliance Coalition v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 29, 2015, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e), Advanced Energy Management Alliance Coalition (AEMA Coalition or Complainant),1 filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Respondent), alleging that the Respondent violated the filed rate doctrine and, in the alternative, FPA section 206, by precluding Demand Response Resources and Energy Efficiency Resources from participating in imminent Capacity Performance Transition Incremental Auctions, in contravention of its Open Access Transmission Tariff, as more fully explained in the complaint.

    1 The AEMA Coalition includes, for purposes of this complaint proceeding, the Advanced Energy Management Alliance, CPower, EnergyConnect, Inc., Enernoc, Inc. and EMC2 Development Company, Inc. The AEMA is a trade association that serves leading demand response providers and their customers.

    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 9, 2015.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16604 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL11-66-001] Notice of Filing

    Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General; Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority; Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities; New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission; Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel; Maine Office of the Public Advocate; George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General; New Hampshire Office of Consumer Advocate; Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers; Vermont Department of Public Service; Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company; Associated Industries of Massachusetts; The Energy Consortium; Power Options, Inc.; and the Industrial Energy Consumer Group, v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Company; Central Maine Power Company; New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid; New Hampshire Transmission LLC d/b/a NextEra; NSTAR Electric and Gas Corporation; Northeast Utilities Service Company; The United Illuminating Company; Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. and Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company; Vermont Transco, LLC

    Take notice that on June 29, 2015, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company submitted tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report to be effective N/A, pursuant to the Commission's Opinion No. 531-A, issued on October 16, 2014.1

    1Martha Coakley, Mass. Attorney Gen., et al. v. Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co., et al., Opinion No. 531, 147 FERC ¶ 61,234 (2014) (Opinion No. 531), order on paper hearing, Opinion No. 531-A, 149 FERC ¶ 61,032 (2014) (Opinion No. 531-A).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 20, 2015.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16606 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-160-000.

    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Consolidation of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action and Certain Waivers of Westar Energy, Inc.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5304.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-100-000.

    Applicants: Greenleaf Energy Unit 1 LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Greenleaf Energy Unit 1 LLC as an EWG.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-101-000.

    Applicants: Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5263.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1959-004; ER15-2026-001; ER15-2025-001; ER15-2024-001; ER15-2023-001; ER15-2022-001; ER15-2020-001; ER15-2018-001; ER15-2016-001; ER15-2015-001; ER15-2014-001; ER15-2013-001; ER13-2308-003; ER12-2513-005; ER12-2512-005; ER12-2511-005; ER12-2510-005; ER10-2499-001; ER10-2446-008; ER10-2444-008; ER10-2442-008; ER10-2440-008; ER10-2435-008; ER10-2432-008.

    Applicants: Lower Mount Bethel Energy, LLC, Brunner Island, LLC, Holtwood, LLC, Martins Creek, LLC, Montour, LLC, Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, Talen Ironwood, LLC, Talen Montana, LLC, Talen New Jersey Biogas, LLC, Talen New Jersey Solar, LLC, Talen Renewable Energy, LLC, Brandon Shores LLC, H.A. Wagner LLC, Raven Power Marketing LLC, Bayonne Plant Holding, L.L.C., Camden Plant Holding, L.L.C., Dartmouth Power Associates Limited Partnership, Newark Bay Cogeneration Partnership L.P., Pedricktown Cogeneration Company LP, Sapphire Power Marketing LLC, York Generation Company LLC, C.P. Crane LLC, Elmwood Park Power, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Talen Energy Corporation public utility subsidiaries.

    Filed Date: 6/26/15.

    Accession Number: 20150626-5333.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2331-032; ER14-630-009; ER10-2319-024; ER10-2317-024; ER10-2326-030; ER14-1468-008; ER13-1351-006; ER10-2330-031.

    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, AlphaGen Power LLC, BE Alabama LLC, BE CA LLC, Cedar Brakes I, L.L.C., KMC Thermo, LLC, Florida Power Development LLC, Utility Contract Funding, L.L.C.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the JP Morgan Sellers.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5258.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1494-002.

    Applicants: Convergent Energy and Power Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority to be effective 6/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2060-000.

    Applicants: Maine Electric Power Company, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended & Restated Second E&P Agmt with Number Nine Wind Farm LLC to be effective 6/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2061-000.

    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancel Tariff ID to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5245.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2062-000.

    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Administrative Re-File to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2063-000.

    Applicants: Rising Tree Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended SFA to be effective 8/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5248.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2064-000.

    Applicants: Rising Tree Wind Farm III LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended SFA to be effective 8/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5249.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2065-000.

    Applicants: Rising Tree Wind Farm II LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended SFA to be effective 8/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5251.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2066-000.

    Applicants: Rising Tree Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended Co-Tenancy Agmnt to be effective 8/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2067-000.

    Applicants: Rising Tree Wind Farm III LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended Co-Tenancy Agmnt to be effective 8/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2068-000.

    Applicants: Rising Tree Wind Farm II LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended Co-Tenancy Agmnt to be effective 8/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2069-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Application of NorthWestern Corporation regarding Formula Rate and Protocols to be included in Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s Tariff.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5293.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2070-000.

    Applicants: Vermont Transco, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Vermont Transco LLC Updated Exhibit A for the 1991 Transmission Agreement to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2071-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: SA 31 13th Revised—NITSA with ConocoPhillips Company to be effective 9/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5148.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2072-000.

    Applicants: Cedar Brakes I, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of cancellation to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2073-000.

    Applicants: Consolidated Water Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Amendment to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5169.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2074-000.

    Applicants: Escanaba Paper Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Amendment to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5171.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2075-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: North Western Corporation (South Dakota) Formula Rate to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2076-000.

    Applicants: NewPage Energy Services, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Amendment to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2077-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: City of Williston Amendment RS No. 220 to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2078-000.

    Applicants: Talen Energy Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession to Reactive Tarifff to be effective 6/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2079-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO 205 filing EPC agreement among NYISO, NYSEG and CPV Valley to be effective 6/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2080-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA Service Agreement No. 4186; Queue No. Z1-068 to be effective 6/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR15-10-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    Description: Supplement to May 29, 2015 North American Electric Reliability Corporation's Report of Budgeted to Actual Costs for 2014 for NERC and the Regional Entities under RR15-10.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5298.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16602 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1585-008; ER10-1594-008; ER10-1616-004; ER10-1617-008; ER10-1623-004; ER12-60-010; ER10-1632-010; ER10-1628-008.

    Applicants: Alabama Electric Marketing, LLC, California Electric Marketing, LLC, New Covert Generating Company, LLC, New Mexico Electric Marketing, LLC, Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd., Tenaska Power Management, LLC, Tenaska Power Services Co., Texas Electric Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for the Central Region of the Tenaska MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5259.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2394-003; ER10-2395-003; ER10-2422-003; ER10-2389-002.

    Applicants: BIV Generation Company, L.L.C., Colorado Power Partners, Rocky Mountain Power, LLC, San Joaquin Cogen, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of BIV Generation Company, L.L.C., et al.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5309.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2405-004.

    Applicants: High Prairie Wind Farm II, LLC.

    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for Central Region of High Prairie Wind Farm II, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5252.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2417-002; ER13-122-002.

    Applicants: ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Complex, ExxonMobil Beaumont Complex.

    Description: Triennial Market-Power Analysis for the Central Region of ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Complex, et al.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5317.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2507-005.

    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis of Westar Energy, Inc.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5313.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2615-006; ER11-2335-007.

    Applicants: Plum Point Energy Associates, LLC, Plum Point Services Company, LLC.

    Description: Triennial MBR Filing of Plum Point Energy Associates, LLC and Plum Point Services Company, LLC. et al.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5316.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3079-009.

    Applicants: Tyr Energy, LLC.

    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis of Tyr Energy, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5310.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-738-004; ER11-3097-008; ER10-1212-007; ER10-1186-007; ER10-1277-007; ER10-1211-007; ER10-1188-007; ER10-1329-007.

    Applicants: DTE Electric Company, DTE Energy Trading, Inc., DTE River Rouge No. 1, LLC, DTE Energy Supply, Inc., DTE East China, LLC, DTE Pontiac North, LLC, St. Paul Cogeneration, LLC, DTE Stoneman, LLC.

    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Central Region of the DTE MBR Entities.

    Filed Date: 6/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150629-5311.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2081-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA Service Agreement No. 4187; Queue No. Z2-099 to be effective 6/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5256.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2082-000.

    Applicants: ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Complex.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5266.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2083-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO 205 filing EPC agreement among NYISO, Central Hudson and CPV Valley to be effective 6/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5269.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2084-000.

    Applicants: LG&E Energy Marketing Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/30/15.

    Accession Number: 20150630-5272.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16603 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1136-000.

    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: Annual Report of Transportation Imbalances and Cash Out Activity.

    Filed Date: 4/27/12.

    Accession Number: 20120427-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-171-000.

    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Report Filing: Notice of Auxiliary Installation Reimbursement Fee Effective Date.

    Filed Date: 6/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150622-5154.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-23-007.

    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.

    Description: Settlement Agreement.

    Filed Date: 6/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150622-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1195-003.

    Applicants: Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Tariff Record Correction Compliance to be effective 10/31/2014.

    Filed Date: 6/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20150618-5095

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 29, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16588 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER15-1308-000; ER15-1308-001] Kingfisher Wind, LLC; Order Granting Market-Based Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers and Providing Guidance on Vertical Market Power Representations Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark, and Colette D. Honorable.

    1. In this order, we grant Kingfisher Wind, LLC (Kingfisher Wind) authority to make wholesale sales of electric energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates, effective June 30, 2015, as requested. Also, as discussed below, we grant Kingfisher Wind's request for waiver of the Commission's requirements to file an Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), to establish and maintain an Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS), and to comply with the Commission's Standards of Conduct. In addition, as discussed below, we provide guidance with regard to interconnection facilities that qualify for the blanket OATT waiver provided in Order No. 807.1 We also grant Kingfisher Wind's request for other waivers commonly granted to market-based rate sellers, except as noted herein.

    1 Subsequent to the filing of this application, the Commission issued Order No. 807, which will be effective June 30, 2015. In Order No. 807, the Commission amended its regulations to waive the OATT requirements of 18 CFR 35.28, the OASIS requirements of part 37, and the Standards of Conduct requirements of part 358, under certain conditions, for entities that own interconnection facilities. See Open Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities, Order No. 807, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,367 (2015).

    2. Additionally, we find that Kingfisher Wind meets the criteria for a Category 1 seller in the Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, Southeast, and Central regions and a Category 2 seller in the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) region, and is so designated. Kingfisher Wind must file updated market power analyses for the SPP region in compliance with the regional reporting schedule adopted in Order No. 697.2

    2See Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252, at PP 848-850, clarified, 121 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007) (Clarification Order), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,268, clarified, 124 FERC ¶ 61,055, order on reh'g, Order No. 697-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,285 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,291 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-D, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,305 (2010), aff'd sub nom. Mont. Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 26 (2012).

    I. Background

    3. On March 17, 2015, as amended May 18, 2015, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),3 Kingfisher Wind filed an application for market-based rate authority with an accompanying tariff providing for the sale of electric energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates.4

    3 16 U.S.C. 824d (2012).

    4 Kingfisher Wind requests authorization to sell ancillary services in the markets administered by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., ISO New England Inc., California Independent System Operator Corp., Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), and SPP, as well as authorization to engage in the sale of certain ancillary services as a third-party provider in other markets.

    4. Kingfisher Wind states that it owns a 298 megawatt (MW) wind generation facility located in Canadian and Kingfisher Counties, Oklahoma (the Project), within the SPP market.

    5. Kingfisher Wind states that it will also own limited interconnection facilities which will consist of 34.5 kilovolt (kV) collection lines and related facilities, including a collection substation, transformers and disconnect switches, and a share of a 25-mile, 345 kV generator tie line and related equipment and facilities (Shared Facilities) 5 that are necessary to interconnect the Project to the 345 kV Cimarron substation owned by OG&E and the transmission system operated by SPP.

    5 Kingfisher Wind states that it will acquire 30 percent tenancy-in-common interests of the Shared Facilities from Canadian Hills Wind, LLC (Canadian Hills). Kingfisher adds that Canadian Hills is an exempt wholesale generator which owns and operates a wind generation facility that is interconnected with the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) transmission system via the Shared Facilities. Kingfisher Wind states that the Commission granted Canadian Hills waiver of the OATT requirement. See Canadian Hills Wind, LLC, 143 FERC ¶ 61,261 (2013); see also Canadian Hills Wind, LLC, Docket No. ER15-1372-000 (May 14, 2015) (delegated letter order).

    6. Kingfisher Wind states that it will utilize the interconnection facilities solely to interconnect the Project to the transmission system operated by SPP. Kingfisher Wind states that the interconnection facilities do not comprise an integrated transmission system and are limited and discrete. Kingfisher Wind requests that the Commission waive the requirements under Order Nos. 888,6 889,7 890,8 2004,9 and 717,10 and section 35.28,11 and Parts 37 12 and 358 13 of the Commission's regulations for all of the limited interconnection facilities, including but not limited to, the Shared Facilities.

    6Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048, order on reh'g, Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).

    7Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,035 (1996), order on reh'g, Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,049, reh'g denied, Order No. 889-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,253 (1997).

    8Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241, order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ¶ 61,228, order on clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2009).

    9Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 2004, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,155 (2003), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,161, order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,166, order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,172 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-D, 110 FERC ¶ 61,320 (2005), vacated and remanded as it applies to natural gas pipelines sub nom. National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC, 468 F.3d 831 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 690, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,237, order on reh'g, Order No. 690-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,243 (2007).

    10Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 717, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,280 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 717-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,297, order on reh'g, Order No. 717-B, 129 FERC ¶ 61,123 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 717-C, 131 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2010), order on reh'g, Order No. 717-D, 135 FERC ¶ 61,017 (2011).

    11 18 CFR 35.28 (2014).

    12 18 CFR 37 (2014).

    13 18 CFR 358 (2014).

    7. Kingfisher Wind states that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FR Kingfisher Holdings II LLC, which is an indirect subsidiary of First Reserve Energy Infrastructure Fund II, L.P. (Fund II), which is controlled by senior officers of First Reserve, a global private equity firm focused on the energy industry. Kingfisher Wind states that Fund II is managed and controlled by its general partner, First Reserve Energy Infrastructure GP II, L.P., which in turn, is managed and controlled by its general partner, First Reserve Energy Infrastructure G.P. II Limited (First Reserve GP II). Kingfisher Wind states that its affiliates that own or control generation facilities in the United States are either exempt wholesale generators or owners of qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.14 Kingfisher Wind represents that it is affiliated with approximately 918 MW of generation capacity in the SPP market, all of which is fully committed under long-term power purchase agreements.

    14 16 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. (2012).

    II. Notice of Filings

    8. Notices of Kingfisher Wind's filings were published in the Federal Register,15 with interventions and protests due on or before June 9, 2015. None was filed.

    15 80 FR 15,779 (2015); 80 FR 30,223 (2015).

    9. Notice of Kingfisher Wind's request for blanket authorization under part 34 of the Commission's regulations was separately published in the Federal Register,16 with interventions or protests due on or before April 7, 2015. None was filed.

    16 80 FR 15,784 (2015).

    III. Discussion

    10. As discussed below, we will grant Kingfisher Wind's request for authorization to make wholesale sales of electric energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates and we will accept its market-based rate tariff, effective June 30, 2015, as requested.17 We will also grant Kingfisher Wind's request for certain waivers.

    17 We note that Kingfisher Wind is not being granted authority to make third-party sales of operating reserves to a public utility that is purchasing ancillary services to satisfy its own open access transmission tariff requirements to offer ancillary services to its own customers. If Kingfisher Wind seeks such authority, it must make the required showing and receive Commission authorization prior to making such sales. See Third-Party Provision of Ancillary Services; Accounting and Financial Reporting for New Electric Storage Technologies, Order No. 784, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,349, at PP 200-202 (2013), order on clarification, Order No. 784-A, 146 FERC ¶ 61,114 (2014).

    A. Market-Based Rate Authorization

    11. The Commission allows power sales at market-based rates if the seller and its affiliates do not have, or have adequately mitigated, horizontal and vertical market power.18

    18 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at PP 62, 399, 408, 440.

    1. Horizontal Market Power

    12. The Commission has adopted two indicative screens for assessing horizontal market power: the pivotal supplier screen and the wholesale market share screen.19 The Commission has stated that passage of both screens establishes a rebuttable presumption that the applicant does not possess horizontal market power, while failure of either screen creates a rebuttable presumption that the applicant has horizontal market power.20

    19Id. P 62.

    20Id. PP 33, 62-63.

    13. Kingfisher Wind represents that it relies on Westar Energy, Inc.'s recently accepted market power analysis to demonstrate that Kingfisher Wind passes both the pivotal supplier and the wholesale market share screens for the SPP market.21

    21See Westar Energy, Inc., Docket No. ER14-724-000 (Feb. 28, 2014) (delegated letter order). Kingfisher Wind relies on historical data for the SPP market for the study period of December 2011 through November 2012 contained in the Westar pivotal supplier and market share screens study. Kingfisher Wind states that the use of more recent data (i.e., December 2012 through November 2013) would not result in significantly higher market shares because conditions would not change materially over one year. See Clarification Order, 121 FERC ¶ 61,260 at P 12.d.

    14. Based on Kingfisher Wind's representations, we find that Kingfisher Wind satisfies the Commission's requirements for market-based rates regarding horizontal market power.

    2. Vertical Market Power

    15. In cases where a public utility, or any of its affiliates, owns, operates, or controls transmission facilities, the Commission requires that there be a Commission-approved OATT on file or that the seller has received waiver of the OATT requirement before granting a seller market-based rate authorization.22 Kingfisher Wind states that neither Kingfisher Wind nor its affiliates owns transmission facilities other than those limited and discrete facilities that are necessary to interconnect generation facilities to the transmission grid. As discussed more fully below, the Commission will grant Kingfisher Wind's request for waiver of the requirement to have an OATT on file for the interconnection facilities.

    22 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at P 408.

    16. The Commission also considers a seller's ability to erect other barriers to entry as part of the vertical market power analysis.23 The Commission requires a seller to provide a description of its ownership or control of, or affiliation with an entity that owns or controls, intrastate natural gas transportation, intrastate natural gas storage or distribution facilities; sites for new generation capacity development; and physical coal supply sources and ownership of or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies (collectively, inputs to electric power production).24 The Commission also requires sellers to make an affirmative statement that they have not erected barriers to entry into the relevant market and will not erect barriers to entry into the relevant market.25 The Commission adopted a rebuttable presumption that the ownership or control of, or affiliation with any entity that owns or controls, inputs to electric power production does not allow a seller to raise entry barriers but will allow intervenors to demonstrate otherwise.26

    23Id. P 440.

    24 Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,268 at P 176.

    25 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at P 447.

    26Id. P 446.

    17. Regarding other barriers to entry, Kingfisher Wind states that neither it nor any of its affiliates owns or controls physical coal supply sources, entities that may access transportation of coal supplies, or sites to develop new generation capacity. Kingfisher Wind states that it has affiliates that own or control intrastate natural gas transportation, storage or distribution facilities, but that these assets will not allow Kingfisher Wind to erect barriers to entry.27

    27 Kingfisher Wind states that it is affiliated with: (1) Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP, which owns gathering pipelines and natural gas storage facilities located in a number of geographic regions, including some gathering pipelines located in or near SPP; (2) the Arthur C. Nielsen Pipeline System and Clearfield Pipeline System, intrastate natural gas pipelines located within Pennsylvania; and (3) FREIF Caliber Holdings, which owns gathering pipelines located in MISO. See Kingfisher Wind May 18 Supplement at 2-3.

    18. Finally, consistent with Order No. 697, Kingfisher Wind affirmatively states that it and its affiliates have not erected, and will not erect, barriers to entry in SPP.

    19. Based on Kingfisher Wind's representations, we find that Kingfisher Wind satisfies the Commission's requirements for market-based rates regarding vertical market power.

    B. Waiver Requests 1. OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct

    20. Kingfisher Wind seeks waiver of the requirements to file an OATT, establish and maintain an OASIS, and abide by the Standards of Conduct with respect to the interconnection facilities that it owns.28 In support, Kingfisher Wind represents that the interconnection facilities are limited and discrete and that it will utilize them solely to interconnect the Project to the transmission system operated by SPP. Kingfisher Wind further states that the interconnection facilities do not comprise an integrated transmission system.

    28 Notwithstanding the issuance of Order No. 807, Kingfisher Wind requests that the Commission rule on its requested waiver herein. Kingfisher Wind May 18 Supplement at n.5.

    21. Order Nos. 888 and 890 and section 35.28 of the Commission's regulations require public utilities that own, operate, or control facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce to file an OATT. Order No. 889 and part 37 of the Commission's regulations require public utilities to establish and maintain an OASIS. Order Nos. 889, 2004, and 717 and Part 358 of the Commission's regulations require public utilities to abide by certain Standards of Conduct.29 In prior orders, the Commission has enunciated the standards for exemption from some or all of the requirements of Order Nos. 888, 889, and 890.30 The Commission has stated that the criteria for waiver of the requirements of Order No. 890 and Order No. 2004 are unchanged from those used to evaluate requests for waiver under Order Nos. 888 and 889.31 Order No. 717 did not change those criteria.32

    29 Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,035 at 31,590; Order No. 2004, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,155 at P 16; Order No. 717, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,280 at P 313.

    30See, e.g., Black Creek Hydro, Inc., 77 FERC ¶ 61,232, at 61,941 (1996) (Black Creek); Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 112 FERC ¶ 61,228, at P 22 (2005) (Entergy).

    31See Alcoa Power Generating Inc., 120 FERC ¶ 61,035, at P 3 (2007); Alcoa Power Generating Inc., 108 FERC ¶ 61,243, at P 27 (2004).

    32See Order No. 717, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,280 at PP 31-33.

    22. The Commission may grant requests for waiver of the obligation to file an OATT to public utilities that can show that they own, operate, or control only limited and discrete transmission facilities (facilities that do not form an integrated transmission grid), until such time as the public utility receives a request for transmission service. Should the public utility receive such a request, the Commission has determined that the public utility must file with the Commission a pro forma tariff within 60 days of the date of the request, and must comply with any additional requirements that are effective on the date of the request.33

    33Black Creek, 77 FERC at 61,941.

    23. The Commission has also determined that waiver of the requirement to establish an OASIS and abide by the Standards of Conduct would be appropriate for a public utility if the applicant: (1) Owns, operates, or controls only limited and discrete transmission facilities (rather than an integrated transmission grid); or (2) is a small public utility that owns, operates, or controls an integrated transmission grid, unless other circumstances are present that indicate that a waiver would not be justified.34 The Commission has held that waiver of Order No. 889 will remain in effect until the Commission takes action in response to a complaint to the Commission that an entity evaluating its transmission needs could not get the information necessary to complete its evaluation (for OASIS waivers) or an entity complains that the public utility has unfairly used its access to information about transmission to benefit the utility or its affiliate (for Standards of Conduct waivers).35

    34Id. Although the Commission originally precluded waiver of the requirements for OASIS and the Standards of Conduct for a small public utility that is a member of a tight power pool, in Black Hills Power, Inc., 135 FERC ¶ 61,058, at PP 2-3 (2011) (Black Hills), the Commission explained that membership in a tight power pool is no longer a factor in the determination for waiver of Standards of Conduct. Moreover, Black Hills did not affect waivers based on a public utility disposing of no more than 4 million megawatt-hours annually.

    35Entergy, 112 FERC ¶ 61,228 at P 23 (citing Cent. Minn. Mun. Power Agency, 79 FERC ¶ 61,260, at 62,127 (1997) (Central Minnesota); Easton Utils. Comm'n, 83 FERC ¶ 61,334, at 62,343 (1998) (Easton)).

    24. Based on the statements in Kingfisher Wind's application, we find that its interconnection facilities qualify as limited and discrete. Kingfisher Wind will use the facilities solely to interconnect the Project to the transmission grid. Accordingly, we will grant Kingfisher Wind waiver of the requirements of Order Nos. 888 and 890 and section 35.28 of the Commission's regulations to have an OATT on file with respect to the interconnection facilities. However, if Kingfisher Wind receives a request for transmission service, it must file with the Commission a pro forma OATT within 60 days of the date of the request.36

    36Black Creek, 77 FERC at 61,941.

    25. The Commission will also grant Kingfisher Wind waiver of the requirements of Order No. 889 and part 37 of the Commission's regulations with respect to OASIS and Order Nos. 889, 2004, and 717 and Part 358 with respect to the Standards of Conduct. We note that Kingfisher Wind's waiver of the requirement to establish an OASIS will remain in effect until the Commission takes action in response to a complaint to the Commission that an entity evaluating its transmission needs could not get the information necessary to complete its evaluation.37 Likewise, Kingfisher Wind's waiver of the Standards of Conduct will remain in effect unless and until the Commission takes action on a complaint by an entity that Kingfisher Wind has unfairly used its access to information to unfairly benefit itself or its affiliates.38

    37Entergy, 112 FERC ¶ 61,228 at P 23 (citing Central Minnesota, 79 FERC at 62,127; Easton, 83 FERC at 62,343).

    38Id. Kingfisher Wind must notify the Commission if there is a material change in facts that affects its waiver within 30 days of the date of such change. Material Changes in Facts Underlying Waiver of Order No. 889 and Part 358 of the Commission's Regulations, 127 FERC ¶ 61,141, at P 5 (2009).

    26. Given that Order No. 807 will be effective June 30, 2015, we take this opportunity to explain how market-based rate applicants and sellers may demonstrate a lack of vertical market power once the blanket waiver provided for in 18 CFR 35.28(d)(2) takes effect. In Order No. 807, the Commission modified its policy to provide an additional method for obtaining waiver of the OATT requirements. Specifically, the Commission stated that a market-based rate seller or any of its affiliates that own, operate, or control transmission facilities may satisfy the vertical market power requirements in 18 CFR 35.37(d) by one of the following: (1) Have a Commission-approved OATT on file; (2) receive waiver of the OATT requirement under 18 CFR 35.28(d)(1); or (3) satisfy the requirements for a blanket waiver under 18 CFR 35.28(d)(2).39

    39 Order No. 807, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,367 at P 57.

    27. We provide guidance herein that an applicant that qualifies for the blanket OATT waiver under 18 CFR 35.28(d)(2) should affirm in its market-based rate application that it qualifies for the blanket OATT waiver. As the Commission stated in Order No. 807, “[s]uch a waiver is justified because the usually limited and discrete nature of [Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities (ICIF)] and ICIF's dedicated interconnection purpose means that such facilities do not typically present the concerns about discriminatory conduct that the Commission's OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct requirements were intended to address.” 40 In accordance with Order No. 807, the waivers referenced in 18 CFR 35.28(d)(2) shall be deemed in effect unless revoked as of the date the public utility ceases to satisfy the qualifications of 18 CFR 35.28(d)(2), and also may be revoked by the Commission if the Commission determines that it is in the public interest to do so.41 Thus, applicants who attest that they qualify for the blanket authorization do not need to request, nor should they request, a waiver of the OATT, OASIS and Standards of Conduct requirements. We also note that the Commission stated in Order No. 807 that an entity that has already been issued a waiver of the OATT, OASIS and Standards of Conduct requirements and that is eligible for the blanket waiver under Order No. 807 will be deemed to be operating under the blanket waiver without further filings necessary with respect to the previously-issued waiver.42

    40Id. P 55.

    41Id. P 101 (“the [blanket] waiver would be deemed to be revoked as of the date the public utility ceases to satisfy the qualifications for such waiver. . . . [I]f the ICIF that are covered by a blanket waiver become integrated into a transmission system such that they can no longer be considered ICIF, the blanket waiver would be deemed to be revoked.”). After revocation of its waivers, the public utility must comply with the requirements that had been waived within 60 days of revocation. Id. at regulatory text (to be codified at 18 CFR 35.28(d)(2)(i)).

    42Id. P 176 (referencing P 89, which states, in part, that “if an entity has previously received a specific waiver of the OATT and related obligations pursuant to the Commission's `limited and discrete' or `small entity' standards, the blanket waiver will supersede the existing waiver”).

    28. As stated above, Kingfisher Wind specifically requests that the Commission rule on its requested OATT waiver, and we hereby grant this waiver.

    2. Other Waivers and Authorizations

    29. Kingfisher Wind also requests the following waivers and authorizations: (1) Waiver of the filing requirements of subparts B and C of part 35 of the Commission's regulations, except sections 35.12(a), 35.13(b), 35.15, and 35.16; (2) waiver of the accounting and other requirements of parts 41, 101, and 141 of the Commission's regulations, except sections 141.14 and 141.15; and (3) blanket authorization under section 204 of the FPA 43 and Part 34 of the Commission's regulations for all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    43 16 U.S.C. 824c (2012).

    30. The Commission will grant the requested waivers and authorizations consistent with those granted to other entities with market-based rate authorizations.44 Notwithstanding the waiver of the accounting and reporting requirements, the Commission expects Kingfisher Wind to keep its accounting records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

    44 We note that the Commission has examined and approved the continued applicability of the waiver of its accounting and reporting requirements in parts 41, 101, and 141 of the Commission's regulations, as well as the continued applicability of the blanket authorization for the issuance of securities and the assumption of liabilities in part 34 of the Commission's regulations. See Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at PP 984-985 (regarding waiver of parts 41, 101, and 141) and PP 999-1000 (regarding blanket approval under part 34). However, waiver of the provisions of part 101 that apply to hydropower licensees is not granted with respect to licensed hydropower projects. Hydropower licensees are required to comply with the requirements of the Uniform System of Accounts pursuant to 18 CFR part 101 to the extent necessary to carry out their responsibilities under part I of the FPA. We further note that a licensee's status as a market-based rate seller under part II of the FPA does not exempt it from its accounting responsibilities as a licensee under part I of the FPA. See Seneca Gen., LLC, 145 FERC ¶ 61,096, at P 23 n.20 (2013) (citing Trafalgar Power Inc., 87 FERC ¶ 61,207, at 61,798 (1999) (noting that “all licensees are required to comply with the requirements of the Uniform System of Accounts to the extent necessary to carry out their responsibilities under [s]ections 4(b), 10(d) and 14 of the FPA”)).

    C. Reporting Requirements

    31. An entity with market-based rate authorization must file an Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) with the Commission, consistent with Order Nos. 2001 45 and 768,46 to fulfill its responsibility under FPA section 205(c) 47 to have rates on file in a convenient form and place.48 Kingfisher Wind must file EQRs electronically with the Commission consistent with the procedures set forth in Order No. 770.49 Failure to timely and accurately file an EQR is a violation of the Commission's regulations for which Kingfisher Wind may be subject to refund, civil penalties, and/or revocation of market-based rate authority.50

    45Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,127, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-A, 100 FERC ¶ 61,074, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC ¶ 61,342, order directing filing, Order No. 2001-C, 101 FERC ¶ 61,314 (2002), order directing filing, Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ¶ 61,334, order refining filing requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ¶ 61,352 (2003), order on clarification, Order No. 2001-F, 106 FERC ¶ 61,060 (2004), order revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ¶ 61,270, order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 2001-H, 121 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2007), order revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-I, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,282 (2008).

    46Electricity Mkt. Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the Fed. Power Act, Order No. 768, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,336 (2012), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2013).

    47 16 U.S.C. 824d(c) (2012).

    48See Revisions to Electric Quarterly Report Filing Process, Order No. 770, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,338, at P 3 (2012) (citing Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,127 at P 31).

    49 Order No. 770, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,338.

    50 The exact filing dates for these reports are prescribed in 18 CFR 35.10b (2014). Forfeiture of market-based rate authority may require a new application for market-based rate authority if the applicant wishes to resume making sales at market-based rates.

    32. Additionally, Kingfisher Wind must timely report to the Commission any change in status that would reflect a departure from the characteristics the Commission relied upon in granting market-based rate authority.51

    51Reporting Requirement for Changes in Status for Public Utilities with Market-Based Rate Authority, Order No. 652, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,175, order on reh'g, 111 FERC ¶ 61,413 (2005); 18 CFR 35.42 (2014).

    33. In Order No. 697, the Commission created two categories of sellers.52 Category 1 sellers are not required to file regularly scheduled updated market power analyses. Category 1 sellers are wholesale power marketers and wholesale power producers that own or control 500 MW or less of generation in aggregate per region; that do not own, operate, or control transmission facilities other than limited equipment necessary to connect individual generation facilities to the transmission grid (or have been granted waiver of the requirements of Order No. 888); that are not affiliated with anyone that owns, operates, or controls transmission facilities in the same region as the seller's generation assets; that are not affiliated with a franchised public utility in the same region as the seller's generation assets; and that do not raise other vertical market power issues.53 Sellers that do not fall into Category 1 are designated as Category 2 sellers and are required to file updated market power analyses.54

    52 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at P 848.

    53 18 CFR 35.36(a) (2014).

    54 Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 at P 850.

    34. Kingfisher Wind requests Category 1 seller status in the Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, Southeast, and Central regions, and Category 2 seller status in the SPP region. Kingfisher Wind states that it is located in the SPP region, where it and its affiliates own or control more than 500 MW of generation capacity. Kingfisher Wind represents that it does not own or control generation in any other region. Kingfisher Wind further represents that neither it nor its affiliates own, operate or control transmission facilities other than limited facilities necessary to connect individual generating facilities to the transmission grid. Kingfisher Wind also represents that it is not affiliated with any entity that owns, operates or controls transmission facilities in the same region as its generation assets nor with a franchised public utility in the same region as its generation assets. Finally, Kingfisher Wind represents that neither it nor its affiliates raise other vertical market power concerns.

    35. Based on Kingfisher Wind's representations, we grant Kingfisher Wind Category 1 seller status in the Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, Southeast and Central regions and Category 2 seller status in the SPP region. Kingfisher Wind must file an updated market power analysis for the SPP region in compliance with the regional reporting schedule adopted in Order No. 697.55 The Commission also reserves the right to require such an analysis at any time for any region.56

    55Id.

    56Id. P 853.

    The Commission orders:

    (A) Kingfisher Wind's market-based rate tariff is hereby accepted for filing, effective June 30, 2015, as requested, as discussed in the body of this order.

    (B) Kingfisher Wind's request for waiver of the requirements to file an OATT, to establish and maintain an OASIS, and to comply with the Standards of Conduct is hereby granted, as discussed in the body of this order.

    (C) Waiver of the provisions of subparts B and C of part 35 of the Commission's regulations, with the exception of sections 35.12(a), 35.13(b), 35.15, and 35.16, is hereby granted.

    (D) Waiver of part 101 of the Commission's regulations is hereby granted, with the exception that waiver of the provisions of Part 101 that apply to hydropower licensees is not granted with respect to licensed hydropower projects. Waiver of parts 41 and 141 of the Commission's regulations is hereby granted, with the exception of sections 141.14 and 141.15.

    (E) Blanket authorization under part 34 of the Commission's regulations for all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is hereby granted. Kingfisher Wind is hereby authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Kingfisher Wind, compatible with the public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

    (F) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to require a further showing that neither the public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of Kingfisher Wind's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability.

    (G) Kingfisher Wind is hereby required to file EQRs in compliance with Order Nos. 2001 and 768. If the effective date of Kingfisher Wind's market-based rate tariff falls within a quarter of the year that has already expired, Kingfisher Wind's EQRs for the expired quarter are due within 30 days of the date of this order.

    (H) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish a copy of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: June 30, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16589 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0026; FRL-9930-14-OW] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; National Water Quality Inventory Reports (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “National Water Quality Inventory Reports (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1560.11, OMB Control No. 2040-0071) 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 submitting the ICR to OMB, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a request for renewal of an existing collection. 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 September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0026, 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:

    Charles Kovatch, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Water, Mail Code: 4503T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0399# ; fax number: 202-566-1331; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents that explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: The Clean Water Act section 305(b) reports contain information on the water quality standards attainment status of assessed waters, and, when waters are impaired, the pollutants and potential sources affecting water quality. This information helps track State progress in addressing water pollution. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify and rank waters that cannot meet water quality standards (WQS) following the implementation of technology-based controls. Under section 303(d), States are also required to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for listed waters not meeting standards as a result of pollutant discharges. In developing the section 303(d) lists, States are required to consider various sources of water quality related data and information, including the section 305(b) State water quality reports. Section 106(e) requires that states annually update monitoring data and use it in their section 305(b) report. Section 314(a) requires states to report on the condition of their publicly-owned lakes within the section 305(b) report.

    EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) works with its Regional counterparts to review and approve or disapprove State section 303(d) lists and TMDLs from 56 respondents (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the five Territories). Section 303(d) specifically requires States to develop lists and TMDLs “from time to time,” and EPA to review and approve or disapprove the lists and the TMDLs. EPA also collects State 305(b) reports from 59 respondents (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, five Territories, and 3 River Basin Commissions).

    Tribes are not required to submit section 305(b) reports. However, to meet the needs of Tribes at all levels of development, EPA has prepared guidance that presents the basic steps a Tribe should take to collect the water quality information it needs to make effective decisions about its program, its goals, and its future directions. Tribal water quality monitoring and reporting activities are covered under the Section 106 Tribal Grants Program and not included in the burden estimates for this ICR.

    During the period covered by this ICR renewal, respondents will: Complete their 2016 section 305(b) reports and 2016 section 303(d) lists; complete their 2018 section 305(b) reports and 2018 section 303(d) lists; transmit annual electronic updates of ambient monitoring data via the Water Quality Exchange; and continue to develop TMDLs according to their established schedules. EPA will prepare biennial updates on assessed and impaired waters for Congress and the public for the 2016 reporting cycle and for the 2018 cycle, and EPA will review 303(d) list and TMDL submissions from respondents.

    The burdens of specific activities that States undertake as part of their section 305(b) and 303(d) programs are derived from a project among EPA, States and other interested stakeholders to develop a tool for estimating the States' resource needs for State water quality management programs. This project has developed the State Water Quality Management Workload Model (SWQMWM), which estimates and sums the workload involved in more than one hundred activities or tasks comprising a State water quality management program. Over twenty States contributed information about their activities that became the basis for the model. According to the SWQMWM, to meet section 305(b) and 303(d) reporting requirements the States will conduct: Watershed monitoring and characterization; modeling and analysis; development of a TMDL document for public review; public outreach; formal public participation; tracking; planning; legal support; etc. In general, respondents have conducted each of these reporting and record keeping activities for past section 305(b) and 303(d) reporting cycles and thus have staff and procedures in place to continue their section 305(b) and 303(d) reporting programs. The burden associated with these tasks is estimated in this ICR to include the total number of TMDLs that may be submitted during the period covered by this ICR.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are States, Territories and Tribes with Clean Water Act (CWA) responsibilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory: Integrated Water Quality Inventory Reports (Clean Water Act sections 305(b), 303(d), 314(a), and 106(e)).

    Estimated number of respondents: 59 (total).

    Frequency of response: Biennial.

    Total estimated burden: 3,740,017 (per year) hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)

    Total estimated cost: $203,728,300 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB, published on August 31, 2012. EPA is currently designing the Water Quality Framework, which is a new way of integrating EPA's data and information systems to more effectively support reporting and tracking water quality protection and restoration actions. The Framework will streamline water quality assessment and reporting by reducing transactions associated with paper copy reviews and increasing electronic data exchange. The Framework is in line with EPA's E-Enterprise Initiative, which seeks to assess and reformulate EPA's business process to reduce burden through the improved use of technology. EPA expects that the reporting burden will decrease and will revise the ICR burden after the new information system is implemented for the 2018 reporting cycle.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. Benita Best-Wong, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16638 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9930-10-OA] National Environmental Education Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA gives notice of a teleconference meeting of the National Environmental Education Advisory Council (NEEAC). The NEEAC was created by Congress to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters related to activities, functions and policies of EPA under the National Environmental Education Act (the Act). 20 U.S.C. 5508(b).

    The purpose of this teleconference is to discuss specific topics of relevance for consideration by the council in order to provide advice and insights to the Agency on environmental education.

    DATES:

    The National Environmental Education Advisory Council will hold a public teleconference on Monday, July 13th, 2015, from 3:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer, [email protected], 202-564-2642, U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Education, William Jefferson Clinton North Room, 1426, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public wishing to gain access to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written statement to the NEEAC must contact Javier Araujo, Designated Federal Officer, at [email protected] or 202-564-2642 by 10 business days prior to each regularly scheduled meeting.

    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations, please contact Javier Araujo at [email protected] or 202-564-2642, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. Sarah Sowell, Deputy Director, Office of Environmental Education. Javier Araujo, (NEEAC) Designated Federal Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16642 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10113, InBank, Oak Forest, Illinois

    NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for InBank, Oak Forest, Illinois (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of InBank 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 30, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16513 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10108, First Coweta Bank, Newnan, GA

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for First Coweta Bank, (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of First Coweta Bank on August 21, 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 30, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16512 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM [Docket No. OP-1516] Announcement of Financial Sector Liabilities

    Section 622 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, implemented by the Board's Regulation XX, prohibits a merger or acquisition that would result in a financial company that controls more than 10 percent of the aggregate consolidated liabilities of all financial companies (“aggregate financial sector liabilities”). Specifically, an insured depository institution, a bank holding company, a savings and loan holding company, a foreign banking organization, any other company that controls an insured depository institution, and a nonbank financial company designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (each, a “financial company”) is prohibited from merging or consolidating with, acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of, or acquiring control of, another company (“covered acquisition”) if the resulting company's consolidated liabilities would exceed 10 percent of the aggregate financial sector liabilities.1

    1 12 U.S.C. 1852(a)(2), (b).

    Pursuant to Regulation XX, the Federal Reserve will publish the aggregate consolidated liabilities of all financial companies by July 1 of each year. For the first period (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016), aggregate financial sector liabilities is equal to the financial sector liabilities calculated as of December 31, 2014. For all subsequent periods, aggregate financial sector liabilities will equal the average of the financial sector liabilities as of December 31 of each of the preceding two calendar years.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Felton Booker, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst (202) 912-4651; Sean Healey, Senior Financial Analyst, (202) 912-4611; Christine Graham, Counsel, (202) 452-3005; Matthew Suntag, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-3694; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY (202) 263-4869.

    Aggregate Financial Sector Liabilities

    As of December 31, 2014, aggregate financial sector liabilities is equal to $21,632,232,035,000. This measure is in effect from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.

    Calculation Methodology

    Aggregate financial sector liabilities equals the sum of the financial sector liabilities of all financial companies, calculated using the methodology set forth in Regulation XX and summarized below.

    Financial sector liabilities of a U.S. financial company that was subject to consolidated risk-based capital rules as of December 31, 2014, equals the difference between its risk-weighted assets (as adjusted upward to reflect amounts that are deducted from regulatory capital elements pursuant to the Federal banking agencies' risk-based capital rules) and total regulatory capital, as calculated under the applicable risk-based capital rules. Companies in this category include bank holding companies and insured depository institutions. The Federal Reserve used information collected on the Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C) and the Bank Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) to calculate liabilities of these institutions.

    Financial sector liabilities of a U.S. financial company that was not subject to consolidated risk-based capital rules as of December 31, 2014, equal liabilities calculated in accordance with applicable accounting standards. Companies in this category include savings and loan holding companies, nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board, bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $1 billion, and U.S. depository institution holding companies that are not bank holding companies or savings and loan holding companies. “Applicable accounting standards” is defined as GAAP, or such other accounting standard or method of estimation that the Board determines is appropriate.2 The Federal Reserve used information collected on the FR Y-9C, the Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Small Holding Companies (FR Y-9SP), and the Financial Company Report of Consolidated Liabilities (FR XX-1) to calculate liabilities of these institutions.

    2 A financial company may request to use an accounting standard or method of estimation other than GAAP if it does not calculate its total consolidated assets or liabilities under GAAP for any regulatory purpose (including compliance with applicable securities laws). 12 CFR 251.3(e).

    Section 622 provides that the financial sector liabilities of a “foreign financial company” equal the risk-weighted assets and regulatory capital attributable to the company's “U.S. operations.” Under Regulation XX, financial sector liabilities of a foreign banking organization's U.S. operations are calculated using the risk-weighted asset methodology for subsidiaries subject to risk-based capital rules, and applicable accounting standards for all branches, agencies, and nonbank subsidiaries. Financial sector liabilities attributable to the U.S. operations of a foreign financial company that is not a foreign banking organization are calculated in a similar manner to the method described for foreign banking organizations, but liabilities of a U.S. subsidiary not subject to risk-based capital rules are calculated based on the U.S. subsidiary's liabilities under applicable accounting standards. The Federal Reserve used information collected on the Capital and Asset Report for Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-7Q) and the FR XX-1 to calculate liabilities of these institutions.

    The Board granted requests from ten financial companies to use an accounting standard or method of estimation other than GAAP to calculate liabilities. Nine of the companies were insurance companies that report financial information under Statutory Accounting Principles (“SAP”), and one was a foreign company that controls a U.S. industrial loan company that reports financial information under International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). For the insurance companies, the Board approved a method of estimation that was based on line items from SAP reports, with adjustments to reflect certain differences in accounting treatment between GAAP and SAP. For the foreign company, the Board approved the use of IFRS.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Director of the Division Banking Supervision and Regulation under delegated authority, July 1, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16658 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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 30, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. Friendswood Capital Corporation, Houston, Texas; to become a bank holding company by the conversion of Texan Bank, Houston, Texas, from a federal savings bank to a national bank charter.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 1, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16593 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 152 3069] JS Autoworld, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Consent Agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/planetnissanconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “JS Autoworld, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 152-3069” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/planetnissanconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “JS Autoworld, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 152-3069” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yan Fang, FTC Western Region, (415-848-5150), 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 29, 2015), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 29, 2015. Write “JS Autoworld, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 152-3069” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

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

    If you file your comment on paper, write “JS Autoworld, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 152-3069” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before July 29, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing consent order from JS Autoworld, Inc., also doing business as Planet Nissan. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    The respondent is a motor vehicle dealer. According to the FTC's complaint, the respondent has misrepresented in certain advertisements: (1) vehicle purchase prices; (2) that advertised monthly payment amounts were for vehicle purchases, not leases; and (3) that consumers can pay $0 at signing to obtain vehicles shown in the advertisements for the advertised monthly amount. The complaint alleges therefore that the representations are false or misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.

    In addition, the complaint alleges that the respondent violated the Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”) and Regulation M for failing to disclose or to disclose clearly and conspicuously certain costs and terms when advertising vehicles for lease.

    The FTC's complaint also alleges that the respondent violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Regulation Z by failing to disclose or to disclose clearly and conspicuously certain costs and terms when advertising credit.

    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent respondent from engaging in similar acts or practices in the future. Part I.A of the order prohibits respondent from misrepresenting the cost of: (1) purchasing a vehicle with financing, including but not necessarily limited to, the amount or percentage of the downpayment, the number of payments or period of repayment, the amount of any payment, the annual percentage rate or any other finance rate, and the repayment obligation over the full term of the loan, including any balloon payment; or (2) leasing a vehicle, including but not necessarily limited to, the total amount due at lease inception, the downpayment, amount down, acquisition fee, capitalized cost reduction, any other amount required to be paid at lease inception, and the amounts of all monthly or other periodic payments. Part I.B prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting any other material fact about the price, sale, financing, or leasing of any vehicle.

    Part II of the proposed order addresses the CLA allegations. Part II.A prohibits respondent from stating the amount of any payment or that any or no initial payment is required at lease inception without disclosing clearly and conspicuously: (1) that the transaction advertised is a lease; (2) the total amount due at lease signing or delivery; (3) whether or not a security deposit is required; (4) the number, amounts, and timing of scheduled payments; and (5) that an extra charge may be imposed at the end of the lease term. Part II.B prohibits the respondent from violating any provision of the CLA or Regulation M.

    Part III of the proposed order addresses the TILA allegations. Part III.A requires the respondent to make all of the disclosures required by TILA and Regulation Z when any of its advertisements state relevant triggering terms. Part III.B requires that if any finance charge is advertised, the rate be stated as an “annual percentage rate” using that term or the abbreviation “APR.” In addition, Part III.C prohibits the respondent from failing to comply in any respect with TILA and Regulation Z.

    Part IV of the proposed order requires respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements. Part V requires the respondent provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel. Part VI requires notification to the Commission regarding changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Part VII requires respondent to file compliance reports with the Commission. Finally, Part VIII is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify the proposed order's terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16617 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 152 3096] TC Dealership, L.P.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/planethyundaiconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “TC Dealership, L.P.—Consent Agreement; File No. 152-3096” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/planethyundaiconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “TC Dealership, L.P.—Consent Agreement; File No. 152-3096” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yan Fang, FTC Western Region, (415-848-5150), 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 29, 2015), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 29, 2015. Write “TC Dealership, L.P.—Consent Agreement; File No. 152-3096” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

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

    If you file your comment on paper, write “TC Dealership, L.P.—Consent Agreement; File No. 152-3096” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before July 29, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing consent order from TC Dealership, L.P., also doing business as Planet Hyundai. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    The respondent is a motor vehicle dealer. According to the FTC's complaint, the respondent has misrepresented in certain advertisements: (1) Vehicle purchase prices; (2) that advertised monthly payment amounts were for vehicle purchases, not leases; and (3) that consumers can pay $0 at signing to obtain vehicles shown in the advertisements for the advertised monthly amount. The complaint alleges therefore that the representations are false or misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.

    In addition, the complaint alleges that the respondent violated the Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”) and Regulation M for failing to disclose or to disclose clearly and conspicuously certain costs and terms when advertising vehicles for lease.

    The FTC's complaint also alleges that the respondent violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Regulation Z by failing to disclose or to disclose clearly and conspicuously certain costs and terms when advertising credit.

    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent respondent from engaging in similar acts or practices in the future. Part I.A of the order prohibits respondent from misrepresenting the cost of: (1) Purchasing a vehicle with financing, including but not necessarily limited to, the amount or percentage of the downpayment, the number of payments or period of repayment, the amount of any payment, the annual percentage rate or any other finance rate, and the repayment obligation over the full term of the loan, including any balloon payment; or (2) leasing a vehicle, including but not necessarily limited to, the total amount due at lease inception, the downpayment, amount down, acquisition fee, capitalized cost reduction, any other amount required to be paid at lease inception, and the amounts of all monthly or other periodic payments. Part I.B prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting any other material fact about the price, sale, financing, or leasing of any vehicle.

    Part II of the proposed order addresses the CLA allegations. Part II.A prohibits respondent from stating the amount of any payment or that any or no initial payment is required at lease inception without disclosing clearly and conspicuously: (1) That the transaction advertised is a lease; (2) the total amount due at lease signing or delivery; (3) whether or not a security deposit is required; (4) the number, amounts, and timing of scheduled payments; and (5) that an extra charge may be imposed at the end of the lease term. Part II.B prohibits the respondent from violating any provision of the CLA or Regulation M.

    Part III of the proposed order addresses the TILA allegations. Part III.A requires the respondent to make all of the disclosures required by TILA and Regulation Z when any of its advertisements state relevant triggering terms. Part III.B requires that if any finance charge is advertised, the rate be stated as an “annual percentage rate” using that term or the abbreviation “APR.” In addition, Part III.C prohibits the respondent from failing to comply in any respect with TILA and Regulation Z.

    Part IV of the proposed order requires respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements. Part V requires the respondent provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel. Part VI requires notification to the Commission regarding changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Part VII requires respondent to file compliance reports with the Commission. Finally, Part VIII is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify the proposed order's terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16618 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0043; Docket 2015-0076; Sequence 8] Submission for OMB Review; Delivery Schedules AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning delivery schedules. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 22735, on April 23, 2015. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0043, Delivery Schedules by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0043, Delivery Schedules”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0043, Delivery Schedules” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0043, Delivery Schedules.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0043, Delivery Schedules, in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA 202-208-4949 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    The time of delivery or performance is an essential contract element and must be clearly stated in solicitations and contracts. The contracting officer may set forth a required delivery schedule or may allow an offeror to propose an alternate delivery schedule, for other than those for construction and architect-engineering, by inserting in solicitations and contracts a clause substantially the same as either FAR 52.211-8, Time of Delivery, or FAR 52.211-9, Desired and Required Time of Delivery. These clauses allow the contractor to fill in their proposed delivery schedule. The information is needed to assure supplies or services are obtained in a timely manner.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 3,440.

    Responses per Respondent: 5.

    Annual Responses: 17,200.

    Hours per Response: .167.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,872.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0043, Delivery Schedules, in all correspondence.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Edward Loeb, Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16565 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0067; Docket 2015-0076; Sequence 10] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Incentive Contracts AGENCIES:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning incentive contracts. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 22735, on April 23, 2015. No Comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts, in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA 202-208-4949 or via email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    In accordance with FAR 16.4, incentive contracts are normally used when a firm fixed-price contract is not appropriate and the required supplies or services can be acquired at lower costs, and sometimes with improved delivery or technical performance, by relating the amount of profit or fee payable under the contract to the contractor's performance.

    The information required periodically from the contractor, such as cost of work already performed, estimated costs of further performance necessary to complete all work, total contract price for supplies or services accepted by the Government for which final prices have been established, and estimated costs allocable to supplies or services accepted by the Government and for which final prices have not been established, is needed to negotiate the final prices of incentive-related items and services. Contractors are required to submit the information in accordance with several incentive fee FAR clauses: FAR 52.216-16, Incentive Price Revision—Firm Target; FAR 52.216-17, Incentive Price Revision—Successive Targets; and FAR 52.216-10, Incentive Fee.

    The contracting officer evaluates the information received to determine the contractor's performance in meeting the incentive target and the appropriate price revision, if any, for the items or services.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 1,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Annual Responses: 2,000.

    Hours per Response: 1.5.

    Total Burden Hours: 3,000.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts, in all correspondence.

    Edward Loeb, Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16566 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-10137 and CMS-10237] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number _____, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10137 Solicitation for Applications for Medicare Prescription Drug Plan 2017 Contracts CMS-10237 Part C—Medicare Advantage and 1876 Cost Plan Expansion Application

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Solicitation for Applications for Medicare Prescription Drug Plan 2017 Contracts; Use: The information will be collected under the solicitation of proposals from prescription drug plans, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans that offer integrated prescription drug and health care coverage (MA-PD) plans, Cost Plan, PACE, and Employer Group Waiver Plan applicants. The information will be used by CMS to: ensure that applicants meet CMS requirements and to support the determination of contract awards. Participation in the Part D program is voluntary. Only organizations that are interested in participating in the program will respond to the solicitation. The MA-PDs that voluntarily participate in the Part C program must submit a Part D application and successful bid. Form Number: CMS-10137 (OMB Control Number: 0938-0936); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other For-profits and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 254; Total Annual Responses: 230; Total Annual Hours: 2,109. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Arianne Spaccarelli at 410-786-5715).

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Part C—Medicare Advantage and 1876 Cost Plan Expansion Application; Use: The information will be collected under the solicitation of Part C applications from Medicare Advantage, Employer Group Waiver Plan, and Cost Plan applicants and will be used by CMS to ensure that applicants meet CMS requirements, and to support the determination of contract awards. Participation is voluntary whereby only organizations that are interested in participating in the program will respond to the solicitation. Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations that offer integrated prescription drug and health care products (MA-PD plans) that voluntarily participate in the Part C program must submit a Part D application and successful bid. Form Number: CMS-10237 (OMB Control Number: 0938-0935); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other For-profits and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 566; Total Annual Responses: 566; Total Annual Hours: 21,926. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Wanda Pigatt-Canty at 410-786-6177).

    Dated: July 1, 2015. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16608 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Notice of Intent To Award a Single Supplement to the Eldercare Locator ACTION:

    Notice of intent to award a single supplement to the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing supplemental funding for the Eldercare Locator program. The Eldercare Locator program helps older adults and their families and caregivers find their way through the maze of services for older adults by linking to a trustworthy network of national, State, Tribal and community organizations and services through a nationally recognized toll-free number. The Eldercare Locator also provides older adults and caregivers who require more in depth support the opportunity to speak with highly trained eldercare consultants who can better triage the situation. The purpose of this announcement is to award supplemental funds to the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging to support additional specialized staff and enhanced technology to better serve callers, mobile and after hour callers.

    Program Name: Eldercare Locator.

    Award Amount: $162,681.

    Budget Period: 6/1/2015 to 5/31/2016.

    Award Type: Cooperative Agreement.

    Statutory Authority:

    The statutory authority for grants under this notice is contained in Title IV of the Older Americans Act (OAA) (42 U.S.C. 3032), as amended by the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006. Statutory authority specifically for the Eldercare Locator is contained in Title II of the Older Americans Act (202(a)(21).

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 93.048 Discretionary Projects

    I. Program Description

    The Administration on Aging, an agency of the U.S. Administration for Community Living, has been funding the Eldercare Locator (the Locator) since 1991. The Eldercare Locator links older persons and their caregivers to resources through a nationally recognized toll-free number, 1-800-677-1116 and Web site (www.eldercare.gov). The goal is to provide users with the information and resources they need that will help older persons live independently and safely in their homes and communities for as long as possible.

    The Eldercare Locator call center utilizes live agents to help callers find their way through the maze of services for older adults by linking to a trustworthy network of national, State, Tribal and community organizations and services. In 2011, an additional feature was added to assist older adults and caregivers who require more in depth support the opportunity to speak with highly trained eldercare consultants who can better triage the situation.

    II. Justification for the Supplemental Funding

    Since 2011, there has been an increase in the number of callers with very complex situations, multiple issues or require assistance with long-term care planning. Because of the complexity, eldercare consultant and senior staff calls are much longer than a regular information specialist call which averages about 5 minutes. There is a need to increase the number of eldercare consultants and/or senior level staff available to handle this higher demand for intense consultation. In addition, there is a need to enhance the technical capabilities of the call center to better serve after hours and mobile callers.

    III. Agency Contact

    For further information or comments regarding this program expansion supplement, contact Sherri Clark, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Office of External Affairs, One Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20001; telephone (202) 357-3506; email [email protected]

    Dated: June 29, 2015. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16507 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration on Community Living Availability of Program Instructions for MIPPA Funds Program Title: Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act: State Plans for Medicare Savings Program, Low Income Subsidy & Prescription Drug Enrollment Outreach and Assistance

    Announcement Type: Initial.

    Funding Opportunity Number: HHS-2015-ACL-MI-1502

    Statutory Authority: The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008—Section 119, Public Law (Pub. L.) 110-275 as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Affordable Care Act), reauthorized by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), reauthorized by section 110 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 and reauthorized by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 93.071. DATES:

    The deadline date for the submission of MIPPA state plans is 11:59 PM EST, August 31, 2015.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description

    The purpose of MIPPA funding is to provide states with an opportunity to expand, extend, or enhance their outreach efforts to beneficiaries on Medicare Part D and for those with limited incomes. In 2014 ACL released a funding opportunity for states to submit a three year state plan to conduct MIPPA activities. With this announcement ACL is reopening the funding announcement for states that did not submit state plans in 2014 to now submit a two- year MIPPA state plan to conduct MIPPA activities over the remaining life of the grant.

    States that are currently funded under MIPPA do not have to reapply.

    In addition, in 2016 there will be a similar opportunity released for states that are not receiving MIPPA funds at that time to apply for FY 16 funds with a one year state plan.

    MIPPA funds are provided to enhance efforts through statewide and local coalition building focused on intensified outreach activities to help beneficiaries likely to be eligible for the Low Income Subsidy program (LIS), Medicare Savings Program (MSP), Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage (Part D) and in assisting beneficiaries in applying for benefits. ACL will provide funding to State Health Insurance Assistance Programs (SHIPs), Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs), and Aging and Disability Resource Center programs (ADRCs), to inform Medicare beneficiaries about available Federal and State benefits. ACL seeks plans from states that will describe how the MIPPA funds will be used for beneficiary outreach and education over the next two years.

    ACL requests that states submit a two year state plan with specific project strategies to expand, extend, or enhance the outreach efforts to beneficiaries on Medicare Part D and for those with limited incomes. States should describe how the SHIP, AAA, and ADRC efforts will be coordinated to provide outreach to beneficiaries with limited incomes statewide, for general Medicare Part D outreach and assistance to beneficiaries in rural areas, and for outreach activities aimed at Medicare prevention and wellness benefits as well as the improvements in the Part D program under the Affordable Care Act as mandated by Section 3306 of the Act. States that are eligible to apply are asked to review previous MIPPA plans and update these plans to reflect successes achieved to date and direct their efforts to enhance and expand their MIPPA outreach activities. State agencies may prepare either one statewide plan or separate plans for each eligible State agency.

    II. Award Information 1. Funding Instrument Type

    These awards will be made in the form of grants to State Agencies for each MIPPA Priority Area.

    Priority Area 1—Grants to State Agencies (the State Unit on Aging or the State Department of Insurance) that administer the State Health Insurance Assistance Programs to provide enhanced outreach to eligible Medicare beneficiaries regarding their benefits and enhanced outreach to individuals who may be eligible for the LIS or for the MSP.

    Priority Area 2—Grants to State Units on Aging for AAAs to provide enhanced outreach to eligible Medicare beneficiaries regarding their benefits and enhanced outreach to individuals who may be eligible for the LIS, MSP, Medicare Part D and Part D in rural areas.

    Priority Area 3—Grants to State Units on Aging that administer the Aging and Disability Resource Centers to provide outreach to individuals regarding the benefits available under Medicare Part D and under the MSP. Funds will be allocated to ADRCs via a formula patterned after the statutory formula used for SHIPs and AAAs.

    2. Anticipated Total Priority Area Funding per Budget Period

    ACL intends to make available, under this program announcement, grant awards for the three MIPPA priority areas. Funding will be distributed through a formula as identified in statute. The amounts allocated are based upon factors defined in statute and will be distributed to each priority area based on the formula. ACL will fund total project periods of up to two (2) years contingent upon availability of federal funds.

    Priority Area 1—SHIP: $7.5 million in FY 15 and potentially $13 million in FY 16 for state agencies that administer the SHIP Program.

    Priority Area 2—AAA: $7.5 million in FY 15 and potentially $7.5 million in FY 16 for SUAs for Area Agencies on Aging and for Native American programs. Funding for Native American Programs ($264,000) is deducted from Priority 2 and is being allocated through a separate process.

    Priority Area 3—ADRC: $5 million in FY 2015 and potentially $5 million in FY 16 for state agencies that administer ADRC programs that were established prior to March 2014.

    III. Eligibility Criteria and Other Requirements 1. Eligible Applicants MIPPA Priority Areas 1, 2 and 3

    Awards made under this announcement, by statute, will be made only to agencies of State Governments.

    Priority Area 1: Only existing SHIP grant recipients are eligible to apply.

    Priority Area 2: Only State Units on Aging are eligible to apply.

    Priority Area 3: Only State Agencies that received an ACL and CMS Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) grant where the ADRC was established by March, 2015 are eligible in FY 2015.

    Eligibility may change if future funding is available.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching Is Not Required. 3. DUNS Number

    All grant applicants must obtain and keep current a D-U-N-S number from Dun and Bradstreet. It is a nine-digit identification number, which provides unique identifiers of single business entities. The D-U-N-S number can be obtained from: https://iupdate.dnb.com/iUpdate/viewiUpdateHome.htm.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, is not applicable to these grant applications.

    IV. Submission Information 1. Application Kits

    Application kits/Program Instructions are available at www.grantsolutions.gov. Instructions for completing the application kit will be available on the site.

    2. Submission Dates and Times

    To receive consideration, applications must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on August 31, 2015, through www.GrantSolutions.gov.

    VII. Agency Contacts

    Direct inquiries regarding programmatic issues to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging, Office of Healthcare Information and Counseling, Washington, DC 20201, attention: Katherine Glendening or by calling 202- 357-3859, or by email [email protected]

    Dated: June 29, 2015. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator and Administration on Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16509 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-2244 Qualification of Biomarker—Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Qualification of Biomarker—Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.” This draft guidance provides a qualified context of use (COU) for plasma fibrinogen in interventional clinical trials of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subjects at high risk for exacerbations and/or all-cause mortality. This draft guidance also describes the experimental conditions and constraints for which this biomarker is qualified through the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Biomarker Qualification Program. This biomarker can be used by drug developers for the qualified COU in submissions of investigational new drug applications (INDs), new drug applications (NDAs), and biologics license applications (BLAs) without the relevant CDER review group reconsidering and reconfirming the suitability of the biomarker.

    In the Federal Register of January 7, 2014, FDA announced the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools” that described the process that would be used to qualify drug development tools (DDTs) and to make new DDT qualification recommendations available on FDA's Web site. The qualification recommendations in this draft guidance were developed using the process described in that guidance.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marianne Noone, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 4528, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Qualification of Biomarker—Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.” This draft guidance provides qualification recommendations for the use of plasma fibrinogen, measured at baseline, as a prognostic biomarker to enrich clinical trial populations of COPD subjects at high risk for exacerbations and/or all-cause mortality for inclusion in interventional clinical trials. This biomarker should be considered with other subject demographic and clinical characteristics, including a prior history of COPD exacerbations, as an enrichment factor in these trials.

    Specifically, this draft guidance provides the COU for which this biomarker is qualified through the CDER Biomarker Qualification Program. Qualification of this biomarker for this specific COU represents the conclusion that analytically valid measurements of the biomarker can be relied on to have a specific use and interpretable meaning. This biomarker can be used by drug developers for the qualified COU in submission of IND applications, NDAs, and BLAs without the relevant CDER review group reconsidering and reconfirming the suitability of the biomarker. “Qualification” means that the use of this biomarker in the specific COU is not limited to a single, specific drug development program. Making the qualification recommendations widely known and available for use by drug developers will contribute to drug innovation, thus supporting public health.

    As stated previously, in the Federal Register of January 7, 2014 (79 FR 831), FDA announced the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools” that described the process that would be used to qualify DDTs and to make new DDT qualification recommendations available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm. The current draft guidance is an attachment to that final guidance.

    CDER has initiated this formal qualification process to work with developers of these biomarker DDTs to guide them as they refine and evaluate DDTs for use in the regulatory context. Once qualified, DDTs will be publicly available for use in any drug development program for the qualified COU. As described in the January 2014 guidance, biomarker DDTs should be developed and reviewed using this process. For more information on FDA's DDTs Qualification Programs, refer to the following Web site: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugDevelopmentToolsQualificationProgram/default.htm.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on the use of plasma fibrinogen as an enrichment biomarker in interventional clinical trials of COPD patients. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains an information collection that is 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 information collection has been approved under the OMB control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0014. The information requested in this guidance is currently submitted to FDA to support medical product effectiveness (see 21 CFR 312.30, 21 CFR 314.50(d)(5), and 21 CFR 314.126(b)(6)).

    III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16563 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1951] CHEMBIOMED, LTD.; Revocation of U.S. License No. 0916 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the revocation of the biologics license (U.S. License No. 0916) issued to CHEMBIOMED, LTD. (CHEMBIOMED) for the manufacture of Anti-A (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-B (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-Lea (Murine Monoclonal) and Anti-Leb (Murine Monoclonal). CHEMBIOMED did not respond to a notice of opportunity for a hearing on a proposal to revoke its license.

    DATES:

    The revocation of the biologics license (U.S. License No. 0916) is effective July 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica T. Walker, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FDA is revoking the biologics license (U.S. License No. 0916) issued to CHEMBIOMED, 9515 107th St., Rm. 401, Edmonton AB T5K 2C3, Canada, for the manufacture of Anti-A (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-B (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-Lea (Murine Monoclonal) and Anti-Leb (Murine Monoclonal). Proceedings to revoke U.S. License No. 0916 were initiated under § 601.5(b) (21 CFR 601.5(b)) because FDA determined through various means that a meaningful inspection of CHEMBIOMED could not be conducted because the manufacturer was no longer in operation.

    In a phone conversation that occurred on July 7, 1992, a former CHEMBIOMED employee informed FDA that CHEMBIOMED was no longer in business, had ceased the manufacture of licensed products, and had also ceased shipments of licensed products to the United States.

    In a letter dated June 16, 1995, FDA requested from the Authorized Official (Responsible Head) of CHEMBIOMED a status update for the production of all of the products for which CHEMBIOMED held a U.S. license. This letter requested that the firm notify FDA in writing of the firm's status and also informed the Authorized Official that in the absence of a response to this letter that FDA would take action to revoke CHEMBIOMED's U.S. license. FDA did not receive a response to its letter dated June 16, 1995.

    In a certified, return-receipt letter dated October 18, 1995, FDA requested that the Authorized Official of CHEMBIOMED inform FDA whether or not the firm intended to pursue a product license application supplement request dated May 6, 1987. In the October 18, 1995 letter, FDA also informed the Authorized Official that the product license application supplement request had been placed in the FDA inactive files. FDA did not receive a response to its certified, return-receipt letter dated October 18, 1995.

    In a letter to CHEMBIOMED dated December 19, 2012, FDA provided notice of FDA's intent to revoke U.S. License No. 0916, and announced its intent to offer an opportunity for a hearing. FDA indicated that FDA registrations for CHEMBIOMED facilities have not been updated since May 12, 1994. The letter also advised the Authorized Official that, under § 601.5(b)(1)(i) and (ii) of FDA's regulations, proceedings for license revocation may be instituted when FDA finds that authorized FDA employees have been unable to gain access to an establishment for the purpose of carrying out an inspection, or when the manufacturing of a product has been discontinued to an extent that a meaningful inspection cannot be made at the establishment. The December 19, 2012 letter to CHEMBIOMED, sent via United Parcel Service, was returned as undeliverable.

    In addition, Health Canada advised FDA that CHEMBIOMED was no longer in operation, according to the Industry Canada Web site: www.ic.gc.ca. CHEMBIOMED (Corporation No. 0228176 and Business No. 100938521RC0001 under the governing legislation of the Canada Business Corporations Act) was issued a Certificate of Incorporation on August 15, 1977, and later was issued a Certificate of Dissolution on March 17, 1999.

    Under § 12.21(b) (21 CFR 12.21(b)), FDA published in the Federal Register of January 14, 2015 (80 FR 1917), a notice of opportunity for a hearing (NOOH) on a proposal to revoke the biologics license (U.S. License No. 0916) issued to CHEMBIOMED for the manufacture of Anti-A (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-B (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-Lea (Murine Monoclonal) and Anti-Leb (Murine Monoclonal). In the NOOH, FDA explained that the proposed license revocation was based on information that the firm was no longer in operation and the manufacture of its licensed products has been discontinued. FDA also noted in the NOOH that the documentation in support of the license revocation had been placed on file with the Division of Dockets Management under the docket number found in brackets in the heading of the notice.

    The NOOH provided the firm 30 days to submit an electronic or written request for a hearing and 60 days to submit any data and information justifying a hearing. The NOOH provided other interested persons with 60 days to submit electronic or written comments on the proposed revocation. The firm did not respond within the 30-day time period with an electronic or written request for a hearing, and under § 12.21(b), the 30-day time period prescribed in the NOOH may not be extended. No comments from other interested persons were received within the 60-day time period.

    Accordingly under 21 CFR 12.38, section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Director and Deputy Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (FDA Staff Manual Guide 1410.203), the biologics license (U.S. License No. 0916) issued to CHEMBIOMED, LTD. for the manufacture of Anti-A (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-B (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-Lea (Murine Monoclonal) and Anti-Leb (Murine Monoclonal) is revoked, effective July 7, 2015.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16562 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0169] Chung Po Liu; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment Order AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is denying Chung Po Liu's (Liu) request for a hearing and is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring Liu for 5 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for importation into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that Liu was convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation of an article of food into the United States. In determining the appropriateness and period of Liu's debarment, FDA has considered the relevant factors listed in the FD&C Act. Liu has failed to file with the Agency information and analysis sufficient to create a basis for a hearing concerning this action.

    DATES:

    This order is effective July 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Division of Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Finegan, Office of Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8618.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On August 26, 2010, Chung Po Liu pleaded guilty to the felony crime of entering honey, a food, into the commerce of the United States by means of a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 542 and 2. Liu admitted that he had caused his customs broker to declare Thailand to be the country of origin of one honey shipment, although the majority of the honey originated in China, and to declare the Philippines to be the country of origin of a second honey shipment, although the honey originated in China. Liu admitted that, in each instance, he had documents in his possession establishing that the honey originated in China, that the declaration of country of origin was false, and that he was without reasonable cause to believe it was true. Liu also admitted that the United States began requiring the deposit of estimated anti-dumping duties of between 183 percent and 221 percent on all non-exempt honey of Chinese origin beginning in 2001. Liu did not deposit estimated anti-dumping duties for either of these two shipments of imported honey. Liu also pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor crime of introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce in violation of sections 301(a), 303(a)(1), and 402(a)(2)(C)(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a), 333(a)(1), and 342(a)(2)(C)(i)). Liu admitted that he had introduced honey that contained the unsafe food additive ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic, into interstate commerce. On December 20, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington entered a criminal judgment against Liu under his guilty plea.

    Section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(C)) authorizes FDA to debar a person from importing articles of food or offering food for importation into the United States based on a finding, under section 306(b)(3) of the FD&C Act, that the person was convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation of food into the United States. By letter dated April 25, 2011, in accordance with section 306(i) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 10.50(c)(20) and 12.21(b), FDA, Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) notified Liu that the Agency proposed to debar him for 5 years from importing any articles of food or offering such articles for importation into the United States and offered an opportunity to request a hearing on the proposed order of debarment to resolve disputed issues of material fact. ORA advised Liu that a request for a hearing may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact that requires a hearing.

    In a letter dated May 24, 2011, Liu requested a hearing on his proposed debarment. On June 11, 2011, Liu submitted materials in support of his hearing request. In these materials, which were submitted in accordance with 21 CFR 12.22, Liu acknowledges his felony conviction. However, he urges FDA not to exercise its authority to debar him based on that conviction. In the alternative, he argues that any debarment should be limited to the 1-year period of supervised release that the court ordered him to serve after his release from custody after serving his sentence of incarceration of 1 year and 1 day.

    Under the authority delegated to him by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity (the Director) has considered Liu's submission. FDA will grant a hearing only if the material submitted shows that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact for resolution at the hearing. Hearings will not be granted on issues of policy or law, on mere allegations, denials, or general descriptions of positions and contentions, or on data and information insufficient to justify the factual determination urged (see 21 CFR 12.24(b)). Based on this review, the Director has concluded that Liu has failed to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact for resolution at a hearing and that a hearing is not justified. Accordingly, Liu's request for a hearing is denied, and FDA is issuing this notice to explain the basis for this decision (see 21 CFR 12.24(a) and 12.28).

    II. Arguments

    Liu raises two primary arguments in support of his hearing request. Liu first contends generally that debarment is “unwarranted in law and without justification by the facts in the case.” He also urges that FDA should not debar him due to his advanced age and ill health, or, alternatively, that FDA should debar him for a time period of less than 5 years, the debarment period proposed in the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.

    Liu notes that, under section 306(b), the decision whether to debar him is committed to FDA's discretion, and that FDA is authorized to debar him “as a result of conviction of certain crimes” (June 21 submission at 1). Indeed, section 306(b)(3) of the FD&C Act states that a person is subject to debarment if the person has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any food. Liu does not dispute that he was convicted of a felony crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. 542 and 2, or that his conviction was based on conduct relating to the importation of honey, a food. In the plea agreement Liu signed, which he does not now refute, he admitted that: (1) He entered or introduced, or attempted to enter or introduce, into the commerce of the United States, imported merchandise; (2) he did so by means of any fraudulent or false invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or by means of any false statement, written or verbal; and (3) he was without reasonable cause to believe the truth of such statement or procured the making of any such false statement as to any matter material thereto without reasonable cause to believe the truth of such statement (Plea Agreement at 2). He further admitted that this conduct related to the importation of honey, a food (see, for example, Plea Agreement at 11-12, June 21 submission at 2-3). Accordingly, Liu is subject to debarment under section 306(b)(3) on the basis of that felony conviction.

    Since Liu's felony conviction for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of honey establishes a predicate from which FDA may choose to exercise its authority to debar him, Liu's June 21 submission in support of his request for a hearing attempts to raise factual issues concerning the application of the factors in section 306(c)(3) that FDA is required to consider in determining the appropriateness and the period of debarment. These are the applicable criteria: (1) The nature and seriousness of any offense involved; (2) the nature and extent of management participation in any offense involved, whether corporate policies and practices encouraged the offense, including whether inadequate institutional controls contributed to the offense; (3) the nature and extent of voluntary steps to mitigate the impact on the public of any offense involved, including . . . full cooperation with any investigations (including the extent of disclosure to appropriate authorities of all wrongdoing) . . . and any other actions taken to substantially limit potential or actual adverse effects on the public health; (4) whether the extent to which changes in ownership, management, or operations have corrected the causes of any offense involved and provide reasonable assurances that the offense will not occur in the future; and (5) prior convictions under the FD&C Act or under other Acts involving matters within the jurisdiction of FDA.

    Significantly, the health and age of an individual subject to debarment are not included as factors relevant to FDA's exercise of the Agency's debarment authority. Although a defendant may sometimes argue that poor health and advanced age should be considered in mitigation of punishment, debarment under 21 U.S.C. 335a is not a punitive sanction. Instead it is remedial in purpose. (See DiCola v. FDA, 77 F.3d 504, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (permanent debarment of convicted individual is not punishment, but instead is a remedy to protect the integrity of the drug industry and public confidence in that industry); Bae v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 489, 493 (7th Cir. 1995) (purpose of statute establishing debarment authority was to restore consumer confidence in generic drugs by eradicating widespread corruption in generic drug approval process).) In determining whether to debar Liu, as well as the length of a term of debarment, FDA acts to protect the public health and not to punish Liu. Because we are acting for this remedial, not punitive, purpose, Liu's arguments concerning his health and age are not relevant to this proceeding.

    I address each of the relevant factors in turn.

    A. The Nature and Seriousness of the Offense

    Liu emphasizes that he was not convicted of the charge for which he was originally indicted, conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 545 by conspiring to enter goods into the United States through false statement, and to smuggle goods. He urges that conviction under the original charge would have required proof that he acted “knowingly and intentionally” (June 21 submission at 3). He devotes much of his submission to his argument that he did not act “knowingly and intentionally.” According to Liu's June 21 submission, Liu's accomplices, Yong Xiang Yan, the owner of Changge Jixiang Bee Products, Ltd. of Henan China, and Boa Zhong Zhang, a vice-president and part owner of Changge, established a scheme to transship and import into the United States Chinese honey, using Indigo Distribution Corp. in the Philippines. He disclaims knowledge of the nature and extent of their operations (June 21 submission at 4).

    However, these allegations are not relevant. Liu's conviction was not for violating, or conspiring to violate, 18 U.S.C. 545. The offense that must be considered is his felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 542 and 2, which was based on Liu's causing the false declarations to be made even though he was without reasonable cause to believe the truth of such statements. Even in his June 21 submission, Liu expressly acknowledges that he had documents in his possession indicating that, as described in the Plea Agreement and as charged in the superseding information to which he pleaded guilty, two shipments of honey he imported actually originated in China (June 21 submission at 3). He leaves unchallenged the factual basis for his conviction: That, without reasonable cause to believe the truth of the statements, he caused his customs broker to falsely state that the shipments originated in Thailand (December 20, 2006, shipment) and the Philippines (February 14, 2007, shipment). Although he dismisses these as a “few emails . . . among many hundreds of documents relating to the importation of honey found in Mr. Liu's house” (June 21 submission at 3), he fully admits that these communications were in his possession. Liu has raised no factual issue for resolution at a hearing concerning whether he acted without reasonable cause to believe the truth of the statements concerning where the honey was produced.

    We further note that the statement of facts, which Liu admitted in his plea agreement, provides additional information concerning his actions which demonstrate the financial motive behind this offense. Had Liu instructed his customs broker to declare the country of origin as China, he and his companies would have been responsible for anti-dumping duties in the amount of 221 percent of the value of the honey (Plea Agreement at 11-12). Liu's misrepresentation was thus both material and meaningful in the imports process, and it could not have been lost on Liu how important the country of origin was in the context of the anti-dumping duties for Chinese honey.

    Finally, I note that Liu's conviction did not rest on a single false statement. Instead, he pleaded guilty to a superseding information that included false statements with respect to two separate entries of imported Chinese honey, 2 months apart. His conviction did not rest on a single isolated incident, but on a repeated violation.

    Therefore, it is undisputed that Liu was responsible for multiple material false statements that resulted in the avoidance of significant duties for the importation of two shipments of honey with a total declared value of $186,912. As such, I agree with ORA's evaluation of this consideration and find that the nature and seriousness of Liu's felony offense weighs strongly in favor of debarment.

    B. The Nature and Extent of Management Participation in the Offense

    Next, I consider whether Liu's response raised specific facts showing that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact that requires a hearing concerning the nature and extent of management participation in the offense, including whether corporate policies and practices encouraged the offense, and whether inadequate institutional controls contributed to the offense.

    In the Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing, ORA stated, “As the owner of the importing companies, you were responsible for the accuracy of declarations made to United States customs officials. You were without reasonable cause to believe the truth of these declarations regarding the origins of the honey. Further, you directly profited from the domestic sale of the imported honey.”

    Liu has not challenged these statements, and all of the descriptions of Liu's actions in the June 21 submission show him to act alone, as the individual responsible for importing these two shipments of honey. I agree with ORA that, based upon these facts, the nature and extent of Liu's management participation in the offense weighs in favor of debarment.

    C. The Nature and Extent of Voluntary Steps To Mitigate the Impact on the Public

    Next, I consider whether Liu has raised specific facts showing that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact that requires a hearing concerning the nature and extent of voluntary steps to mitigate the impact of his offense on the public, including full cooperation with any investigations (including the extent of disclosure to appropriate authorities of all wrongdoing) and any other actions taken to substantially limit potential or actual adverse effects on the public health.

    In the Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing, ORA stated, “You took no steps to mitigate the impact on the public of your actions.” Liu has not challenged this statement. As such, I agree with ORA that the nature and extent of Liu's voluntary steps to mitigate the impact to the public weighs in favor of debarment.

    D. The Impact of Changes in Ownership, Management, or Operations

    In the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, ORA determined that this factor was not applicable for consideration. Liu has not challenged that determination.

    E. Prior Convictions Under the FD&C Act or Related Acts

    In the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, ORA acknowledged that the Agency was unaware of any prior convictions involving matters within the jurisdiction of FDA. The lack of previous violations of the FD&C Act or related statutes by Liu weighs against debarment.

    III. Findings and Order

    The Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity, under section 306(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act and under authority delegated to him, finds that Liu has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation of food into the United States. Accordingly, FDA may debar Liu from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States for a period of not more than 5 years.

    I have considered the arguments raised by Liu regarding the relevant factors listed in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act and have determined that Liu has raised no genuine and substantial issues of fact that require resolution at an evidentiary hearing. I have considered the factors in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act. The nature and seriousness of Liu's offense, Liu's management participation in the offense, and the lack of any voluntary steps to mitigate the impact of the offense weigh in favor of debarring. Although Liu appears to have no prior criminal convictions involving matters within the jurisdiction of FDA, that consideration does not counterbalance to a sufficient degree the remaining considerations to warrant decreasing the period of debarment. Of particular note is the nature and seriousness of the offense, in light of the volume of honey that was imported, the amount of duties that were avoided, and the fact that false statements were made with regard to two shipments of honey. I agree with ORA's proposed period of debarment and find that a debarment of 5 years is appropriate.

    As a result of the foregoing findings, Liu is debarred for a period of 5 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States, effective (see DATES). Under section 301(cc) of the FD&C Act, the importing or offering for import into the United States of an article of food by, with the assistance of, or at the direction of Liu is a prohibited act.

    Any application by Liu for termination of debarment under section 306(d) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0169 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management Branch (see ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The public availability of information in these submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j). Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain documents in the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Nathan Doty, Director, Office of Scientific Integrity.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16561 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice; Notice of Meeting SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice (NACNEP).

    DATES:

    July 28 and 29, 2015, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    This meeting will be via Webinar Format. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information regarding NACNEP, please contact Jeanne Brown, Staff Assistant, National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. The telephone number is: (301) 443-5688. The email is [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Status: This advisory council meeting will be open to the public.

    Purpose: The purpose of the 131st National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice (NACNEP) meeting is to provide advice and recommendations on policy and program development related to the role of nursing in Interprofessional Education (IPE) and Practice. The purpose is to discuss existing IPE models in an academic setting and the intersect between education and practice as it relates to Health Care delivery reform. The goal of the meeting is to solicit recommendations for IPE in an academic setting and the intersect important to IPE and practice. Strengths, challenges, achievable solutions, and replicable models required and/or available to move from discussion to action will be identified. Additionally, the meeting will discuss topics for future work of the council. This meeting will conclude with a formulation of recommendations and form the basis for NACNEP's mandated Thirteenth Annual Report to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Congress.

    Agenda: A final agenda will be posted on the NACNEP Web site 3 days prior to the meeting. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Further information regarding NACNEP including the roster of members, reports to Congress, and minutes from previous meetings is available at the NACNEP Web site. Members of the public and interested parties may request to participate in the meeting by contacting Staff Assistant, Jeanne Brown. Access to the meeting will be granted on a first come, first-served basis and space is limited. Public participants may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting. If you would like to provide oral public comment during the meeting you will need to register with Erin Fowler, Designated Federal Official (DFO). Public comment will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker and is tentatively scheduled for after lunch on the first day of the meeting. Statements and comments can be addressed to Erin Fowler. Please send by email to: [email protected]

    Please be advised that committee members are given copies of all written statements submitted by the public prior to the meeting. Any further public participation will be at the discretion of the Chair, with approval of the DFO in attendance. Registration through the designated contact for the public comment session is required. Any member of the public who wishes to have printed materials distributed to the Advisory Group should submit materials to the point of contact no later than 12:00 p.m. EST on July 13, 2015.

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16135 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation; Notice of Meeting SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation (ACBSCT).

    DATES:

    September 11, 2015 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Stroup, MBA, MPA, Executive Secretary, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17W65, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone (301) 443-1127.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.

    Purpose: Pursuant to Public Law 109-129, 42 U.S.C. 274k (section 379 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended), the ACBSCT advises the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration, on matters related to the activities of the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program (Program) and the National Cord Blood Inventory Program.

    Agenda: The Council will hear a report from the ACBSCT Work Group on Advancing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Hemoglobinopathies. The Council also will hear presentations and discussions on topics including: past recommendations made to the Secretary, cord blood bank economics, status of Food and Drug Administration licensure of cord blood banks, and potential impact of haploidentical transplants. Agenda items are subject to changes as priorities indicate.

    After Council discussions, members of the public will have an opportunity to provide comment. Because of the Council's full agenda and timeframe in which to cover the agenda topics, public comment may be limited. All public comments will be included in the record of the ACBSCT meeting. Meeting summary notes will be posted on HRSA's Program Web site at http://bloodcell.transplant.hrsa.gov/ABOUT/Advisory_Council/index.html.

    The draft meeting agenda will be posted on https://www.blsmeetings.net/acbsct. Those participating at this meeting should pre-register by visiting https://www.blsmeetings.net/acbsct. The deadline to pre-register for this meeting is Thursday, September 10, 2015. Registration will be confirmed on site. For all logistical questions and concerns, please contact Anita Allen, Seamon Corporation, at (301) 658-3442 or send an email to [email protected]

    Participants can also join this meeting via teleconference by:

    1. (Audio Portion) Calling the Conference Phone Number (800-988-0202) and providing the Participant Passcode (9115853); and

    2. (Visual Portion) Connecting to the ACBSCT Adobe Connect Pro Meeting using the following URL and entering as GUEST: https://hrsa.connectsolutions.com/acbsct_webinar/ (copy and paste the link into your browser if it does not work directly, and enter as a guest).

    Participants should call and connect 15 minutes prior to the meeting for logistics to be set up. If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting, please test your connection using the following URL: https://hrsa.connectsolutions.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. In order to obtain a quick overview, go to the following URL: http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. Call (301) 443-0437 or send an email to [email protected] if you are having trouble connecting to the meeting site.

    Public Comment: It is preferred that persons interested in providing an oral presentation email a written request, along with a copy of their presentation, to Patricia Stroup, MBA, MPA, Executive Secretary, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, at [email protected] Requests should contain the name, address, telephone number, email address, and any business or professional affiliation of the person desiring to make an oral presentation. Groups having similar interests are requested to combine their comments and present them through a single representative.

    The allocation of time may be adjusted to accommodate the level of expressed interest. Persons who do not file an advance request for a presentation, but desire to make an oral statement, may request it during the public comment period. Public participation and ability to comment will be limited as time permits.

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16137 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by Section 2112(b)(2) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of Health and Human Services is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-26, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our Web site at: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

    A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

    Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that within 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register. Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on May 1, 2015, through May 31, 2015. This list provides the name of petitioner, city and state of vaccination (if unknown then city and state of person or attorney filing claim), and case number. In cases where the Court has redacted the name of a petitioner and/or the case number, the list reflects such redaction.

    In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described in Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading “For Further Information Contact”), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-26, Rockville, MD 20857. The Court's caption (Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission. Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. James Macrae, Acting Administrator. List of Petitions Filed 1. Herbert W. Morgan, La Jolla, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0441V 2. John Dauksts, Jenison, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0442V 3. Roberta Reyna, Baraboo, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0443V 4. Elizabeth S. Bell, Cayce, South Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0444V 5. Lillian R. Johnson, Gainesville, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0447V 6. Ellen Guyer, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0448V 7. Quentin Prideaux, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0449V 8. Julia Telonidis, West Long Branch, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0450V 9. Gerda Ulysse, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0451V 10. Harvey McBride, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0452V 11. Julie Feaster, Fairfax, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0455V 12. Donald Harris, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0461V 13. Kimberly Cox, Griffith, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0462V 14. Miranda Laird, Little Rock, Arkansas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0463V 15. Dima Schloss on behalf of N. S., Ann Arbor, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0465V 16. Sholom Wolman and Yonit Wolman on behalf of S. D. W., New York, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0466V 17. Elizabeth J. Zdroik, Richmond, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0468V 18. Joseph Stout, Oxford, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0469V 19. Ronald Cooper on behalf of J. C., Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0471V 20. Robert Shupe, Tiffin, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0472V 21. Harold Duke, Rock Hill, South Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0473V 22. James Perales and Joy Perales on behalf of J. P., Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0474V 23. Judy G. Davidson, Atlanta, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0475V 24. Roy Bush, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0476V 25. Kimberly Sengenberger, Murray, Kentucky, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0477V 26. Adina Small, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0478V 27. Andrew Hoose, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0479V 28. James Czerwonka, Barron, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0482V 29. Lavern Griffis, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0483V 30. Logan Osberg, Mount Kisco, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0484V 31. Rosa Allicock on behalf of M. A., Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0485V 32. Jacqueline F. King on behalf of Brooklyn Hernandez, Nags Head, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0486V 33. Lillian Rivera, Bronx, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0487V 34. Cara Specks, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0491V 35. Barry George Jackson, Pasadena, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0492V 36. Enrique Rodriguez-Luna, Arlington, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0496V 37. Michael C. King, Plainfield, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0500V 38. Stephanie Delapaz, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0502V 39. Bernhard Kreten, San Diego, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0504V 40. Adam Raszkiewicz, Mount Kisco, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0509V 41. Susana Gonzales-Sexauer, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0512V 42. Anne Tinsley, Piermont, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0513V 43. Robin Adkins on behalf of Sherman Arrowood, Deceased, Lavalette, West Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0514V 44. Elizabeth Gram on behalf of A. L. M., Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0515V 45. Beth Britt, Sarasota, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0516V 46. Jeremy Eamick, Fayetteville, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0519V 47. Jeremy Svagdis and Kimberly Svagdis on behalf of A. S., Cumming, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0520V 48. David Wilson on behalf of Estelle Maltz, Deceased, San Diego, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0521V 49. Jeffrey Norris, Granite Falls, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0525V 50. Lee Liggett, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0526V 51. Terrence Francis and Michelle Francis on behalf of M. F., Middletown, Delaware, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0527V 52. Scott A. Fundermann, Correctionville, Iowa, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0529V 53. MaryAnn Story, Layton, Utah, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0530V 54. Raymond L. Sparks, Riverton, Wyoming, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0531V 55. Karl Steger, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0532V 56. Brittany Arnold on behalf of L. H., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0534V 57. Vernon D. Begley, Florida City, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0535V 58. Winifred Campbell, Depew, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0541V 59. Diane M. Sphar, Cincinnati, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0544V 60. Catherine Henry, Memphis, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0545V 61. Robert Berkley, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0546V 62. Angela Thomas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0550V 63. Roby Wilson and Jeana Wilson on behalf of J. W., Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-0551V
    [FR Doc. 2015-16170 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; National Indian Health Outreach and Education, Policy/Budget/Diabetes; Announcement Type: Limited New and Competing Continuation Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2015-IHS-NIHOE-I-PBD-0002; Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.933 Key Dates

    Application Deadline Date: September 8, 2015.

    Review Date: September 10, 2015.

    Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 30, 2015.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date: September 8, 2015.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive cooperative agreement applications for the National Indian Health Outreach and Education, Policy/Budget/Diabetes (NIHOE-I) limited competition cooperative agreement program. This award includes the following four components, as described in this announcement: “Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach funds,” “Health Care Policy Analysis and Review,” “Budget Formulation,” and “Tribal Leaders Diabetes Committee” (TLDC). This program is authorized under the Snyder Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. 13. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 93.933.

    Background

    The NIHOE1 program carries out health program objectives in the American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) community in the interest of improving Indian health care for all 566 Federally-recognized Tribes, including Tribal governments operating their own health care delivery systems through self-determination contracts with the IHS and Tribes that continue to receive health care directly from the IHS. This program addresses health policy and health program issues and disseminates educational information to all AI/AN Tribes and villages. This program requires that public forums be held at Tribal educational consumer conferences to disseminate changes and updates in the latest health care information. This program also requires that regional and national meetings be coordinated for information dissemination as well as the inclusion of planning and technical assistance and health care recommendations on behalf of participating Tribes to ultimately inform IHS based on Tribal input through a broad based consumer network.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this IHS cooperative agreement is to further IHS's mission and goals related to providing quality health care to the AI/AN community through outreach and education efforts with the sole outcome of improving Indian health care. This award includes the following four health services components: Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach funds, Health Care Policy Analysis and Review, Budget Formulation, and TLDC.

    Limited Competition Justification

    Competition for the award included in this announcement is limited to national Indian health care organizations with at least ten years of experience providing education and outreach on a national scale. This limitation ensures that the awardee will have: (1) A national information-sharing infrastructure which will facilitate the timely exchange of information between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Tribes and Tribal organizations on a broad scale; (2) a national perspective on the needs of AI/AN communities that will ensure that the information developed and disseminated through the projects is appropriate, useful and addresses the most pressing needs of AI/AN communities; and (3) established relationships with Tribes and Tribal organizations that will foster open and honest participation by AI/AN communities. Regional or local organizations will not have the mechanisms in place to conduct communication on a national level, nor will they have an accurate picture of the health care needs facing AI/ANs nationwide. Organizations with less experience will lack the established relationships with Tribes and Tribal organizations throughout the country that will facilitate participation and the open and honest exchange of information between Tribes and HHS. With the limited funds available for these projects, HHS must ensure that the education and outreach efforts described in this announcement reach the widest audience possible in a timely fashion, are appropriately tailored to the needs of AI/AN communities throughout the country, and come from a source that AI/ANs recognize and trust. For these reasons, this is a limited competition announcement.

    II. Award Information Type of Award

    Cooperative Agreement.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2015 is approximately $825,000. Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) is estimated for outreach, education, and support to Tribes who have elected to leave their Tribal shares with the IHS (this amount could vary based on Tribal shares assumptions; Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach funding will be awarded in partial increments based on availability and amount of funding); $200,000 for the Health Care Policy Analysis and Review; $75,000 for the Budget Formulation; and $250,000 associated with providing legislative education, outreach and communications support to the IHS TLDC and to facilitate Tribal consultation on the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI). The amount of funding available for both competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    One award will be issued under this program announcement comprised of the following four components: Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach; Health Care Policy Analysis and Review; Budget Formulation; and TLDC.

    Project Period

    The project period will run for one year from September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.

    Cooperative Agreement

    Cooperative agreements awarded by HHS are administered under the same policies as a grant. The funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:

    Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement A. IHS Programmatic Involvement

    1. The IHS assigned program official will work in partnership with the awardee in all decisions involving strategy, hiring of personnel, deployment of resources, release of public information materials, quality assurance, coordination of activities, any training, reports, budget and evaluation. Collaboration includes data analysis, interpretation of findings and reporting.

    2. The IHS assigned program official will monitor the overall progress of the awardee's execution of the requirements of the award noted below, as well as their adherence to the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement. This includes providing guidance for required reports, development of tools and other products, interpreting program findings and assisting with evaluation and overcoming any slippages encountered.

    3. The IHS assigned program official will coordinate review and provide final approval of any deliverables, including printed materials, reports, testimony, and PowerPoint slides, prior to their distribution or dissemination to HHS, Tribes, or the public.

    4. The IHS assigned program official will also coordinate the following:

    • Discussion and release of any and all special grant conditions upon fulfillment.

    • Monthly scheduled conference calls.

    • Appropriate dissemination of required reports to each participating IHS program.

    5. IHS will jointly with the awardee, plan and set an agenda for an annual conference that:

    • Shares the outcomes of the outreach and health education training provided.

    • Fosters collaboration amongst the participating IHS program offices.

    • Increases visibility for the partnership between the awardee and IHS.

    • Includes HHS Conference Policy:

    6. IHS will provide guidance in preparing articles for publication and/or presentations of program successes, lessons learned and new findings.

    7. IHS staff will review articles concerning the HHS for accuracy and may, if requested by the awardee, provide relevant articles.

    8. IHS will communicate, via monthly conference calls and meetings, individual or collective (all participating programs) site visits to the awardee.

    9. IHS will provide technical assistance to the awardee as requested.

    10. IHS staff may, at the request of the entity's board, participate on study groups, attend board meetings, and recommend topics for analysis and discussion.

    B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities

    The awardee must obtain written IHS approval of all deliverables produced with award funds, including printed materials, reports, testimony, and PowerPoint slides, prior to their distribution or dissemination to HHS, Tribes, or the public.

    The awardee must comply with relevant Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular provisions regarding lobbying, any applicable lobbying restrictions provided under other law and any applicable restriction on the use of appropriated funds for lobbying activities.

    1. Pre-Conference Grant Requirements. The awardee is required to comply with the “HHS Policy on Promoting Efficient Spending: Use of Appropriated Funds for Conferences and Meeting Space, Food, Promotional Items, and Printing and Publications,” dated December 16, 2013 (“Policy”), as applicable to conferences funded by grants and cooperative agreements. The Policy is available at http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/acquisition/policies/promoting-efficient-conference-spending-policy-12-16-2013.html.

    The awardee is required to:

    Provide a separate detailed budget justification and narrative for each conference anticipated. The cost categories to be addressed are as follows: (1) Contract/Planner, (2) Meeting Space/Venue, (3) Registration Web site, (4) Audio Visual, (5) Speakers Fees, (6) Non-Federal Attendee Travel, (7) Registration Fees, (8) Other (explain in detail and cost breakdown). For additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Buchanan on (301) 443-1104 or email him at [email protected].

    2. Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach funding is utilized for outreach, health education, and support to Tribes—approximately $300,000 funding is available.

    The awardee is expected to fulfill the following:

    Meeting Responsibilities ANNUAL (Required)

    Estimated Costs: The estimated costs for this activity shall not exceed $100,000. The awardee shall work with IHS/Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes (ODSCT) closely on this item. As the sponsoring agency, IHS meeting attendees will not incur registration fees.

    a. Host an annual conference to disseminate changes and updates on health care information relative to AI/AN.

    Meeting Responsibilities MID-YEAR (Required)

    Estimated Costs: The estimated costs for this activity shall not exceed $100,000. The awardee shall work with IHS/ODSCT closely on this item. As the sponsoring agency, IHS meeting attendees will not incur registration fees.

    a. Host a mid-year consumer conference(s) as appropriate to disseminate changes and updates on health care information relative to AI/AN.

    Coordination, Dissemination, and Technical Assistance Responsibilities (Required)

    Estimated Costs: The estimated costs for this activity shall not exceed $100,000. The awardee shall work with IHS/ODSCT closely on this item.

    a. Conduct regional and national meeting coordination as appropriate.

    b. Conduct health care information dissemination as appropriate.

    c. Coordinate planning and technical assistance needs on behalf of Tribes/Tribal organizations (T/TO) with IHS.

    d. Convey health care recommendations on behalf of T/TO to IHS.

    3. Health Care Policy Analysis and Review

    This funding component requires the awardee to provide IHS with research and analysis of the impact of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) programs on AI/AN beneficiaries and the health care delivery system that serves these beneficiaries. $200,000 funding is available for analysis of CMS programs that affect AI/AN beneficiaries.

    The awardee will produce measurable outcomes to include:

    a. Analytical reports, policy review and recommendation documents—The products will be in the form of written (hard copy and/or electronic files) documents that contain analysis of relevant health care issues to be reported on a monthly or quarterly basis and face-to-face meetings with hard copies submitted to the Director, IHS/Office of Resource, Access and Partnerships (ORAP).

    b. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the overall impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation, including the regulations and policies, on the Indian health care system, in terms of whether or not it is working as intended. That is, whether Tribes and AI/AN consumers are receiving the benefits of the special provisions for Indians, and whether all of the necessary stakeholders including Indian Health Service/Tribes/Urbans (I/T/Us), qualified health plans, providers, and consumers have the information and capacity to ensure successful outcomes and are working cooperatively and effectively to that end.

    c. Policy recommendations, based on the analysis, that include in particular, direct service Tribes' perspectives incorporating real-time information on how the structure of the Federal system should support the I/T/U healthcare delivery system. If deficiencies are found, provide recommendations on improvement and solutions. Issues of analysis may include improving access to care, obtaining affordable coverage, network contracting and enforcement of Section 206 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA).

    d. Educational and informational materials to be disseminated by the awardee and communicated to IHS and Tribal health program staff during monthly and quarterly conferences, the annual consumer conference, meetings and training sessions. This can be in the form of PowerPoint presentations, informational brochures, and/or handout materials. The IHS will provide guidance and assistance as needed. Copies of all deliverables shall be submitted to the IHS/ODSCT and IHS/ORAP.

    4. Tribal Budget Consultation—Budget Formulation

    The awardee will provide assistance and technical support to IHS, Tribes, and the Budget Formulation Workgroup with the National Budget Formulation work session, the HHS Tribal Consultation meeting, and the Budget Formulation Evaluation and Planning meeting. The awardee will develop the National Tribal Budget Recommendation document, briefing documents, and Tribal Leaders presentation and talking points, by performing the activities described below in coordination with and support of the IHS Tribal Budget Consultation process. $75,000 is available for Budget Formulation. Budget consultation is required by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. 450j-1(i).

    NATIONAL BUDGET FORMULATION WORK SESSION—January 2016 Meeting Responsibilities (Required)

    Estimated Costs: The estimated costs for this activity shall not exceed $10,000. The awardee shall work with IHS/Office of Finance and Accounting (OFA)/Division of Budget Formulation (DBF) closely on this item.

    a. Registration of National Budget Formulation Work Session attendees. The Awardee shall assist with the registration of all attendees as they enter the Budget Formulation Work Session.

    b. The awardee shall distribute prepared budget formulation packages to all attendees.

    Recordation of Meeting—The awardee shall take minutes during the work session.

    a. Minutes should be recorded in a clear and concise manner and identify all speakers including presenters and any individuals contributing comments or motions.

    b. Minutes will be recorded in an objective manner.

    c. Minutes shall include a record of any comments, votes, or recommendations made, as well as notation of any handouts and other materials referenced by speakers, documented by the speaker's name and affiliation.

    d. Minutes shall document any written materials that were distributed at the meeting. These materials will be included with the submission of the transcription and the summary page outlining all key topics.

    e. Minutes will include information regarding the next meeting, including the date, time and location and a list of topics to be addressed.

    f. The minutes must be submitted to IHS/OFA in final draft within five working days after the conclusion of the work session.

    Further Instructions

    The awardee shall:

    a. Package and distribute results of the work session to IHS/OFA within five working days, which includes minutes and the final set of agreed upon national budget priorities; and

    b. Provide final documents needed for the IHS budget formulation Web site.

    HHS TRIBAL CONSULTATION—March 2016 Preparation and Meeting Responsibilities

    Estimated Costs: The estimated costs for this activity shall not exceed $55,000. The awardee shall work with IHS/OFA/DBF closely on this item.

    The Tribal testimony is a combined effort that is written and presented by the National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup. The testimony is presented to the Secretary of HHS and related staff as part of the Annual National U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Tribal Budget and Policy Consultation.

    The awardee will assist the National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup to prepare for the HHS Consultation meeting by:

    a. Arranging a workgroup meeting;

    b. Preparing testimony and a PowerPoint presentation with talking points, with the content of both based on input from the workgroup and technical team and with the awardee responsible for formatting and design of the products;

    c. Submitting testimony and the draft PowerPoint presentation to IHS for review and clearance ten working days prior to the presentation to HHS;

    d. Packaging and distributing final materials, once clearance from IHS is obtained; and

    e. Delivering the final testimony to the IHS/OFA/DBF five working days prior to the presentation.

    The awardee will arrange working space for the workgroup to provide final input to the presentation and finalize the presentation, if needed—not to exceed two days. In addition, the awardee will assist presenters, as needed, with rehearsal of the final presentation.

    BUDGET FORMULATION EVALUATION AND PLANNING MEETING—May 2016 Meeting Responsibilities (Required)

    Estimated Costs: The estimated costs for this activity shall not exceed $10,000. The awardee shall work with IHS/OFA/DBF closely on this item.

    Recordation of Meeting—The awardee shall take minutes during the work session.

    a. Minutes should be recorded in a clear and concise manner and identify all speakers including presenters and any individuals contributing comments or motions.

    b. Minutes will be recorded in an objective manner.

    c. Minutes shall include a record of any comments, votes, or recommendations made, as well as notation of any handouts and other materials referenced by speakers, documented by the speaker's name and affiliation.

    d. Minutes shall document any written materials that were distributed at the meeting. These materials will be included with the submission of the transcription and the summary page outlining all key topics.

    e. Minutes will include information regarding the next meeting, including the date, time and location and a list of topics to be addressed.

    f. The minutes must be submitted to IHS/OFA in final draft within five working days after the conclusion of the meeting.

    Further Instructions

    The awardee shall package and distribute results of the meeting in final:

    a. To OFA within five working days; and

    b. The documents needed for IHS budget formulation Web site.

    Additionally, for all specified meeting and activities:

    • All expenses will be itemized.

    • If costs are projected to exceed the estimated cost for any part of this Scope of Work, approval from IHS/OFA must be granted before any release of funds.

    • Preapproval from IHS is required before any subcontract may be awarded at a price above the estimated cost.

    5. Facilitate Tribal Consultation on SDPI, Provide Meeting Support for TLDC, and Provide Education, Outreach and Communications Support

    A total of $250,000 is available for tasks associated with providing meeting support for the TLDC and providing education, outreach and communications support on the activities of the TLDC, the SDPI grant program and related diabetes/chronic disease issues.

    TLDC Meetings Meeting Responsibilities (Required)

    Estimated Costs: The estimated costs for this activity shall not exceed $184,000 or $46,000 per quarterly meeting. The awardee shall work with the Division of Diabetes Treatment and Prevention (DDTP) closely on this item.

    a. Arrange TLDC meetings and strategic planning workgroup sessions.

    i. Face-to-Face TLDC meetings (up to quarterly)

    1. Location to be determined by TLDC members and the IHS Director. Every effort will be made to utilize Federal meeting space for TLDC meetings.

    2. Provide on-site logistical support for TLDC meetings, including coordination of meeting activities, room set-up, registration, services, and materials (e.g. badges, name tents, agendas and other meeting documents).

    ii. TLDC Strategic Planning Workgroups

    1. Schedule conference calls and/or webinars for four workgroups. Schedule of calls will be made in conjunction with TLDC members.

    b. Develop TLDC workgroup session agendas with the DDTP and TLDC.

    c. Record and provide minutes of TLDC meetings and workgroup sessions.

    i. Minutes will be completed as follows:

    1. Minutes will be recorded in a clear and concise manner and identify all speakers including presenters and any individuals contributing comments or motions.

    2. Minutes will be recorded in an objective manner.

    3. Minutes shall include a record of any comments, votes, or recommendations made, as well as notation of any handouts and other materials referenced by speakers, documented by the speaker's name and affiliation.

    4. Minutes shall document any written materials that were distributed at the meeting. These materials will be included with the submission of the transcription and the summary page outlining all key topics.

    5. Minutes will include information regarding the next meeting, including the date, time and location, and a list of topics to be addressed.

    6. The minutes must be submitted to IHS/DDTP for review and approval within five working days after each TLDC general or workgroup meeting or teleconference.

    ii. Provide final minutes and pertinent documents to IHS/DDTP within five working days of receiving IHS/DDTP's edits on the draft version.

    d. Coordinate travel planning and travel/per diem reimbursement in accordance with the approved TLDC charter for 12 TLDC members (or their assigned alternate) and five technical advisors to attend up to four quarterly TLDC meetings.

    i. Travel planning and reimbursement process will include:

    1. Direct communication with TLDC members (and alternates, as necessary) and technical advisors to assist in travel arrangements.

    2. Provide logistical information to TLDC members and advisors for meeting location and lodging.

    3. Prepare and distribute reimbursement forms with clear instructions in advance of the meeting and serve as the point of contact for communicating any additional travel information that is required.

    4. Collect reimbursement forms and provide timely reimbursement of approved participants' expenses within 30 days of the receipt of the claim forms.

    5. Provide a detailed travel reimbursement report to DDTP within 60 days of the TLDC meeting.

    6. Maintain an active TLDC email directory in order to assist DDTP and TLDC with disseminating related meeting, travel and reimbursement information and soliciting related feedback.

    7. Include identified DDTP staff on all email correspondence to TLDC members and technical advisors.

    Provide Education, Outreach and Communications Support Education, Outreach and Communication Support Responsibilities (Required)

    Estimated Costs: The estimated cost for these activities is $66,000. The awardee shall work with DDTP closely on this item.

    e. Communicate with Tribal leaders and Indian organizations about the activities of the TLDC, the SDPI grant program and related diabetes/chronic disease issues.

    i. Provide factual information, review and analysis of legislative and policy issues that are relevant to diabetes and related chronic conditions in AI/ANs and on related health care disparities in written and e-file format for the purpose of keeping TLDC membership up-to-date on such information and for sharing with other Tribal leadership, Indian organizations and others.

    ii. Coordinate sharing DDTP-approved information with national non-profit organizations such as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the American Diabetes Association for strengthening outreach to Tribes and Tribal communities as well as education and outreach to non-Indian communities in the United States about AI/ANs living with diabetes and other chronic diseases.

    iii. Support registration, presentation, and exhibit costs for up to five DDTP staff and assignees to potentially include a plenary and up to four workshop presentations on diabetes, SDPI and related chronic disease at meetings such as:

    1. National Indian Health Board (NIHB) Public Health Summit and the NIHB Annual Consumer Conference; and

    2. Other national Tribal health care conferences/meetings such as the National Congress of American Indians Annual Convention.

    iv. Support exhibit opportunity for SDPI community-directed and Diabetes Prevention/Health Heart Initiatives grant programs to display programmatic information at the 2016 NIHB Public Health Summit.

    III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligibility

    To be eligible for this “New/Competing Continuation Announcement,” an eligible applicant must be a 501(c)(3) national Indian organization that has demonstrated expertise as follows:

    • Representing all Tribal governments and providing a variety of services to Tribes, area health boards, Tribal organizations, and Federal agencies, and playing a major role in focusing attention on Indian health care needs, resulting in improved health outcomes for Tribes.

    • Promoting and supporting Indian education and coordinating efforts to inform AI/AN of Federal decisions that affect Tribal government interests including the improvement of Indian health care.

    • Administering national health policy and health programs.

    • Maintaining a national AI/AN constituency and clearly supporting critical services and activities within the IHS mission of improving the quality of health care for AI/AN people.

    • Supporting improved healthcare in Indian Country.

    Applicants must provide proof of non-profit status with the application.

    The national Indian organization must have the infrastructure in place to accomplish the work under the proposed program.

    Note:

    Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.

    The following documentation is required:

    Proof of Non-Profit Status

    Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (i.e. FedEx tracking, postal return receipt, etc.).

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/index.cfm?module=dsp_dgm_funding.

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).

    • Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed ten pages for each of the four components listed).

    ○ Background information on the organization.

    ○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.

    • Letter of support from organization's Board of Directors.

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Position descriptions for key personnel.

    • Resumes of key personnel.

    • Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required) in order to receive IDC.

    • Organizational chart (optional).

    • Documentation of current OMB A-133 required Financial Audit (if applicable).

    Acceptable forms of documentation include:

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site: http://harvester.census.gov/sac/dissem/accessoptions.html?submit=Go+To+Database

    Public Policy Requirements

    All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives

    A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than ten pages per each component and must: be single-spaced, be type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 characters per one inch, and be printed on one side only of standard size 81/2″ × 11″ paper.

    Be sure to succinctly address and answer all questions listed under each part of the narrative and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they shall not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming more familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this grant award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first ten pages of each of the four components will be reviewed. The ten pages per component page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, table of contents, budget, budget narrative justifications, and/or other appendix items.

    There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.

    Part A: Program Information (2 Page Limitation) Section 1: Needs

    Describe how the national Indian organization has the expertise to provide outreach and education efforts on a continuing basis regarding the pertinent changes and updates in health care for each of the four components listed herein.

    Part B: Program Planning and Evaluation (6 Page Limitation) Section 1: Program Plans

    Describe fully and clearly how the national Indian organization plans to address the NIHOE1 requirements, including how the national Indian organization plans to demonstrate improved health education and outreach services to all 566 Federally-recognized Tribes for each of the four components described herein. Include proposed timelines as appropriate and applicable.

    Section 2: Program Evaluation

    Describe fully and clearly how the outreach and education efforts will impact changes in knowledge and awareness in Tribal communities. Identify anticipated or expected benefits for the Tribal constituency.

    Part C: Program Report (2 Page Limitation)

    Section 1: Describe major accomplishments over the last 24 months. Please identify and describe significant program achievements associated with the delivery of quality health outreach and education services for each of the four components. Provide a comparison of the actual accomplishments to the goals established for the project period, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.

    Section 2: Describe major activities over the last 24 months. Please identify and summarize recent major health related project activities of the work done regarding each of the four components during the project period.

    B. Budget Narrative: This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. The budget narrative should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The page limitation should not exceed five pages.

    3. Submission Dates and Times

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Paul Gettys, DGM ([email protected]) at (301) 443-2114. Please be sure to contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Ms. Tammy Bagley, Acting Director of DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process. A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Acting Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov Web site to submit an application electronically and select the “Find Grant Opportunities” link on the homepage. Download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit the completed application via the http://www.Grants.gov Web site. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    If the applicant receives a waiver to submit paper application documents, the applicant must follow the rules and timelines that are noted below. The applicant must seek assistance at least ten days prior to the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • If it is determined that a waiver is needed, the applicant must submit a request in writing (emails are acceptable) to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Please include a clear justification for the need to deviate from the standard electronic submission process.

    • If the waiver is approved, the application should be sent directly to the DGM by the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the ODSCT will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, please access it through http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform, or to expedite the process, call (866) 705-5711.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on subawards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier subrecipients that no entity may receive a first-tier subaward unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site: https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/index.cfm?module=dsp_dgm_policy_topics.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The ten page narrative allowed per each of the four components page narrative should include only the first year of activities. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 60 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Criteria A. Introduction and Need for Assistance (15 Points)

    (1) Describe the organization's current health, education and technical assistance operations as related to the broad spectrum of health needs of the AI/AN community. Include what programs and services are currently provided (i.e., Federally-funded, State-funded, etc.), any memorandums of agreement with other national, area or local Indian health board organizations. This could also include HHS agencies that rely on the applicant as the primary gateway organization to AI/AN communities that are capable of providing the dissemination of health information. Include information regarding technologies currently used (i.e., hardware, software, services, Web sites, etc.), and identify the source(s) of technical support for those technologies (i.e., in-house staff, contractors, vendors, etc.). Include information regarding how long the applicant has been operating and its length of association/partnerships with area health boards, etc. [historical collaboration].

    (2) Describe the organization's current technical assistance ability. Include what programs and services are currently provided, programs and services projected to be provided, memorandums of agreement with other national Indian organizations that deem the applicant as the primary source of health policy information for AI/AN, memorandums of agreement with other area Indian health boards, etc.

    (3) Describe the population to be served by the proposed projects.

    (4) Identify all previous IHS cooperative agreement awards received, dates of funding and summaries of the projects' accomplishments. State how previous cooperative agreement funds facilitated education, training and technical assistance nationwide for AI/ANs and relate the progression of health care information delivery and development relative to the current proposed projects. (Copies of reports will not be accepted.)

    (5) Describe collaborative and supportive efforts with national, area and local Indian health boards.

    (6) Explain the need/reason for your proposed projects by identifying specific gaps or weaknesses in services or infrastructure that will be addressed by the proposed projects. Explain how these gaps/weaknesses have been assessed.

    (7) If the proposed projects include information technology (i.e., hardware, software, etc.), provide further information regarding measures taken or to be taken that ensure the proposed projects will not create other gaps in services or infrastructure (i.e., negatively or adversely affect IHS interface capability, Government Performance Results Act reporting requirements, contract reporting requirements, information technology compatibility, etc.), if applicable.

    (8) Describe the effect of the proposed projects on current programs (i.e., Federally-funded, State-funded, etc.) and, if applicable, on current equipment (i.e., hardware, software, services, etc.). Include the effect of the proposed projects on planned/anticipated programs and/or equipment.

    (9) Describe how the projects relate to the purpose of the cooperative agreement by addressing the following: Identify how the proposed projects will address outreach and education regarding each of the four components: Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach funds, Health Care Policy Analysis and Review, Budget Formulation, and TLDC.

    B. Project Objective(s), Work Plan and Approach (40 Points)

    (1) Identify the proposed objective(s) for each of the four projects, as applicable. Objectives should be:

    • Measurable and (if applicable) quantifiable.

    • Results oriented.

    • Time-limited.

    Example: Issue four quarterly newsletters, provide alerts and quantify number of contacts with Tribes. Goals must be clear and concise. Objectives must be measurable, feasible and attainable for each of the selected projects.

    (2) Address how the proposed projects will result in change or improvement in program operations or processes for each proposed project objective for all of the projects. Also address what tangible products, if any, are expected from the projects, (i.e., policy analysis, annual conference, mid-year conferences, summits, etc.).

    (3) Address the extent to which the proposed projects will provide, improve, or expand services that address the need(s) of the target population. Include a current strategic plan and business plan that includes the expanded services. Include the plan(s) with the application submission.

    (4) Submit a work plan in the appendix which includes the following information:

    • Provide the action steps on a timeline for accomplishing each of the projects' proposed objective(s).

    • Identify who will perform the action steps.

    • Identify who will supervise the action steps.

    • Identify what tangible products will be produced during and at the end of the proposed projects' objective(s).

    • Identify who will accept and/or approve work products during the duration of the proposed projects and at the end of the proposed projects.

    • Include any training that will take place during the proposed projects and who will be attending the training.

    • Include evaluation activities planned in the work plans.

    (5) If consultants or contractors will be used during the proposed project, please include the following information in their scope of work (or note if consultants/contractors will not be used):

    • Educational requirements.

    • Desired qualifications and work experience.

    • Expected work products to be delivered on a timeline.

    If a potential consultant/contractor has already been identified, please include a resume in the Appendix.

    (6) Describe what updates will be required for the continued success of the proposed projects. Include when these updates are anticipated and where funds will come from to conduct the update and/or maintenance.

    C. Program Evaluation (20 Points)

    Each proposed objective requires an evaluation component to assess its progression and ensure its completion. Also, include the evaluation activities in the work plan.

    Describe the proposed plan to evaluate both outcomes and process. Outcome evaluation relates to the results identified in the objectives, and process evaluation relates to the work plan and activities of the project.

    (1) For outcome evaluation, describe:

    • What will the criteria be for determining success of each objective?

    • What data will be collected to determine whether the objective was met?

    • At what intervals will data be collected?

    • Who will collect the data and their qualifications?

    • How will the data be analyzed?

    • How will the results be used?

    (2) For process evaluation, describe:

    • How will each project be monitored and assessed for potential problems and needed quality improvements?

    • Who will be responsible for monitoring and managing each project's improvements based on results of ongoing process improvements and their qualifications?

    • How will ongoing monitoring be used to improve the projects?

    • Describe any products, such as manuals or policies, that might be developed and how they might lend themselves to replication by others.

    • How will the organization document what is learned throughout each of the projects periods?

    (3) Describe any evaluation efforts planned after the grant period has ended.

    (4) Describe the ultimate benefit to the AI/AN population that the applicant organization serves that will be derived from these projects.

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (15 Points)

    This section outlines the broader capacity of the organization to complete the project outlined in the work plan. It includes the identification of personnel responsible for completing tasks and the chain of responsibility for successful completion of the projects outlined in the work plan.

    (1) Describe the organizational structure of the organization beyond health care activities, if applicable.

    (2) Describe the ability of the organization to manage the proposed projects. Include information regarding similarly sized projects in scope and financial assistance, as well as other cooperative agreements/grants and projects successfully completed.

    (3) Describe what equipment (i.e., fax machine, phone, computer, etc.) and facility space (i.e., office space) will be available for use during the proposed projects. Include information about any equipment not currently available that will be purchased through the cooperative agreement/grant.

    (4) List key personnel who will work on the projects. Include title used in the work plans. In the appendix, include position descriptions and resumes for all key personnel. Position descriptions should clearly describe each position and duties, indicating desired qualifications and experience requirements related to the proposed projects. Resumes must indicate that the proposed staff member is qualified to carry out the proposed projects' activities. If a position is to be filled, indicate that information on the proposed position description.

    (5) If personnel are to be only partially funded by this cooperative agreement, indicate the percentage of time to be allocated to the projects and identify the resources used to fund the remainder of the individual's salary.

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (10 Points)

    This section should provide a clear estimate of the projects' program costs and justification for expenses for the entire cooperative agreement period. The budgets and budget justifications should be consistent with the tasks identified in the work plans.

    (1) Provide a categorical budget for each of the 12-month budget periods requested for each of the four projects.

    (2) If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget. Include a copy of the rate agreement in the appendix.

    (3) Provide a narrative justification explaining why each line item is necessary/relevant to the proposed project. Include sufficient cost and other details to facilitate the determination of cost allowability (i.e., equipment specifications, etc.).

    Additional Documents Can Be Uploaded as Appendix Items in Grants.gov

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Map of area identifying project location(s).

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e. data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget/project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 60 points, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application submitted. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved But Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2015 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note:

    Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations, policies, and OMB cost principles:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this Program Announcement.

    B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) http://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/Indirect_Cost_Services/index.cfm. For questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please call the Grants Management Specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Reports must be submitted electronically via GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required semi-annually within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at: http://www.dpm.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the Grants Management Specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: the Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act subaward and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 subaward obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 subaward obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting. For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at: https://www.ihs.gov/dgm/index.cfm?module=dsp_dgm_policy_topics.

    D. Post Conference Grant Reporting

    The following requirements were enacted in Section 3003 of the Consolidated Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, and Section 119 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014; Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-12-12:

    All HHS/IHS awards containing grants funds allocated for conferences will be required to complete a mandatory post award report for all conferences in excess of $20,000. Specifically: The total amount of funds provided in this grant/cooperative agreement that were spent for “Conference X,” must be reported in final detailed actual costs within 15 days of the completion of the conference.

    Final Post Conference Report should include all final expenditures on the cost categories as follows: (1) Contract/Planner, (2) Meeting Space/Venue, (3) Registration Web site, (4) Audio Visual, (5) Speakers Fees, (6) Federal Attendee Travel, (7) Non-Federal Attendee Travel, (8) Registration Fees, and (9) Other.

    Failure to submit your required “Post Conference Report” within 15 days after the completion of the conference could result in cost associated with your conference being disallowed.

    For additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Buchanan on (301) 443-1104 or email him at [email protected]

    Telecommunication for the hearing impaired is available at: TTY (301) 443-6394.

    VII. Agency Contacts 1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Mr. Chris Buchanan, Director, ODSCT, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 220, Rockville, MD 20852, Telephone: (301) 443-1104, E-Mail: [email protected]. 2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Mr. John Hoffman, Grants Management Specialist, Division of Grants Management, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360, Rockville, MD 20852, Telephone: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 443-9602, E-Mail: [email protected] 3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Mr. Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, Division of Grants Management, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360, Rockville, MD 20852, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: 301-443-9602, E-Mail: [email protected] VIII. Other Information

    The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: June 29, 2015. Robert G. McSwain, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16620 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Seek, Test, Treat and Retain For Youth and Young Adults Living with or at High Risk for Acquiring HIV (R01).

    Date: July 9, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Churchill Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20009.

    Contact Person: Nadine Rogers, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4229, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, 301-402-2105, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 30, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16527 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel RFA-DA15-015: Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study—Research Project Sites (U01).

    Date: July 17, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Heidi B Friedman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1012A, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-379-5632, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Program Project: Computation and Experiment to Determine Disordered Protein Ensembles.

    Date: July 27-28, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 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: William A. Greenberg, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4168, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1726, greenbergwa[email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

    Date: July 27-28, 2015.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Lynn E. Luethke, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5166, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806-3323,[email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Language and Communication.

    Date: August 7, 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: 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]

    (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 30, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16525 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Mental Health Services.

    Date: July 22, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1225, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 30, 2015. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16501 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Mental Health Council.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Mental Health Council.

    Date: August 4, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, Conference Rooms A1/A2, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Tracy Waldeck, Ph.D., Chief, Extramural Policy Branch, DEA, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6160, MSC 9607, Bethesda, MD 20892-9607, 301-443-5047, [email protected]

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/advisory-boards-and-groups/namhc/index.shtml, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 30, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16502 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Time-Sensitive Obesity Policy.

    Date: July 24, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 753, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Career Awards Review.

    Date: August 3, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Carol J. Goter-Robinson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 748, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-7791, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Data Management and Coordinating Center (UO1).

    Date: August 3, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Maria E. Davila-Bloom, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 758, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-7637, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; T2D Outcomes Ancillary Study.

    Date: August 6, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Robert Wellner, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 706, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-594-4721, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Reengineering Organs P01.

    Date: August 10, 2015.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Thomas A. Tatham, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 760, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-3993, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 30, 2015. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16503 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Treatment of Acute and Chronic Neurological Injuries Involving Axonal Regeneration AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to practice the following inventions embodied in the following patent applications:

    HHS Ref. No.: E-214-2012/0 Titled: “Compositions and Methods for the Treatment of Central Nervous System Injury” 1. US Provisional Patent Application No.: 61/705,555 HHS Ref. No.: E-214-2012/0-US-01 Filing Date: September 25, 2012 2. PCT Patent Application No.: PCT/US2013/061693 HHS Ref. No.: E-214-2012/0-PCT-02 Filing Date: September 25, 2013 3. Australian Patent Application No.: 2013-32367 HHS Ref No.: E-214-2012/0-AU-03 Filing Date: September 25, 2013 4. European Patent Application No.: 13771750 HHS Ref. No.: E-214-2012/0-EP-04 Filing Date: September 25, 2013 5. U.S. Patent Application No.: 14/430,850 HHS Ref. No.: E-214-2012/0-US-06 Filing Date: September 25, 2013
    to BioAxone Biosciences Incorporated (“BioAxone”), a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware having an office in at least Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America. BioAxone is seeking all worldwide territories for this license. The field of use may be limited to “Treatment of human acute and chronic neurological injuries involving axonal regeneration, as monotherapy or in combination with other therapeutic drugs or medical devices”. DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before August 6, 2015 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, patents, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Cristina Thalhammer-Reyero, Ph.D., M.B.A., Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 435-4507; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; Email: [email protected] A signed confidentiality nondisclosure agreement will be required to receive copies of any patent applications or patents that have not been published or issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the World Intellectual Property Organization.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This technology, and its corresponding patent applications, is directed to methods of treating or preventing spinal cord injury or a glial scar by administering an agent that reduces the amount or activity of a 4-sulfacted GalNAc in a chondroitin glycosaminoglycan chain, wherein said agent includes human enzyme, arylsulfatase B (ARSB). This technology, and its corresponding patent applications, is also directed to methods of increasing neuron growth, proliferation, or migration by administering an agent that reduces the amount or activity of a 4-sulfacted GalNAc in a chondroitin glycosaminoglycan chain, wherein said agent includes ARSB. This technology may be useful as a means to treat paralysis and motor defects induced by spinal cord injury, such as by promoting axonal regrowth.

    The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within thirty (30) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

    Properly filed competing applications for a license in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Richard U. Rodriguez, Acting Director, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16500 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance To Conduct Voluntary Customer/Partner Surveys (NLM) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2015, page 22542 and allowed 60-days for public comment. One public comment was received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: David Sharlip, Office of Administrative and Management Analysis Services, National Library of Medicine, Building 38A, Room B2N12, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, or call non-toll-free number (301) 402-9680, or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: Generic Clearance to Conduct Voluntary Customer/Partner Surveys (NLM), 0925-0476, Expiration Date 07/31/2015, EXTENSION, National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: E.O. 12962 directed agencies that provide significant services directly to the public to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. Additionally, since 1994, the NLM has been a “Federal Reinvention Laboratory” with a goal of improving its methods of delivering information to the public. An essential strategy in accomplishing reinvention goals is the ability to periodically receive input and feedback from customers about the design and quality of the services they receive. The NLM provides significant services directly to the public including health providers, researchers, universities, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and to others through a range of mechanisms, including publications, technical assistance, and Web sites. These services are primarily focused on health and medical information dissemination activities. The purpose of this submission is to obtain OMB's generic approval to continue to conduct satisfaction surveys of NLM's customers. The NLM will use the information provided by individuals and institutions to identify strengths and weaknesses in current services and to make improvements where feasible. The ability to periodically survey NLM's customers is essential to continually update and upgrade methods of providing high quality service.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 750.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average time per response
  • (minutes/hour)
  • Total burden hours
    General Public 1,000 1 20/60 333 Health Professionals 500 1 15/60 125 Librarians 500 1 20/60 167 Health Educators 500 1 15/60 125
    Dated: June 29, 2015. David Sharlip, Project Clearance Liaison, NLM, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16633 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: August 7, 2015.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sherry L. Dupere, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 451-3415, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 30, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16528 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will meet on July 16, 2015, from 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. (EDT). The meeting will be closed to the public.

    The meeting will include discussion and evaluation of grant applications reviewed by Initial Review Groups, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public, as determined by the SAMHSA Administrator, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) and (c)(9)(B) and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).

    The meeting will be held virtually. Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Council Web site at: http://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/csat-national-advisory-council or by contacting LCDR Holly Berilla.

    Council Name: SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; National Advisory Council.

    Date/Time/Type: July 16, 2015, 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. EDT, Closed.

    Place: Virtual—Teleconference.

    Contact: LCDR Holly Berilla, Designated Federal Official, CSAT National Advisory Council, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, Maryland 20857 (mail), Telephone: (240) 276-1252, Fax: (240) 276-2252, Email: [email protected]

    Summer King, Statistician, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16548 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices AGENCY:

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice regarding SAMHSA's NREPP: Redesign of NREPP.

    SUMMARY:

    The mission of SAMHSA is to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental illness on America's communities. Established in 1992, the agency was directed by Congress to target effective substance abuse and mental health services to the people most in need, and to translate research in these areas more effectively and more rapidly into the general health care system. NREPP is a key public resource SAMHSA has developed to help meet this directive. This notice announces the redesign of NREPP to better align the registry with the standards and processes of other evidence-based repositories. A re-launch of the Web site with revised content is anticipated in late fall/early winter 2015.

    The notice explains the changes in how programs and practices will be identified for NREPP, how submissions will be screened and reviewed, and provides guidance on accessing updated information on the NREPP site. Potential applicants should be aware that this notice includes updated information relating to the eligibility of interventions for inclusion in NREPP and changes in the program and practice review process that supersedes guidance provided in earlier Federal Register notices.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carter Roeber, Ph.D., Social Science Analyst, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, SAMHSA, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 2-1050, Rockville, MD 20857, telephone 240-276-1488.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Advancing Evidence-Based Programs and Practices Through Improved Decision Support Tools: Reconceptualizing NREPP Introduction

    SAMHSA's NREPP is an evidence-based repository and review system designed to provide the public with reliable information about behavioral health interventions in the areas of mental health and substance abuse. Programs and practices that are accepted for inclusion in NREPP undergo a review process that provides information on the quality of research and the magnitude and direction of program or practice impact on individual outcomes. Materials for dissemination are reviewed to determine the type and extent of information available to support implementation. The results of these reviews are published on the NREPP Web site (http://nrepp.samhsa.gov).

    It should be noted that inclusion in NREPP indicates that some, but not necessarily all, of the evidence for a program or practice has been reviewed. In some cases, the quality of the research supporting the program or practice may have been determined to be poor or insufficient to earn a rating. Inclusion in NREPP does not constitute endorsement of an intervention as effective by SAMHSA. Moreover, since NREPP has not reviewed all behavioral health interventions, the use of NREPP as an exclusive or exhaustive list of interventions is not appropriate. Policymakers and funders in particular are discouraged from limiting providers and/or potential grantees to selecting exclusively from among NREPP interventions and from funding NREPP interventions regardless of the ratings the interventions receive.

    This notice announces changes to (1) the process for identifying new programs and practices for NREPP review, (2) the process for announcing open submission periods, (3) the minimum requirements to be considered for NREPP review, and (4) the review process. This notice also announces the intent to re-review currently posted NREPP programs and practices to comport with new review criteria and ratings. The re-review of programs and practices currently posted will take place over the course of the next several years, depending on available resources. A re-launch of the NREPP Web site will take place in phases and the first phase is planned for late fall/early winter of 2015.

    Identifying New Programs and Practices for NREPP

    Open submissions periods, during which applicants may submit materials for review, will continue to be used to identify new programs and practices for review (see below). Programs and practices addressing specific SAMHSA priorities may also be identified by SAMHSA or through environmental scans (including literature reviews, focus groups, public input, and interviews), as time and resources permit. Programs and practices related to priority areas may be reviewed before programs and practices identified through the open submission period. SAMHSA will be consulting with subject matter experts and leadership in underserved groups and populations, including American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes, regarding ways to incorporate traditional and culturally-specific interventions into NREPP, in order to better meet the needs of groups whose efforts to promote behavioral health may not have not been routinely evaluated. Innovative, but perhaps less rigorously tested, programs and practices will be considered if specific to SAMHSA priority areas, as a parallel contribution to the standard review procedures.

    Stand-alone pharmacologic treatments are not eligible for review and should not be submitted to NREPP. The evidence base for pharmacologic treatments is reviewed and approved through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA approved pharmacotherapy interventions (on-label use) are considered for NREPP review only when combined with one or more behavioral or psychosocial treatments.

    SAMHSA reserves the right to reject for review programs and practices whose goals or activities are determined to be inconsistent with SAMHSA's mission, which is “to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental illness on American communities.”

    Open Submission Periods

    SAMHSA accepts new applications for review during open submission periods. SAMHSA generally holds one open submission period a year but, depending on the number of reviews in progress and resources available may hold more or fewer within a calendar year. All future open submission periods will be announced on the NREPP Web site. Emails will also be sent announcing the open submission period to those on the NREPP listserv. Anyone wishing to be notified of future open submission periods can join the NREPP listserv by sending a request to [email protected]

    Applications can be submitted at any point during an open period. Program and practice developers, researchers, and others interested in submitting an intervention should read below for information about the new minimum requirements to be considered for an NREPP review. Additional future changes to the review process and criteria will be posted on the NREPP Web site as they are implemented. Therefore, before submitting a program or practice for NREPP review, applicants should examine the most recent information posted on the NREPP Web site about the review process and criteria and the most recent guidance for preparing an intervention for submission (see http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ReviewSubmission.aspx). This guidance will be periodically updated to reflect the redesign of NREPP during the re-launch.

    The selection of interventions will take place after the closing of the open submission period, and applicants will be notified whether they have been accepted after an initial screening to ensure that the application meets minimum requirements. The number of reviews conducted will depend on the availability of funds, with the timing of reviews to be determined by SAMHSA. In submitting an intervention, applicants should understand that if interventions are selected for review, the results of NREPP reviews are considered public information and will be posted on the NREPP Web site. Once a review is completed, the applicant will be provided with a summary document (“the program or practice profile”) that presents results of the review, ratings of program effectiveness, and descriptive information about the intervention. The applicant will have the opportunity to comment on the profile before it is posted but they will not have the option to refuse posting.

    Minimum Requirements

    To be considered for review, interventions must meet three minimum requirements:

    1. Research or evaluation of the intervention has assessed mental health or substance use outcomes among individuals, communities, or populations OR other behavioral health-related outcomes on individuals, communities, or populations with or at risk of mental health issues or substance use problems.

    2. Evidence of these outcomes has been demonstrated in at least one study using an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Experimental designs require random assignment, a control or comparison group, and pre- and post-intervention outcome assessments. Quasi-experimental designs do not require random assignment, but do require a comparison or control group and pre- and post-intervention outcome assessments. Comparison/control groups must be a no-treatment control group, a wait-list control group, a treatment-as-usual comparison group, or an intervention that is presumed to be ineffective or substantially less effective than the intervention (e.g., a “placebo” control or, in cases in which providing no treatment might be considered unethical, less effective treatments, even if not treatment-as-usual, such as “supportive therapy”). Studies with single-group, pretest-posttest designs or single-group, longitudinal/multiple time series do not meet this requirement, but will be considered to identify emerging programs and practices for consideration in the Learning Center. Comparative effectiveness trials, in which two interventions, both presumed to be equally effective, are compared, and studies in which the effects of the same intervention on various subpopulations are compared or in which various doses or components of the same intervention are compared will be reviewed, but only for purposes of providing readers in the Learning Center the opportunity to determine whether a particular program or practice may have use or show promise in different settings or circumstances.

    3. The results of these studies have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or other professional publication, or documented in a comprehensive evaluation report, published within the previous 25 years. Comprehensive evaluation reports must include a review of the literature, theoretical framework, purpose, methodology, findings/results with statistical analysis and p values for significant outcomes, discussion, and conclusions.

    Applicants are required to provide full-text documents at the time of submission that demonstrate the intervention meets these minimum requirements. Other research articles, published or unpublished evaluation reports, grant final reports, and replication studies may be submitted as additional supporting documentation. Note: Abstracts or links to partial articles are regarded as incomplete and will not be considered.

    NREPP will no longer require programs and practices to have developed implementation materials, training and support resources, and quality assurance procedures. However, programs and practices with such dissemination and/or implementation resources will be considered for prioritized review if within the priorities established by the SAMHSA review process, and the materials, along with the location of their availability, will be listed in the program or practice profile.

    Applicants submitting dissemination and implementation resources should include a brief narrative description of the materials that are being submitted. These materials may include, but are not limited to, treatment manuals, information for administrators, information for direct service staff, tested training curricula, mechanisms for ongoing supervision and consultation, protocols for gathering process and outcome data, ongoing monitoring of intervention fidelity, and processes for gathering feedback. Applicants should also provide the location of where the materials can be obtained.

    Selection of Interventions for Review

    SAMHSA will select interventions for review from among submissions meeting the minimum requirements. In selecting interventions for review, SAMHSA may give special consideration to interventions that meet one or more of the following conditions:

    • More than one research study or evaluation has been conducted on the same or a similar target population that meets the minimum requirements.

    • The intervention targets underserved populations (e.g., minority populations, tribal communities or American Indian/Alaska Native populations, elderly individuals, young adults, individuals who are incarcerated, etc.).

    • Dissemination and implementation materials (e.g., program or practice manuals, training guides, measurement instruments, implementation fidelity tools) are available. Lower costs and no-cost materials may be prioritized.

    • The intervention contributes to a content area in which few evidence-based interventions have been previously identified.

    Interventions that are not selected for review may be resubmitted by the applicant in a future open submission period.

    The Review Process

    The review process has been revised to improve the quality of the reviews and utility of information that NREPP can provide its users. In addition to articles and reports submitted by NREPP applicants, additional studies, articles, and evaluation reports regarding the interventions will be identified through literature searches. Studies and outcomes to be reviewed will be determined through the systematic application of standardized screening criteria, and the number of studies and outcomes to be reviewed will be expanded to more comprehensively represent the evidence base for the program or practice. Inclusion of studies and outcomes will no longer be limited to positive significant outcomes; all studies and outcomes that meet the standardized screening criteria will be reviewed, including those with negative and non-significant effects. Programs and practices will be assessed on the basis of evaluation studies of program or practice impact, information related to conceptual framework (that is, program or practice goals, theory of change, and program or practice components), and information about implementation fidelity (that is, whether a study employs quality assurance measures to declare that the program or practice is delivered as intended to the program's or practice's target population).

    The methodological rigor (that is, internal validity, statistical validity, and measurement validity) of the research for each program or practice will be reviewed, as it pertains to each outcome examined, along with the magnitude and direction of the program's or practice's effect on each outcome. Based on this information, the program's or practice's effectiveness for each outcome will be rated, along with the rigor of the research examining the program or practice, and the ratings will be displayed on the NREPP Web site.

    In general, each NREPP evidence review will be conducted by two trained and certified reviewers. However, based on funding and available resources, SAMHSA use one reviewer for programs and practices being re-reviewed. When necessary, NREPP may conduct author queries to confirm or gather additional information needed for the review. Program and practice profiles will be developed on the basis of the information gathered. Applicants will have the opportunity to review the program or practice profile before it is posted on the NREPP site, but they will not have the option to refuse posting.

    Dissemination and implementation materials will no longer be rated as they were historically. Instead, descriptions of available materials for each program or practice, highlighting information that may be of most interest to NREPP users, will be included in the program or practice profile, along with information documenting the extent to which materials are available.

    Programs and practices currently posted on NREPP will be re-reviewed as time and resources permit but the re-reviews of currently posted programs and practices will take place over the next few years.

    Detailed information about the revised review process will be available at http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov after the re-launch of the new NREPP Web site.

    Enhancing the Learning Center

    NREPP's Learning Center is a developing and underutilized component of the NREPP Web site. With the evolution and enhancement of the registry, SAMHSA seeks to bring greater recognition to both rigorously evaluated behavioral health interventions and those interventions that have been implemented, demonstrate promise, but have not necessarily been evaluated in a rigorous manner. To that end, the Learning Center is being significantly revamped to support stakeholder engagement and to become a shared learning environment for all stakeholders. SAMHSA recognizes that the successful promotion and dissemination of evidence-based programs and practices requires an environment that promotes community assessment, program and practice planning and evaluation, as well as guidance on the selection and implementation of programs and practices listed on NREPP. There are useful types of evaluation research, often conducted among underserved populations, which provide valuable insights for practitioners, but do not meet the minimum criteria required for experimental or quasi-experimental design. SAMHSA intends the Learning Center to be a forum for presenting research on emerging programs and practices, and exploring ways that pre-experimental and qualitative research can complement and enrich findings from experimental and quasi-experimental research designs. An inventory of such programs and practices will be compiled and maintained within the Learning Center and will operate in parallel to the listing of reviewed programs and practices with experimental and quasi-experimental designs. In this way, SAMHSA intends to support programs and practices researched with the most rigorous approaches while also supporting the development of practice-based evidence, especially for certain populations and emerging practices that are critical to learning and improving behavioral health outcomes for persons with or at risk of developing behavioral health issues.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16573 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Wound Therapy System AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final determination.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of the PICO single use negative pressure wound therapy system manufactured and distributed by Smith & Nephew. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the United Kingdom will be the country of origin of the PICO single use negative pressure wound therapy system (“PICO NPWT System”) for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.

    DATES:

    The final determination was issued on June 30, 2015. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within August 6, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Antonio J. Rivera, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade (202) 325-0226.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that on June 30, 2015 pursuant to subpart B of part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of the PICO NPWT System manufactured and distributed by Smith & Nephew, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H259473, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreement Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, under the totality of the circumstances, considering the PICO NPWT System's use as a single medical instrument, the origin of the dressings, and the flash programming and final assembly of the pump, which will be performed in the U.K., and will change the pump into a specialized pump that can only be used with its respective dressings, CBP concluded that the country of origin of the PICO NPWT System will be the United Kingdom for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.

    Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the Federal Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the Federal Register.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Harold Singer, Acting Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade. HQ H259473 June 30, 2015 OT:RR:CTF:VS H259473 AJR CATEGORY: Origin Daniel S. Char, Esq. Associate General Counsel (Commercial) Smith and Nephew, PLC 150 Minuteman Road Andover, MA 01810 RE: Trade Agreements Act; Government Procurement; Country of Origin of the PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System Dear Mr. Char:

    This is in response to your letter, dated November 19, 2014, requesting a final determination on behalf of Smith & Nephew, PLC (“Smith & Nephew”), pursuant to subpart B of part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR part 177). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.

    This final determination concerns the country of origin of Smith & Nephew's PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System (“PICO NPWT System”). As the manufacturer and U.S. importer, Smith & Nephew is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination. In addition, we have reviewed and grant the request for confidentiality pursuant to 19 CFR 177.2(b)(7), with respect to certain information submitted.

    FACTS:

    The PICO NPWT System is a sterile, single-use, complete negative pressure wound therapy system consisting of a pump, two dressings with attached long tube assemblies, and retention strips. It is marketed for use in a sterile operating room environment. Each dressing is applied to the wound and held in place with the retention strips. The long tube assembly is attached to the dressing on one end, and to the PICO pump on the other end, connecting them together. The suction pump pulls air out of the dressing via the long tube assembly, creating negative pressure and drawing excess fluid from the wound into the dressing. The pump is battery powered and delivers 80 mmHg of continuous negative pressure for up to seven days, after which it is programmed to permanently stop working. Consistent with the lifespan of the pump, the dressings provide a total of seven days wear time. The pump in the PICO NPWT System can only be used with the dressings included in the system, and will only be used once by a patient for a specific wound type as the therapy prescribes. The dressings are only sold with the pump and not separately available. Unlike conventional negative pressure systems that use canisters for the collection of wound fluid, the PICO NPWT System is canister-less, which according to your submission means that the components of the PICO NPWT System can only be used together as a system.

    The pump in the PICO NPWT System consists of: a printed circuit board (“PCB”) assembly that provides pressure measurement and feedback control for the pump; a diaphragm pump and motor that provide airflow to maintain pressure; components such as an internal air path and check valve; a plastic housing; and, batteries. Most of the pump's components are made in China, except for a lightweight pipe, valve and connector made in the U.S., and the batteries. The pump components and subassemblies will be shipped from China to the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) for the remainder of the pump manufacturing process. In the U.K., U.S.-origin firmware, written and validated in the U.S. according to medical device and Food and Drug Administration standards, will be loaded onto the pump at flash programming stations. The flash programming stations are equipped with “bed of nails” interfaces, which have discrete electrical conductors that extend and make contact with discrete pads on the PCB assembly. You state that the erasable programmable read-only memory (“EPROM”) on the PCB assembly is actively programmed by sending electric charges through the “bed of nails” to the PCB assembly in order to drive the EPROM into receptive mode, and then sending byte by byte to program the EPROM with the unique calibrations and specific parameters required to operate the pump.1 You state that this process requires moderate, semi-skilled technicians trained in “clean-room” techniques and operating programming fixtures. The pump is then fully assembled by assembling the subassemblies with the case pieces and attaching the battery cover and label, which you state requires low, basic “box build” assembly techniques. After assembly, the pump goes through a series of tests to verify calibrated performance of the device, which you state requires moderate, semi-skilled technicians operating test fixtures.

    1 You state that, though EPROM is not irreversible, re-programming EPROM requires working through different levels of encryption and the use of specific equipment, which is not readily available.

    You state that the firmware is essential to the function of the pump because the firmware ensures that the pump dispenses the accurate amount of negative pressure. You state that while the components used to manufacture the PICO NPWT System are largely generic (e.g. micro-controllers, small battery powered motors and generic PCB assemblies), it is only when the pump is calibrated and then flashed with specific firmware that it becomes a true medical device, as the flashing enables the pump to deliver calibrated, therapeutic negative pressure levels to the wound.

    You state that the material, labor, and overhead costs of the PICO NPWT System are broken down per country as follows: [XXXX]% from the pump and battery production in China, [XXXX]% from flashing and final assembly in the U.K., and the remaining [XXXX]% 2 mainly from the U.K.

    2 [XXXX]% derives from the production of the dressing in the U.K. Aside from [XXXX]% for primary sterile barrier costs from both the U.K. and [XXXX], the remaining costs will be incurred in the U.K.

    The dressings are manufactured in the U.K., with materials of U.K. and Canadian origin,3 to produce a four-layer dressing that consists of: (1) a high moisture vapor transfer rate (“MTVR”) film to allow for transpiration of the wound fluid; (2) a superabsorbent layer to hold the fluid; (3) an airlock layer to ensure consistent delivery of negative pressure from the pump to the wound bed; and, (4) an adhesive layer to maintain an effective seal around the dressing and prevent trauma. The manufacturing operations to produce the dressings involve extruding medical grade film, perforating the adhesive layer to ensure breathability of the dressing, and then shaping, cutting and laminating together the layers of the dressing. The four-layer dressing is then connected to a long tube assembly, which is also manufactured in the U.K. from U.K.-origin materials. The dressings and pumps are then sterilized, separately sealed, packed, and then re-sterilized. Once the PICO NPWT System is received by its user, the user will connect the pump to the dressing by the attached long tube assembly.

    3 All of the layers, except for the super-absorbent layer that is from Canada, are from the U.K.

    You state that a majority of the essential therapeutic elements for wound healing are delivered via the unique dressing. You state that the dressing is the fundamental “enabling technology,” as the combination of layers work together to: manage the wound fluid; ensure consistent delivery of negative pressure from the pump to the wound bed (stimulating blood vessel and cell growth); and, maintain an optimal environment for wound healing by protecting the wound from outside contaminants and limiting disruption of the wound bed, which allows for the formation of granulation tissue.

    The PICO NPWT System is imported into the United States packaged for retail sale. Its main components, the pump and the dressings, are not assembled together and must be connected to each other by the user after the dressing is secured to the patient with the retention strips. You state that, as imported, the PICO NPWT System is classified in subheading 9018.90.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), as a medical instrument. You also state that it is described by two of the American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology (“CPT”) codes, G0456 and G0457, which provide for: “negative pressure wound therapy (e.g. vacuum assisted drainage collection) using a [. . .] device, not durable medical equipment, including provision of [. . .] dressing(s), topical application(s), wound assessment, and instructions for ongoing care, per session.” According to your submission, the difference in the codes is based on the description of the size of the wound to be treated.

    ISSUE:

    What is the country of origin of the PICO NPWT System for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?

    LAW AND ANALYSIS:

    Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government.

    Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):

    An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.

    See also 19 CFR 177.22(a).

    In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article. Belcrest Linens v. United States, 573 F. Supp. 1149 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1983), aff'd, 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Assembly operations that are minimal or simple, as opposed to complex or meaningful, will generally not result in a substantial transformation. See C.S.D. 80-111, C.S.D. 85-25, C.S.D. 89-110, C.S.D. 89-118, C.S.D. 90-51, and C.S.D. 90-97. If the manufacturing or combining process is a minor one which leaves the identity of the article intact, a substantial transformation has not occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff'd 702 F. 2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

    In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into completed products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the item's components, extent of the processing that occurs within a country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character, and use are primary considerations in such cases. Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, the extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is determinative.

    In this case, the PICO NPWT System is comprised of the pump and the dressings. These two components are attached to each other by the user and together, these two components are used as one product to extract fluid from the wound. The four-layer dressing is manufactured in the U.K. by combining MTVR film from the U.K. to allow for transpiration of the wound fluid, a superabsorbent layer from Canada to hold the fluid, an airlock layer from the U.K. to ensure consistent delivery of negative pressure from the pump to the wound bed, and an adhesive layer from the U.K. to effectively seal the dressing. The long tube assembly, which is produced in the U.K. from U.K. materials, is adhered to the dressing in the U.K. and is later connected by the user to the pump to create a one-way vacuum via a unique taper-lock connector that ensures the pump and dressing can only connect to each other and not to other medical connectors. The pump is as important as the dressing in allowing negative pressure to be created and to enable fluid to be drawn from the wound. Therefore, the additional processes performed on the pump component are necessary in order to find that the PICO NPWT System is a product of the U.K.

    You argue that the PICO NPWT System should be considered a product of the U.K. because the U.K is the country of origin of the dressings, and that although the pump components and subassemblies will be made in China, the pump will be flash programmed with firmware and the final assembly of the pump will take place in the U.K. You state that the pump will be programmed with U.S.-origin firmware at flash programming stations equipped with “bed of nails” interfaces, which have discrete electrical conductors that extend from the “bed of nails” and make contact with discrete pads on the PCB assembly.4 You state that the EPROM is actively programmed because this process sends electric charges through the “bed of nails” to the PCB assembly in order to drive the EPROM into receptive mode, and then sends byte by byte to program the EPROM with the unique calibrations and specific parameters required to operate the pump.5 You state that, though the EPROM is not irreversible, re-programming the EPROM requires working through different levels of encryption and the use of specific equipment, which is not readily available.6 Accordingly, you state that only when the pump is calibrated and flashed with specific firmware, it becomes a true medical device, as the flashing enables the pump to deliver calibrated, therapeutic negative pressure levels to the wound. In support of your positions you cite Headquarters Ruling (“HQ”) H034843, dated May 5, 2009; and HQ 968000, dated February 14, 2006.

    4 “Bed of nails” refers to a traditional electronic fixture with numerous pins extending from the fixture to make contact with points on a PCB. Pressing a PCB against a “bed of nails” interface allows the PCB to be directly accessed for programming. See Michael J. Smith, Why Program Devices at In-Circuit Test?, Evaluation Engineering, at http://www4.evaluationengineering.com/articles/201110/why-program-devices-at-in-circuit-test.php (specifically the “bed of nails” explanation); see also “In-Circuit Test,” Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-circuit_test (only with reference to “Bed of Nails tester” section).

    5 EPROM refers to a non-volatile memory that retains its contents until it is exposed to ultraviolet light, and it is programmed by using a specialized machine to force an electric charge that sends bits of the EPROM onto a PCB. See G. Groeseneken, et al., Basics of Nonvolatile Semiconductor Memory Devices, 25-28, at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.111.9431&rep=rep1&type=pdf; see also Integrated Circuit Engineering Corporation, ROM, EPROM, and EEPROM Technology, 4-9, at https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~prabal/teaching/eecs373-f10/readings/rom-eprom-eeprom-technology.pdf.

    6 EPROM is not easily reprogrammed because, even when the reprogramming change is minimal, the process requires erasing the memory by exposing the EPROM to ultraviolet light, and then reprogramming it byte by byte. See id.

    HQ H034843 concerned the country of origin of USB flash drives that used software and firmware developed in Israel and an assembly process that began in China and ended in Israel or the United States. CBP noted that the assembly in Israel or the United States, mainly the installation and customization of the firmware and software, made the USB flash drives functional, permitted them to execute their security features, and increased their value. Therefore, the USB flash drives were substantially transformed in the countries where these operations took place, making the country of origin for the USB flash drives either Israel or the United States.

    In HQ 968000, CBP ruled that the country of origin for marking purposes of a fabric switch for storage area networks was the United States. The assembly of the hardware for the switch occurred in China. Then, the resulting electromechanical assembly was shipped to the United States, where U.S.-origin software was installed, configured, and tested. See also Data General v. United States, 4 Ct. Int'l Trade 182 (1982).

    As in HQ H034843 and HQ 968000, the firmware will be installed in a different country from where the majority of the product is assembled, thereby imparting the product (here, the pump) with an essential and required feature (here, enabling the pump to operate as a unique medical device). However, despite these similarities, HQ H034843 and HQ 968000 concerned a USB flash drive and a switch for network storage, which are instruments primarily associated with computer-related products, while in this case the product is primarily a medical instrument and serves separate functions apart from the programmed capabilities. For instance, in HQ H215657, dated April 29, 2013, CBP held that a flashlight originated from China despite the fact that it was programmed in the U.S. with U.S. software. HQ H215657 explained that the programming was not essential to the basic operation of the flashlight, as it only enhanced how the flashlight operated, without changing its fundamental nature. Though such programming provided the flashlight with some additional features, CBP held that the programming was not sufficiently complex to change the identity or characterize the device.

    Nonetheless, to the extent that the programming process in the U.K. is integrated with the U.K.-origin dressing to produce a specific-use medical device, we find that the last substantial transformation of the PICO NPWT System occurs in the U.K. The unique dressing is the “enabling technology” that provides the essential therapeutic elements for wound healing (e.g. fluid management, protecting against contaminants, and limiting wound bed disruption) to the instrument. Furthermore, the programmed pressure calibrations are critical to the pump's function as a medical device, and can only tolerate a small margin for error since any programming error would devalue the pump for medical purposes and require correction via a difficult reprogramming technique.

    Based on the information in your request, under the totality of the circumstances, considering the PICO NPWT System's use as a single medical instrument, the origin of the dressings, and the flash programming and final assembly of the pump, which will be performed in the U.K, and will change the pump into a specialized pump that can only be used with its respective dressings, we find that the country of origin of the PICO NPWT System will be the United Kingdom for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.

    HOLDING:

    Based on the facts in this case, we find that the country of origin of the PICO NPWT System will be the United Kingdom for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.

    Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.

    Sincerely, Harold Singer, Acting Executive Director Regulations and Rulings Office of International Trade
    [FR Doc. 2015-16553 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1515] 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 October 5, 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-1515, 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 can 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: May 21, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Middle Coosa Watershed St. Clair County, AL and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project:12-04-0857S Preliminary Date: March 26, 2015 City of Argo City Hall, 100 Blackjack Road, Argo, AL 35173. City of Ashville City Hall, 211 8th Street, Ashville, AL 35953. City of Margaret City Hall,125 School Street, Margaret, AL 35112. City of Moody City Hall, 670 Park Avenue, Moody, AL 35004. City of Odenville City Hall,183 Alabama Street, Odenville, AL 35120. City of Pell City City Hall,1905 First Avenue North, Pell City, AL 35125. City of Riverside City Hall, 379 Depot Street, Riverside, AL 35135. City of Springville City Hall, 6327 U.S. Highway 11, Springville, AL 35146. City of Trussville City Hall,131 Main Street, Trussville, AL 35173. Town of Ragland Town Hall, 220 Fredia Street, Suite 102, Ragland, AL 35131. Town of Steele Town Hall, 4025 Pope Avenue, Steele, AL 35987. Unincorporated Areas of St. Clair County St. Clair County Courthouse, 100 6th Avenue, Suite 400, Ashville, AL 35953.

    II. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Lafayette Parish, LA and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: MICS 15977 Preliminary Dates: September 6, 2011, December 19, 2014 City of Broussard City Hall, 310 East Main Street, Broussard, LA 70518. City of Carencro City Hall, Planning Department, 210 East St. Peter Street, Carencro, LA 70520. City of Lafayette Consolidated Government Building, 705 West University Avenue, Lafayette, LA 70506. City of Scott City Hall, 125 Lions Club Road, Scott, LA 70583. City of Youngsville City Hall, 305 Iberia Street, Youngsville, LA 70592. Town of Duson Town Hall, 498 Toby Mouton Road, Duson, LA 70529. Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government Building, 705 West University Avenue, Lafayette, LA 70506. Loudoun County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project:11-03-2001S Preliminary Dates: May 23, 2014, December 12, 2014, February 23, 2015 Town of Hillsboro Town Hall, 36966 Charles Town Pike, Hillsboro, VA 20132. Town of Leesburg Town Hall, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16552 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-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.”) Date: June 16, 2015. 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.
    Alabama: Montgomery (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) City of Montgomery (15-04-0687P) The Honorable Todd Strange, Mayor, City of Montgomery, P.O. Box 1111, Montgomery, AL 36104 City Hall, 103 North Perry Street, Montgomery, AL 36104 April 30, 2015 010174 Montgomery (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) Unincorporated areas of Montgomery County (15-04-0687P) The Honorable Elton Dean, Sr., Chairman, Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, 101 South Lawrence Street, Montgomery, AL 36104 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, HI 96720 April 30, 2015 010278 Colorado: Arapahoe (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) City of Aurora (14-08-1180P) The Honorable Steve Hogan, Mayor, City of Aurora, 15151 East Alameda Parkway, Aurora, CO 80012 City Hall, 15151 East Alameda Parkway, Aurora, CO 80012 May 22, 2015 080002 Arapahoe (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) City of Centennial (14-08-1180P) The Honorable Cathy Noon, Mayor, City of Centennial, 13133 East Arapahoe Road, Centennial, CO 80112 Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority, 7437 South Fairplay Street, Centennial, CO 80112 May 22, 2015 080315 Arapahoe (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Unincorporated areas of Arapahoe County (14-08-1180P) The Honorable Nancy Doty, Chair, Arapahoe County Board of Commissioners, 5334 South Prince Street, Littleton, CO 80120 Arapahoe County Public Works Department, 6924 South Lima Street, Centennial, CO 80112 May 22, 2015 080011 Douglas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) Town of Castle Rock (14-08-0954P) The Honorable Paul Donahue, Mayor, Town of Castle Rock, 100 North Wilcox Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 Utilities Department, 175 Kellogg Court, Castle Rock, CO 80109 May 1, 2015 080050 Douglas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) Unincorporated areas of Douglas County (14-08-0954P) The Honorable Roger Partridge, Chairman, Douglas County Board of Commissioners, 100 3rd Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 Douglas County Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 100 3rd Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 May 1, 2015 080049 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) City of Arvada (14-08-1098P) The Honorable Marc Williams, Mayor, City of Arvada, P.O. Box 8101, Arvada, CO 80001 Engineering Department, 8101 Ralston Road, Arvada, CO 80001 May 8, 2015 085072 Florida: Bay (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) City of Panama City Beach (14-04-4599P) The Honorable Gayle Oberst, Mayor, City of Panama City Beach, 110 South Arnold Road, Panama City Beach, FL 32413 Building Department, 110 South Arnold Road, Panama City Beach, FL 32413 April 23, 2015 120013 Bay (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) City of Panama City Beach (14-04-8184P) The Honorable Gayle Oberst, Mayor, City of Panama City Beach, 110 South Arnold Road, Panama City Beach, FL 32413 Building Department, 110 South Arnold Road, Panama City Beach, FL 32413 April 14, 2015 120013 Bay (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) Unincorporated areas of Bay County (14-04-4599P) The Honorable Guy M. Tunnell, Chairman, Bay County Board of Commissioners, 840 West 11th Street, Panama City, FL 32401 Bay County Planning and Zoning Department, 707 Jenks Avenue, Suite B, Panama City, FL 32401 April 23, 2015 120004 Bay (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) Unincorporated areas of Bay County (14-04-AA70P) The Honorable Guy M. Tunnell, Chairman, Bay County Board of Commissioners, 840 West 11th Street, Panama City, FL 32401 Bay County Planning and Zoning Department, 707 Jenks Avenue, Suite B, Panama City, FL 32401. May 4, 2015 120004 Bradford (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) City of Starke (15-04-2615P) The Honorable Travis Woods, Mayor, City of Starke, P.O. Drawer C, Starke, FL 32091 City Clerk's Office, 209 North Thompson Street, Starke, FL 32091 May 15, 2015 120017 Broward (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea (15-04-0738X) The Honorable Scot Sasser, Mayor, Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, 4501 Ocean Drive, Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, FL 33308 City Hall, 4501 Ocean Drive, Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, FL 33308 May 7, 2015 125123 Collier (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) City of Marco Island (15-04-0522P) The Honorable Larry Sacher, Chairman, City of Marco Island Council, 50 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, FL 34145 City Hall, 50 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, FL 34145 May 7, 2015 120426 Collier (FEMA Docket No.: B-1508) Unincorporated areas of Collier County (14-04-A504P) The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman, Collier County Board of Commissioners, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112 Collier County Administrative Building, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 1st Floor, Naples, FL 34112 May 12, 2015 120067 Columbia (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) City of Lake City (13-04-6159P) The Honorable Stephen M. Witt, Mayor, City of Lake City, 205 North Marion Avenue, Lake City, FL 32055 City Hall, 205 North Marion Avenue, Lake City, FL 32055 April 16, 2015 120406 Columbia (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) Unincorporated areas of Columbia County (13-04-6159P) The Honorable Ronald Williams, Chairman, Columbia County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1529, Lake City, FL 32056 Columbia County Building and Zoning Department, 173 Northeast Hernando Avenue, Lake City, FL 32055 April 16, 2015 120070 Lake (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) City of Fruitland Park (14-04-A712P) The Honorable Chris Bell, Mayor, City of Fruitland Park, 506 West Berckman Street, Fruitland Park, FL 34731 Building Department, 506 West Berckman Street, Fruitland Park, FL 34731 April 30, 2015 120387 Lee (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Unincorporated areas of Lee County (14-04-8329P) The Honorable Brian Hamman, Chairman, Lee County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 398, Fort Myers, FL 33902 Lee County Community Development Department, 1500 Monroe Street, 2nd Floor, Fort Meyers, FL 33901 May 12, 2015 125124 Monroe (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Village of Islamorada (14-04-A708P) The Honorable Mike Forester, Mayor, Village of Islamorada, 86800 Overseas Highway, Islamorada, FL 33036 Village Hall, 87000 Overseas Highway, Islamorada, FL 33036 May 4, 2015 120424 Monroe (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Unincorporated areas of Monroe County (14-04-A180P) The Honorable Danny Kolhage, Mayor, Monroe County Board of Commissioners, 1100 Simonton Street, Key West, FL 33040 Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department, 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL 33050 May 7, 2015 125129 Seminole (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) City of Longwood (14-04-7277P) The Honorable John C. Maingot, Mayor, City of Longwood, 175 West Warren Avenue, Longwood, FL 32750 Building and Planning Department, 174 West Church Avenue, Longwood, FL 32750 May 15, 2015 120292 Seminole (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Unincorporated areas of Seminole County (14-04-7277P) The Honorable Bob Dallari, Chairman, Seminole County Board of Commissioners, 1101 East 1st Street, Sanford, FL 32771 Seminole County Building Division, 1101 East 1st Street, Sanford, FL 32771 May 15, 2015 120289 St. Johns (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Unincorporated areas of St. Johns County (14-04-8520P) The Honorable Rachael Bennett, Chairman, St. Johns County Board of Commissioners, 500 San Sebastian View, St. Augustine, FL 32084 St. Johns County Administrative Building, 4020 Lewis Speedway, St. Augustine, FL 32084 May 14, 2015 125147 Georgia: Cherokee (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Unincorporated areas of Cherokee County (14-04-8555P) The Honorable L.B. Ahrens, Chairman, Cherokee County Board of Commissioners, 1130 Bluffs Parkway, Canton, GA 30114 Cherokee County Administrative Office, 130 East Main Street, Suite 106, Canton, GA 30114 May 18, 2015 130424 Cobb (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) City of Smyrna (14-04-9804P) The Honorable Arthur Max Bacon, Mayor, City of Smyrna, 2800 King Street, Smyrna, GA 30080 City Engineer's Office, 2800 King Street, Smyrna, GA 30080 May 18, 2015 130057 Mississippi: Rankin (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) City of Brandon (14-04-8704P) The Honorable Butch Lee, Mayor, City of Brandon, P.O. Box 1539, Brandon, MS 39043 City Hall, 1000 Municipal Drive, Brandon, MS 39042 May 12, 2015 280143 Montana: Butte-Silver Bow (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) Unincorporated areas of Butte-Silver Bow County (14-08-0867P) The Honorable Cindi Shaw, Chair, Butte-Silver Bow County Council of Commissioners, 155 West Granite Street, Butte, MT 59701 Butte-Silver Bow County Floodplain Administrator, 115 West Granite Street, Butte, MT 59701 April 17, 2015 300077 North Carolina: Columbus (FEMA Docket No.: B-1508) Unincorporated areas of Columbus County (14-04-6649P) The Honorable Trent Burroughs, Chairman, Columbus County Board of Commissioners, 111 Washington Street, Whiteville, NC 28472 Columbus County Planning Department, 111 Washington Street, Whiteville, NC 28472 May 5, 2015 370305 South Carolina: Lancaster (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) Unincorporated areas of Lancaster County (14-04-3565P) The Honorable Larry McCullough, Chairman, Lancaster County Council, 101 North Main Street, 2nd Floor, Lancaster, SC 29721 Lancaster County Building and Zoning Department, 101 North Main Street, Lancaster, SC 29721 April 23, 2015 450120 Richland (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Unincorporated areas of Richland County (14-04-5349P) The Honorable Norman Jackson, Chairman, Richland County Council, P.O. Box 192, Columbia, SC 29201 Richland County Floodplain Coordinator, 2020 Hampton Street, 1st Floor, Columbia, SC 29204 May 18, 2015 450170 South Dakota: Lincoln (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Town of Harrisburg (14-08-0638P) The Honorable Julie Burke-Bowen, Mayor, Town of Harrisburg, P.O. Box 26, Harrisburg, SD 57032 City Hall, 203 Prairie Street, Harrisburg, SD 57032 May 22, 2015 460114 Lincoln (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Unincorporated areas of Lincoln County (14-08-0638P) The Honorable Dale Long, Chairman, Lincoln County Board of Commissioners, 104 North Main Street, Canton, SD 57013 Lincoln County Court House, 105 East 5th Street, Canton, SD 57013 May 22, 2015 460277 Tennessee: Shelby (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Town of Collierville (14-04-6821P) The Honorable Stan Joyner, Jr., Mayor, Town of Collierville, 500 Poplar View Parkway, Collierville, TN 38017 Town Hall, 500 Poplar View Parkway, Collierville, TN 38017 May 8, 2015 470263 Utah: Davis (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) City of Kaysville (14-08-0854P) The Honorable Steve A. Hiatt, Mayor, City of Kaysville, 23 East Center Street, Kaysville, UT 84037 City Hall, 23 East Center Street, Kaysville, UT 84037 May 8, 2015 490046 Salt Lake (FEMA Docket No.: B-1474) City of Murray (14-08-0600P) The Honorable Ted Eyre, Mayor, City of Murray, 5025 South State Street, 2nd Floor, Murray, UT 84107 Public Works Office, 4646 South 500 West, Murray, UT 84123 April 16, 2015 490103 Washington (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) City of St. George (14-08-1160P) The Honorable Jon Pike, Mayor, City of St. George, 175 East 200 North, St. George, UT 84770 Engineering Department, 175 East 200 North, St. George, UT 84770 May 14, 2015 490177 Washington (FEMA Docket No.: B-1508) Town of Springdale (14-08-1247P) The Honorable Stan Smith, Mayor, Town of Springdale, 118 Lion Boulevard, Springdale, UT 84767 Planning and Zoning Department, 118 Lion Boulevard, Springdale, UT 84767 May 22, 2015 490179 Washington (FEMA Docket No.: B-1505) Unincorporated areas of Washington County (14-08-1160P) The Honorable James J. Eardley, Chairman, Washington County Board of Commissioners, 197 East Tabernacle; Street St. George, UT 84770 Washington County Planning Department, 197 East Tabernacle Street, St. George, UT 84770 May 14, 2015 490224
    [FR Doc. 2015-16551 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4226-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4226-DR), dated June 26, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 26, 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:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 26, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Arkansas resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of May 7 to June 15, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Arkansas.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy M. Casper, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Arkansas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Crawford, Garland, Howard, Jefferson, Little River, Miller, Perry, Sebastian, and Sevier Counties for Individual Assistance.

    Clark, Crawford, Dallas, Franklin, Garland, Hempstead, Howard, Independence, Izard, Jefferson, Johnson, Lafayette, Little River, Logan, Madison, Marion, Miller, Montgomery, Nevada, Newton, Ouachita, Perry, Pike, Polk, Scott, Searcy, Sevier, and Yell Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Arkansas are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    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. 2015-16549 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4225-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Nebraska; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4225-DR), dated June 25, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 25, 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:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 25, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Nebraska resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of May 6 to June 17, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Nebraska.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Christian M. Van Alstyne, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Nebraska have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Cass, Dundy, Gage, Jefferson, Lancaster, Lincoln, Morrill, Nuckolls, Otoe, Saline, Saunders, and Thayer Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Nebraska are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    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. 2015-16550 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1508] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations Correction

    In notice document 2015-10535 beginning on page 26074 in the issue of Wednesday, May 6, 2015, make the following correction:

    The table appearing on pages 26075-26078 should read as follows:

    State and county Location and case No. Chief executive
  • officer of community
  • Community map repository Online location of
  • letter of map revision
  • Effective date of
  • modification
  • Community
  • No.
  • Alabama: Madison City of Huntsville (15-04-0198P) The Honorable Tommy Battle, Mayor, City of Huntsville, 308 Fountain Circle, Huntsville, AL 35801 Engineering Department, 308 Fountain Circle, Huntsville, AL 35801 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jul. 6, 2015 010153 Madison Unincorporated areas of Madison County (15-04-0198P) The Honorable Dale W. Strong, Chairman, Madison County Commission, 100 Northside Square, Huntsville, AL 35801 Madison County Engineering Building, 266-C Shields Road, Huntsville, AL 35811 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jul. 6, 2015 010151 California: Colusa City of Williams (14-09-4496P) The Honorable John J. Troughton, Jr., Mayor, City of Williams, P.O. Box 310, Williams, CA 95987 City Hall, 810 E Street, Williams, CA 95987 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jul. 2, 2015 060024 Colusa Unincorporated areas of Colusa County (14-09-4438P) The Honorable Mark D. Marshall, Chairman, Colusa County Board of Supervisors, 547 Market Street, Suite 102, Colusa, CA 95932 Colusa County Department of Public Works, 1215 Market Street, Colusa, CA 95932 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jul. 2, 2015 060022 Colusa Unincorporated areas of Colusa County (14-09-4496P) The Honorable Mark D. Marshall, Chairman, Colusa County Board of Supervisors, 547 Market Street, Suite 102, Colusa, CA 95932 Colusa County Department of Public Works, 1215 Market Street, Colusa, CA 95932 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jul. 2, 2015 060022 Riverside Unincorporated areas of Riverside County (15-09-0813P) The Honorable Marion Ashley, Chairman, Riverside County Board of Supervisors, 4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1995 Market Street, Riverside, CA 92501 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 8, 2015 060245 San Diego Unincorporated areas of San Diego County (14-09-4435P) The Honorable Dianne Jacob, Chair, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335, San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego County Department of Public Works, Flood Control District, 5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 401, San Diego, CA 92123 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 19, 2015 060284 Colorado: Denver City and County of Denver (15-08-0320P) The Honorable Michael B. Hancock, Mayor, City and County of Denver, 1437 Bannock Street, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202 Department of Public Works, 201 West Colfax Avenue, Denver, CO 80202 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 19, 2015 080046 Denver City and County of Denver (15-08-0321P) The Honorable Michael B. Hancock, Mayor, City and County of Denver, 1437 Bannock Street, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202 Department of Public Works, 201 West Colfax Avenue, Denver, CO 80202 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 19, 2015 080046 Douglas Unincorporated areas of Douglas County (14-08-0892P) The Honorable Jill Repella, Chair, Douglas County Board of Commissioners, 100 3rd Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 Douglas County Public, Works Department, Engineering Division, 100 3rd Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 12, 2015 080049 Florida: Alachua Unincorporated areas of Alachua County (15-04-0356P) The Honorable Lee Pinkoson, Chairman, Alachua County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 5547, Gainesville, FL 32627 Alachua County Public Works Department, 5620 Northwest 120th Lane, Gainesville, FL 32653 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jul. 3, 2015 120001 Charlotte Unincorporated areas of Charlotte County (15-04-1137P) The Honorable Bill Truex, Chairman, Charlotte County Board of Commissioners, 18500 Murdock Circle, Port Charlotte, FL 33948 Charlotte County Community Development Department, 18500 Murdock Circle, Port Charlotte, FL 33948 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 19, 2015 120061 Collier City of Marco Island (15-04-1069P) The Honorable Larry Sacher, Chairman, City of Marco Island Council, 50 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, FL 34145 City Hall, 50 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, FL 34145 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 19, 2015 120426 Collier Unincorporated areas of Collier County (14-04-A504P) The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman, Collier County Board of Commissioners, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112 Collier County Administrative Building, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 1st Floor, Naples, FL 34112 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc May 12, 2015 120067 Marion City of Ocala (14-04-6358P) The Honorable Kent Guinn, Mayor, City of Ocala, 110 Southeast Watula Avenue, Ocala, FL 34471 Engineering Department, 405 Southeast Osceola Avenue, Ocala, FL 34478 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 25, 2015 120330 Monroe City of Key West (14-04-A505P) The Honorable Craig Cates, Mayor, City of Key West, 3126 Flagler Avenue, Key West, FL 33040 Planning Department, 605A Simonton Street, Key West, FL 33040 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 5, 2015 120168 Pinellas City of Clearwater (14-04-A506P) The Honorable George N. Cretekos, Mayor, City of Clearwater, P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758 Public Works Department, 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Suite 220, Clearwater, FL 33758 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 25, 2015 125096 Seminole City of Longwood (15-04-0949P) The Honorable John Maingot, Mayor, City of Longwood, 175 West Warren Avenue, Longwood, FL 32750 City Hall, 175 West Warren Avenue, Longwood, FL 32750 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 19, 2015 120292 Georgia: Columbia Unincorporated areas of Columbia County (15-04-0305P) The Honorable Ron Cross, Chairman, Columbia County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 498, Evans, GA 30809 Columbia County Planning Services Division, 603 Ronald Reagan Drive, Building B, Evans, GA 30809 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 19, 2015 130059 Kentucky: Kenton City of Covington (15-04-2329P) The Honorable Sherry Carran, Mayor, City of Covington, 20 West Pike Street, Covington, KY 41011 City Hall, 20 West Pike Street, Covington, KY 41011 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 19, 2015 210129 Kenton City of Fort Wright (15-04-2329P) The Honorable Joseph Nienaber, Jr., Mayor, City of Fort Wright, 409 Kyles Lane, Fort Wright, KY 41011 City Hall, 409 Kyles Lane, Fort Wright, KY 41011 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 19, 2015 210249 New York: Suffolk Town of Brookhaven (15-02-0307P) The Honorable Edward P. Romaine, Town of Brookhaven Supervisor, 1 Independence Hill, Farmingville, NY 11738 Town Hall, 1 Independence Hill, Farmingville, NY 11738 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jul. 16, 2015 365334 North Carolina: Columbus Unincorporated areas of Columbus County (14-04-6649P) The Honorable Trent Burroughs, Chairman, Columbus County Board of Commissioners, 111 Washington Street, Whiteville, NC 28472 Columbus County Planning Department, 111 Washington Street, Whiteville, NC 28472 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc May 5, 2015 370305 Guilford City of Greensboro (14-04-9100P) The Honorable Nancy Vaughan, Mayor, City of Greensboro, P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402 Central Library, 219 North Church Street, Greensboro, NC 27401 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 26, 2015 375351 Union Town of Weddington (14-04-7777P) The Honorable Bill Deter, Mayor, Town of Weddington, 1924 Weddington Road, Weddington, NC 28104 Planning Department, 1924 Weddington Road, Weddington, NC 28104 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 22, 2015 370518 Union Unincorporated areas of Union County (14-04-7777P) The Honorable Richard Helms, Chairman, Union County Board of Commissioners, 500 North Main Street, Room 921, Monroe, NC 28112 Union County Planning Department, 500 North Main Street, Monroe, NC 28112 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 22, 2015 370234 Wake City of Raleigh (14-04-8341P) The Honorable Nancy McFarlane, Mayor, City of Raleigh, P.O. Box 590, Raleigh, NC 27602 Public Works Department, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, NC 27601 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 26, 2015 370243 Wake Unincorporated areas of Wake County (14-04-8341P) The Honorable James West, Chairman, Wake County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602 Wake County Environmental Services Department, 336 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, NC 27602 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 26, 2015 370368 South Carolina: Charleston City of Charleston (15-04-0605P) The Honorable Joseph P. Riley, Jr., Mayor, City of Charleston, P.O. Box 652, Charleston, SC 29402 Engineering Department, 75 Calhoun Street Division 301, Charleston, SC 29402 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 19, 2015 455412 Utah: Davis City of Farmington (15-08-0034P) The Honorable Jim Talbot, Mayor, City of Farmington, 160 South Main, Farmington, UT 84025 GIS Department, 1600 South Main, Farmington, UT 84025 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 26, 2015 490044 Davis City of Fruit Heights (14-08-1211P) The Honorable Don Carroll, Mayor, City of Fruit Heights, 910 South Mountain Road, Fruit Heights, UT 84037 City Hall, 910 South Mountain Road, Fruit Heights, UT 84307 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 5, 2015 490045 Davis City of Kaysville (14-08-1178P) The Honorable Steve A. Hiatt, Mayor, City of Kaysville, 23 East Center Street, Kaysville, UT 84037 City Hall, 23 East Center Street, Kaysville, UT 84037 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 5, 2015 490046 Davis City of Kaysville (14-08-1211P) The Honorable Steve A. Hiatt, Mayor, City of Kaysville, 23 East Center Street, Kaysville, UT 84037 City Hall, 23 East Center Street, Kaysville, UT 84037 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jun. 5, 2015 490046 Washington Town of Springdale (14-08-1247P) The Honorable Stan Smith, Mayor, Town of Springdale, 118 Lion Boulevard, Springdale, UT 84767 Planning and Zoning Department, 118 Lion Boulevard, Springdale, UT 84767 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc May 22, 2015 490179
    [FR Doc. C1-2015-10535 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01D
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-ES-2015-N104; FXES11130200000C2-112-FF02ENEH00] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan Draft Addendum AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft addendum to the 2005 Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum) Recovery Plan, to include the Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis). Both species are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). These salamander species are currently found in Barton Springs in Austin, Texas. The Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) currently includes specific recovery objectives and criteria to be met in order to enable us to remove the Barton Springs salamander from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. This draft addendum adds to the Recovery Plan's recovery goals, objectives, downlisting criteria, and delisting criteria in order to reflect the addition of the Austin blind salamander. The Recovery Plan also includes additional time and cost estimates for recovery actions for the Austin blind salamander. We request review and comment on this draft addendum from local, State, and Federal agencies; Tribes; and the public.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, we must receive written comments on or before September 8, 2015. However, we will accept information about any species at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    If you wish to review the draft addendum, you may obtain a copy by any one of the following methods:

    Internet: Access the file at www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/BSS_RP_DraftAddendum_June2015.pdf; http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/;

    U.S. mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; or

    Telephone: (512) 490-0057.

    If you wish to comment on the draft addendum, you may submit your comments in writing by any one of the following methods:

    U.S. mail: Field Supervisor, at the above address;

    Hand-delivery: Austin Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address;

    Fax: (512) 490-0974; or

    Email: [email protected]

    For additional information about submitting comments, see the “Request for Public Comments” section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, at the above address and phone number, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of our endangered species program and the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Recovery means improvement of the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species.

    Species History

    The Austin blind salamander was federally listed as endangered throughout its range on September 9, 2013 (78 FR 51277), and detailed background information on the taxonomy, habitat, range, threats, and life history attributes of the Austin blind salamander can be found in the final rule. It has a recovery priority number of 2C, which is based on a high degree of threat, high potential for recovery, taxonomic classification as a species, and potential for conflict over resources (primarily water quality and quantity) and economic development.

    When we developed the Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan, the Austin blind salamander was a candidate for Federal listing as endangered or threatened (67 FR 40657). We included information on the Austin blind salamander to facilitate adding this species to the Recovery Plan if it ultimately became listed. The existing recovery plan for the Barton Springs salamander presents a recovery strategy, objective and measurable recovery criteria, and site-specific management actions to monitor and reduce or remove threats to the Barton Springs salamander. The Barton Springs and Austin blind salamanders occur in the same ecosystem, have similar ecology and life history needs, and face similar threats. The Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan was developed to address the Barton Springs ecosystem as a whole, as well as both salamander species, which are vulnerable to threats to this ecosystem. Therefore, the recovery strategy for the Barton Springs salamander is also applicable to and appropriate for the Austin blind salamander. For these reasons, we are proposing an efficient approach to recovery planning for the Austin blind salamander by supplementing the Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan with an addendum to include the Austin blind salamander.

    Request for Public Comments

    Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. We are, therefore, providing the public the opportunity to comment on the draft addendum. Because the Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan has already been through peer and public review and because this plan is a valid recovery plan, we seek public comments on only the draft addendum. We will summarize and respond to the issues raised by the public and post our responses on our Web site. Substantive comments may or may not result in changes to the draft addendum; comments regarding recovery plan implementation will be forwarded as appropriate to Federal or other entities so that they can be taken into account during the course of implementing recovery actions.

    We invite written comments on the draft addendum. In particular, we are interested in additional information regarding the appropriateness of the draft recovery criteria and recovery actions for the Austin blind salamander as well as the costs associated with implementing the recommended recovery actions.

    Before we approve a final addendum, we will consider all comments we receive by the date specified in DATES. Methods of submitting comments are in the ADDRESSES section.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials we receive will be available on our Web site http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/, by appointment, for public inspection during normal business hours at our office (see ADDRESSES).

    References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

    Authority

    We developed this recovery plan addendum under the authority of section 4(f) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f). We publish this notice under section 4(f) Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Joy E. Nicholopoulos, Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16595 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION [RC0ZCUPCA0, 155R0680R1, RR.17549897.2015101.02] Notice of Availability of the Records of Decision for the Provo River Delta Restoration Project AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Interior; Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Interior and the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission have prepared separate Records of Decision (RODs) that disclose their selection of Alternative B for implementing the restoration of the Provo River Delta as described in the Provo River Delta Restoration Project (PRDRP) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Both agencies have also selected to implement Option 2 for the improvement of the existing Provo River Channel. The size of Alternative B may be increased by acquiring additional land described under Alternative A. However, such additional land acquisition will only be accomplished if the additional land can be acquired on a willing-seller basis. Therefore, a potentially enlarged Alternative B (the Preferred Alternative) and Option 2 are adopted as the Selected Action. The implementation of Alternative B as potentially modified and Option 2 will significantly aid in meeting recovery actions within the approved June Sucker Recovery Plan of 1999.

    DATES:

    The Department of the Interior and the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission signed separate RODs on May 26, 2015 and subsequently made them available to the public.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written correspondence or requests for copies to Mr. W. Russ Findlay, Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, 302 East 1860 South, Provo, Utah 846060-7317; or Mr. Richard Mingo, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 230 South 500 East Suite 230, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102; or by email to [email protected] or [email protected] The RODs are accessible at the following Web sites: www.cupcao.gov, www.provoriverdelta.us, www.mitigationcommission.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for locations where copies of the RODs are available for public review.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. W. Russ Findlay, 801-379-1084, [email protected]; or Mr. Richard Mingo, 801-524-3146, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department of the Interior's Record of Decision for the Diamond Fork System Final Supplement to the Diamond Fork Power System Final Environmental Impact Statement, signed September 29, 1999, commits the Department of the Interior, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to “. . . participate in the development of a Recovery Implementation Program for June sucker.” Moreover, “. . . [a]ny future development of the Bonneville Unit of CUP [Central Utah Project] will be contingent on the RIP [June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program (JSRIP)] making `sufficient progress' towards recovery of June sucker.” The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission signed its own Record of Decision for the Diamond Fork System Project on November 19, 1999. The JSRIP was established in 2002, and the Joint Lead Agencies are participants. The goals of the JSRIP are twofold, to recover June sucker so that it no longer requires protection under the Endangered Species Act and allow continued operation of existing water facilities and future development of water resources for human uses within the Utah Lake Basin in Utah.

    The June sucker exists naturally only in Utah Lake and spawns primarily in the lower Provo River, a Utah Lake tributary. Monitoring indicates young June sucker hatching in the lower Provo River do not survive to the adult stage due to habitat inadequacies in the lower Provo River and its interface with Utah Lake related to flow, food supply, and shelter. A compounding factor is likely predation by nonnative fishes. Dredging and channelization for flood control has eliminated the shallow, warm, complex wetland habitat at the mouth of the Provo River where it enters Utah Lake.

    The Federal Action

    The PRDRP will restore the lower Provo River to a more natural deltaic ecosystem. The delta and associated habitat will provide needed habitat for the recovery of the endangered June sucker. These improvements will be accomplished through the implementation of Alternative B and Option 2 as analyzed in the PRDRP FEIS plus the option to increase the size of Alternative B by acquiring additional land described under Alternative A only if the additional land can be acquired on a willing-seller basis.

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The PRDRP has been identified as an essential action needed to recover the endangered June sucker. It will restore functional habitat conditions in the lower Provo River and its interface with Utah Lake that are needed for spawning, hatching, larval transport, survival, rearing and recruitment of young June sucker into the population on a self-sustaining basis.

    The purposes of the PRDRP are to:

    • Implement the specific criteria of the June Sucker Recovery Plan to restore a naturally functioning Provo River delta ecosystem essential for recruitment of June sucker;

    • provide recreational improvements and opportunities associated with the PRDRP; and

    • adopt flow regime targets for the lower Provo River and provide delivery of supplemental water to the lower Provo River, including additional conserved water.

    Alternative B—Provo River Delta Restoration

    Alternative B was developed with substantial involvement from study area landowners and other stakeholders. It is the selected alternative for restoring the Provo River Delta. It will reduce the amount of private land required for the PRDRP and preserve the highest-value agricultural land, while still improving June sucker spawning and rearing habitat. The acquisition boundary for this alternative encompasses 310.3 acres. As previously described in this NOA, lands in addition to the minimum required under Alternative B could be acquired on a willing-seller basis, either in conjunction with Alternative B or at a later time. Implementing Alternative B as described in the Final EIS would result in splitting of three or more contiguous land ownerships/agricultural operations. It is possible that landowners may request as condition of sale of their property the acquisition of some or all of the remaining properties outside the delineated Alternative B boundary. Other landowners may also have interest in selling their land to the government for the project. Only if these agreements can be achieved on a willing-seller basis would they be consummated. Such lands could be acquired to enhance the habitat values for June sucker, to preserve habitat values for other wildlife or wetlands, or to provide additional related recreational opportunities.

    Option 2—Provo River Existing Channel Improvement

    Option 2 will be implemented along with Alternative B above. Option 2 will maintain the existing channel at a relatively constant elevation by constructing a small dam at the downstream mouth of the channel near Utah Lake State Park. An aeration system will be installed and operated as necessary to improve water quality. A minimum flow of 10 cubic feet per second will be provided to the existing Provo River channel which will be retained and managed for recreational and aesthetic purposes.

    A Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the PRDRP was published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2014 (79 FR 11511). A Notice of Availability of the PRDRP FEIS was published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2015 (80 FR 18940).

    Copies of the RODs are available for public review at:

    • Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, 302 East 1860 South, Provo, Utah 84606-7317

    • Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 230 South 500 East Suite 230, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102

    Dated: June 8, 2015. Reed R. Murray, Program Director, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, Department of the Interior. Dated: June 8, 2015. Mark Holden, Executive Director, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16600 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-18618; 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 June 6, 2015. Pursuant to section 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 22, 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 15, 2015. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. ALABAMA Jefferson County Birmingham Wholesale Warehouse Loop West Historic District, Roughly bounded by RRs., 14th St. S., 2nd Ave. S. & I-65, Birmingham, 15000429 Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church, 1460 Pearson Ave. SW., Birmingham, 15000430 Limestone County Sulphur Creek Trestle Battle Site (Boundary Increase and Additional Documentation), Address Restricted, Elkmont, 15000431 Macon County Creek Stand A.M.E. Zion Church Cemetery, (U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study, Macon County, Alabama MPS) Slim Rd. off of Cty. Rd. 10, Tuskegee, 15000432 Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church Cemetery, (U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study, Macon County, Alabama MPS) AL 81 at Pistol Range Rd., Notasulga, 15000433 Shelby County Farrington Hall, 124 Cty. Rd. 203, Montevallo, 15000434 IOWA Allamakee County Waterloo Ridge Menigheds Kirke og Kirkegard Historic District, 169 Dorchester Dr., Dorchester, 15000435 Dubuque County St. Mary's Catholic Church Historic District, 105 E. 15th, 1584 White, 1501 & 1561 Jackson Sts., Dubuque, 15000436 MINNESOTA Brown County New Ulm High School, 1 N. State St., New Ulm, 15000438 Nobles County Worthington Band Shell, (Federal Relief Construction in Minnesota MPS) 418 Lake Ave., Worthington, 15000439 St. Louis County Ely State Theater, 234 E. Sheridan St., Ely, 15000440 MISSOURI Butler County Cynthia—Kinzer Historic District, 900-1000 blks. of Cynthia & Kinzer, 918-924 Maud & 838-842 Kinzer Sts., Poplar Bluff, 15000441 St. Louis Independent city Brahm—Mitchellette Motor Car Company, (Auto-Related Resources of St. Louis, Missouri MPS) 3537 S. Kingshighway Blvd., St. Louis (Independent City), 15000442 NEW JERSEY Passaic County Passaic County Court House and United States Custom House and Post Office Historic District, 73-87, 63-65 Hamilton St., Paterson, 15000443 TENNESSEE Bledsoe County Fall Creek Falls Fire Lookout Tower, (Tennessee Division of Forestry Fire Lookout Towers MPS) Fire Tower Rd., Pikeville, 15000444 Davidson County RCA Victor Studios Building, 30 Music Square W., Nashville, 15000445 Grainger County Old Grainger County Jail, SE. corner of Water St. & TN 92, Rutledge, 15000446 Rutledge Presbyterian Church and Cemetery, 123 Church St., Rutledge, 15000447 White County Ravencroft Mine, Glade Creek Rd., Sparta, 15000449 TEXAS Erath County First National Bank Building, 198 S. Belknap St., Stephenville, 15000450 Potter County Smith, Louis H., Inc. Firestone Store, 1004 S. Tyler St., Amarillo, 15000451 UTAH Weber County Ogden Union Stockyard Exchange Building, 600 W. Exchange Rd., Ogden, 15000452 WASHINGTON King County Magnolia Public Library, 2801 34th Ave. W., Seattle, 15000453 Masonic Temple—Auburn, 10 Auburn Way S., Auburn, 15000454 White Center Fieldhouse and Caretaker Cottage, 1321 SW. 102nd St., Seattle, 15000455 Whatcom County Orchard Terrace Apartments, 901 N. Forest St., Bellingham, 15000456 WISCONSIN Rock County Masonic Temple, 508 Vernal Ave., Milton, 15000458 Wood County Wood County Courthouse, 400 Market St., Wisconsin Rapids, 15000457

    In the interest of preservation, a three day comment period has been requested for the following resource:

    KENTUCKY Woodford County Versailles Elementary School, 299 S. Main St., Versailles, 15000459

    A request for removal has been made for the following resources:

    IOWA Linn County Horecky, Henek and Mary, Log Cabin, Address Restricted, Mt. Vernon, 00001078 LOUISIANA East Baton Rouge Parish Adams House, 421 S. 7th, Baton Rouge, 98000440 Evangeline Parish LaTour, Alexis, House, 247 E. Main, Ville Platte, 87001492 Rapides Parish Conerly House, (Neo-Classical Architecture of Bayou Rapides TR) Off US 71, Alexandria, 84000534 TENNESSEE Williamson County Davis, Stokely, House, (Williamson County MRA) Old Natchez Trace 1 mi. S of Moran Rd., Franklin, 88000294
    [FR Doc. 2015-16570 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-18680; 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 June 20, 2015. Pursuant to section 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 22, 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 26, 2015. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. ARKANSAS Polk County Shady Lake Recreation Area Historic District, FS 38, Athens, 15000480 COLORADO Chaffee County Comanche Drive-In, 17063 Cty. Rd. 106, Buena Vista, 15000481 INDIANA St. Joseph County Federal Building, (Downtown South Bend Historic MRA) 204 S. Main, South Bend, 15000482 IOWA Clinton County Washington Junior High School and Jefferson Grade School, 751 2nd Ave. S., Clinton, 15000483 MONTANA Flathead County Swan River Bridge, (Montana's Historic Steel Truss Bridges) Bridge St., Bigfork, 15000484 Park County Convict Grade Historic District, 1 mi. E. of jct. with US 89, Springdale, 15000485 Gardiner Jail, 2nd St., Gardiner, 15000486 NEBRASKA Colfax County Odd Fellows—Top Notch Building, 302 E. 11th St., Schyler, 15000487 Gage County Johnson Cabin Museum, Blue Springs Park, Blue Springs, 15000488 NEW JERSEY Essex County Maplewood Memorial Park, Bounded by Oakland & Dunnell Rds., Valley & Baker Sts., Maplewood, 15000489 Morris County Mount Olive Village Historic District, Mount Olive & Flanders-Drakestown Rds., Mount Olive, 15000490 NEW MEXICO Bernalillo County Hubbell, James Lawrence and Juliana Gutierrez y Chavez, House, (Camino Real in New Mexico, AD 1598-1881 MPS) 6029 Isleta Blvd. SW., Albuquerque, 15000491 Cibola County Grants—Milan Flight Service Station, 1116 N. Dale Carnutte Rd., Grants, 15000492 Los Alamos County United States Post Office—Los Alamos, New Mexico, 199 Central Park Sq., Los Alamos, 15000493 Santa Fe County Delgrado Street Bridge, Delgrado St. over the Santa Fe R., Santa Fe, 15000494 K'uuyemugeh, Address Restricted, Cuyamungue, 15000496 St. John's College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca, Santa Fe, 15000495 RHODE ISLAND Providence County Edgewood Historic District—Anstis Greene Estate Plats, (Edgewood Neighborhood, Cranston, R.I. MPS) Anstis, Broad & Swift Sts., Birchfield & Kensington Rds., Bluff, King, Marion & Rosewood Aves., Narragansett Blvd., Cranston, 15000497 WASHINGTON Jefferson County Tamanowas Rock, Address Restricted, Chimacum, 15000498 King County Montlake Historic District, Roughly bounded by Lake Washington Ship Canal, Interlaken Park, 15th Ave. E. & Washington Park Arboretum, Seattle, 15000499 Thurston County Schmidt, Trueman and Virginia, House, 2832 Maringo Rd. SE., Olympia, 15000500 Washington State Library, 415 15th Ave. SE., Olympia, 15000501 WISCONSIN Dane County Stevens, Breese, Municipal Athletic Field, 917 E. Mifflin St., Madison, 15000502 Jefferson County Clyman Street Historic District, Roughly bounded by Western Ave,. Clyman, S. 10th & S. 5th Sts., Watertown, 15000503 Rock County Merchant Row Historic District, 212, 216, 218-220, 228-230 Merchant Row & 553, 537, 541 Vernal Ave., Milton, 15000504 Parkview Historic District, 644-655 College St. & 247-319 Parkview Dr., Milton, 15000505

    In the interest of preservation the comment period has been extended to July 16, 2015 for the following resource:

    ARIZONA Pinal County Chi'chil Bildagoteel Historic District, Address Restricted, Kearney, 15000358

    A request for removal has been made for the following resource:

    NEW YORK Dutchess County Sands, Robert, Estate, (Rhinebeck Town MRA (AD)) 1.5 mi. E of Rhinebeck at NY 308 and NY 9, Rhinebeck, 75001183
    [FR Doc. 2015-16567 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-18648; 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 June 13, 2015. Pursuant to section 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 22, 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 19, 2015. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. CALIFORNIA San Bernardino County Eagle Well Petroglyph Site, Address Restricted, Barstow, 15000470 COLORADO Chaffee County Commercial Hotel, 43255 Cty. Rd. 397, Granite, 15000460 Fay, William and Anna, House, 201 S. Colorado Ave., Buena Vista, 15000461 Kelley—McDonald House, 108 S. Pleasant Ave., Buena Vista, 15000462 Pedro—Botz House, 7467 Cty. Rd. 150, Salida, 15000463 Rock Ledge Ranch—Franzel Ranch, 17975 Cty. Rd. 338, Buena Vista, 15000464 Salida Livestock Commission Company, 5005 E. US 50, Salida, 15000465 GEORGIA Fulton County Ansley Park Historic District (Boundary Increase, Decrease and Additional Documentation), Roughly bounded by RR tracks, Beverly Rd., Piedmont Ave., Spring, 15th & Peachtree Sts., Atlanta, 15000466 IOWA Linn County Averill, Glenn M. and Edith, House, 616 4th Ave. SE., Cedar Rapids, 15000472 Scott County Harrison, Issac W., House, (Davenport MRA) 318 E. 10th, Davenport, 83004560 MASSACHUSETTS Essex County Greenlawn Cemetery, 57 Orne St., Salem, 15000467 Hampshire County Plainfield Center Historic District, Portions of Church Ln., Broom, Central, Main, Pleasant & Union Sts., Plainfield, 15000468 Plymouth County First Baptist Church of Scituate, 656 & 660 Country Way, Scituate, 15000469 MISSOURI Jackson County Fairfax Building, The, 101 W. 11th St., Kansas City, 15000471 NEW YORK Albany County Former Parsonage of the Reformed Dutch Church of Coeymans, 32 Church St., Coeymans, 15000473 McCarty, Brigadier General David, Stone Cottage, 29 2nd St., Coeymans, 15000474 Columbia County Coons, Charles H., Farm, 516 Church Ave., Germantown, 15000475 Delaware County First Congregational Church of Walton, 4 Mead St.,Walton, 15000476 VERMONT Windsor County Fox Stand, 5615 VT 14, Royalton, 15000477 WISCONSIN Door County Jacksonport Wharf Archaeological District (Boundary Increase and Additional Documentation), Near Lakeside Park off Cty. Rd. V, Jacksonport, 15000478 Milwaukee County MILWAUKEE (steam screw) Shipwreck, (Great Lakes Shipwreck Sites of Wisconsin MPS) 3 mi. E. of Fox Point, Fox Point, 15000479
    [FR Doc. 2015-16568 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement [Docket ID BSEE-2015-0004; OMB Control Number 1014-0008; 15XE1700DX EEEE500000 EX1SF0000.DAQ000] Information Collection Activities; Well Control and Production Safety Training; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under subpart O, Well Control and Production Safety Training. This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the revised paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments by August 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments by either fax (202) 395-5806 or email ([email protected]) directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (1014-0008). Please provide a copy of your comments to BSEE by any of the means below.

    • Electronically go to http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter BSEE-2015-0004 then click search. Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view all related materials. We will post all comments.

    • Email [email protected], fax (703) 787-1546, or mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; Regulations and Standards Branch; ATTN: Cheryl Blundon; 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166. Please reference ICR 1014-0008 in your comment and include your name and return address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch, (703) 787-1607, to request additional information about this ICR. To see a copy of the entire ICR submitted to OMB, go to http://www.reginfo.gov (select Information Collection Review, Currently Under Review).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: 30 CFR 250, Subpart O, Well control and Production Safety Training.

    OMB Control Number: 1014-0008.

    Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations necessary for the administration of the leasing provisions of the Act related to mineral resources on the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease, pipeline right-of-way, or a right-of-use and easement. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

    In addition to the general rulemaking authority of the OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1334, section 301(a) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA), 30 U.S.C. 1751(a), grants authority to the Secretary to prescribe such rules and regulations as are reasonably necessary to carry out FOGRMA's provisions. While the majority of FOGRMA is directed to royalty collection and enforcement, some provisions apply to offshore operations. For example, section 108 of FOGRMA, 30 U.S.C. 1718, grants the Secretary broad authority to inspect lease sites for the purpose of determining whether there is compliance with the mineral leasing laws. Section 109(c)(2) and (d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 1719(c)(2) and (d)(1), impose substantial civil penalties for failure to permit lawful inspections and for knowing or willful preparation or submission of false, inaccurate, or misleading reports, records, or other information. Because the Secretary has delegated some of the authority under FOGRMA to BSEE, 30 U.S.C. 1751 is included as additional authority for these requirements.

    Section 1332(6) of the OCS Lands Act requires that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well trained personnel using technology, precautions, and other techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstructions to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property or endanger life or health.”

    It should be noted, that due to the regulatory requirements in 30 CFR 250, subpart S (SEMS), the 30 CFR 250, subpart O, audits ceased. The training audits fall under the requirements defined in § 250.1915. However, BSEE keeps subpart O documents and regulations active, because the subpart O regulatory requirements give BSEE the authority and ability to test employees on the effectiveness of their own training program with respect to well control and production safety.

    This authority and responsibility are among those delegated to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). The regulations at 30 CFR 250, subpart O, Well Control and Production Safety Training, concern training requirements for certain personnel working on the OCS and is the subject of this collection. This request also covers the related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BSEE issues to clarify, supplement, or provide additional guidance on some aspects of our regulations.

    BSEE will use the information collected under subpart O regulations to ensure that workers in the OCS are properly trained with the necessary skills to perform their jobs in a safe and pollution-free manner.

    In some instances, we may conduct oral interviews of offshore employees to evaluate the effectiveness of a company's training program. The oral interviews are used to gauge how effectively the companies are implementing their own training program.

    Responses are mandatory or are required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a sensitive or private nature are asked. If however, we did collect any such information, BSEE protects information considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DOIs implementing regulations (43 CFR 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR part 250.197, Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection, 30 CFR part 252, OCS Oil and Gas Information Program.

    The information collected under subpart O is used to ensure that workers in the OCS are properly trained with the necessary skills to perform their jobs in a safe and pollution-free manner.

    In some instances, we may conduct oral interviews of offshore employees to evaluate the effectiveness of a company's training program. The oral interviews are used to gauge how effectively the companies are implementing their own training program.

    Frequency: On occasion and as required by regulations.

    Description of Respondents: Potential respondents comprise OCS Federal oil, gas, or sulphur lessees and/or operators.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: The estimated annual hour burden for this information collection is a total of 202 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

    Burden Table Citation 30 CFR 250
  • Subpart O
  • Reporting & recordkeeping requirement Hour burden Average number of annual responses Annual burden hours
    1503(a), (c) Develop training plans. Note: Existing lessees/respondents already have training plans developed. This number reflects development of plans for any new lessees 120 1 120 1503(d)(1) Upon request, provide BSEE with copies of training documentation for personnel involved in well control, deepwater well control, or production safety operations within the past 5 years 16 1 16 1503(d)(2) Upon request, provide BSEE with a copy of your training plan 16 1 16 1507(b) Employee oral interview conducted by BSEE. 2 1 2 1507(c), (d); 1508; 1509 Written testing conducted by BSEE or authorized representative Not considered information collection under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(7). 0 1510(b) Revise training plan and submit to BSEE. 40 1 40 250.1500-1510 General departure or alternative compliance requests not specifically covered elsewhere in subpart O 8 1 8 Total Hour Burden 6 202

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Non-Hour Cost Burden: We have not identified any 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. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

    Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.,) requires each agency “. . . to provide notice . . . and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information . . .” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the collection is necessary or useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of technology.

    To comply with the public consultation process, on April 10, 2015, we published a Federal Register notice (80 FR 19352) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, § 250.199 provides the OMB Control Number for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR 250, subpart O regulations and forms. The regulation also informs the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information and provides the address to which they should send comments. We received one comment in response to the Federal Register notice or unsolicited comments from respondents covered under these regulations. The comment was from a private citizen and it was not germane to the paperwork burden of this ICR.

    Public Availability of Comments: Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: June 16, 2015. Keith Good, Acting Deputy Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16599 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States and State of Michigan v. Hillsdale Community Health Center, et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation and Order, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in United States and State of Michigan v. Hillsdale Community Health Center, et al., Civil Action No. 15-cv-12311 (JEL) (DRG). On June 25, 2015, the United States and the State of Michigan filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant Hillsdale Community Health Center (“Hillsdale”) entered into agreements with Defendants W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital, d/b/a Allegiance Health (“Allegiance”), Community Health Center of Branch County (“Branch”), and ProMedica Health System (“ProMedica”) that unlawfully allocated territories for the marketing of competing healthcare services in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772. The proposed Final Judgment, submitted at the same time as the Complaint, prohibits the settling Defendants—Hillsdale, Branch, and ProMedica—from agreeing with other healthcare providers to prohibit or limit marketing or to divide any geographic market or territory. The proposed Final Judgment also prohibits the settling Defendants from communicating with other Defendants about marketing plans, with limited exceptions.

    Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-2481), on the Department of Justice's Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr, and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations.

    Public comment on the proposed Final Judgment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's internet Web site, filed with the Court and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register. Comments should be directed to Peter J. Mucchetti, Chief, Litigation I Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-307-0001).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiffs, v. HILLSDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, W.A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, D/B/A ALLEGIANCE HEALTH, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER OF BRANCH COUNTY, and PROMEDICA HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants.

    CASE NO.: 2:15-cv-12311 Hon. Judith E. Levy COMPLAINT

    The United States of America and the State of Michigan bring this civil antitrust action to enjoin agreements by Defendants Hillsdale Community Health Center (“Hillsdale”), W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital, d/b/a Allegiance Health (“Allegiance”), Community Health Center of Branch County (“Branch”), and ProMedica Health System, Inc. (“ProMedica”) (collectively, “Defendants”) that unlawfully allocate territories for the marketing of competing healthcare services and limit competition among Defendants.

    NATURE OF THE ACTION

    1. Defendants are healthcare providers in Michigan that operate the only general acute-care hospital or hospitals in their respective counties. Defendants directly compete with each other to provide healthcare services to the residents of south-central Michigan. Marketing is a key component of this competition and includes advertisements, mailings to patients, health fairs, health screenings, and outreach to physicians and employers.

    2. Allegiance, Branch, and ProMedica's Bixby and Herrick Hospitals (“Bixby and Herrick”) are Hillsdale's closest Michigan competitors. Hillsdale orchestrated agreements to limit marketing of competing healthcare services. Allegiance explained in a 2013 oncology marketing plan: “[A]n agreement exists with the CEO of Hillsdale Community Health Center, Duke Anderson, to not conduct marketing activity in Hillsdale County.” Branch's CEO described the Branch agreement with Hillsdale as a “gentlemen's agreement not to market services.” A ProMedica communications specialist described the ProMedica agreement with Hillsdale in an email: “The agreement is that they stay our [sic] of our market and we stay out of theirs unless we decide to collaborate with them on a particular project.”

    3. The Defendants' agreements have disrupted the competitive process and harmed patients, physicians, and employers. For instance, all of these agreements have deprived patients, physicians, and employers of information they otherwise would have had when making important healthcare decisions. In addition, the agreement between Allegiance and Hillsdale has deprived Hillsdale County patients of free medical services such as health screenings and physician seminars that they would have received but for the unlawful agreement. Moreover, it denied Hillsdale County employers the opportunity to develop relationships with Allegiance that could have allowed them to improve the quality of their employees' medical care.

    4. Defendants' senior executives created and enforced these agreements, which lasted for many years. On certain occasions when a Defendant violated one of the agreements, executives of the aggrieved Defendant complained about the violation and received assurances that the previously agreed upon marketing restrictions would continue to be observed going forward.

    5. Defendants' agreements are naked restraints of trade that are per se unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772.

    JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE

    6. The United States brings this action pursuant to Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 4, to prevent and restrain Defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The State of Michigan brings this action in its sovereign capacity under its statutory, equitable and/or common law powers, and pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, to prevent and restrain Defendants' violations of Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772.

    7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 4 (as to claims by the United States); Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26 (as to claims by the State of Michigan); and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), 1345, and 1367.

    8. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22. Each Defendant transacts business within the Eastern District of Michigan, all Defendants reside in the State of Michigan, and at least two Defendants reside in the Eastern District of Michigan.

    9. Defendants all engage in interstate commerce and in activities substantially affecting interstate commerce. Defendants provide healthcare services to patients for which employers, health plans, and individual patients remit payments across state lines. Defendants purchase supplies and equipment from out-of-state vendors that are shipped across state lines.

    DEFENDANTS

    10. Hillsdale is a Michigan corporation headquartered in Hillsdale, Michigan. Its general acute-care hospital, which is in Hillsdale County, Michigan, has 47 beds and a medical staff of over 90 physicians.

    11. Allegiance is a Michigan corporation headquartered in Jackson, Michigan. Its general acute-care hospital, which is in Jackson County, Michigan, has 480 beds and a medical staff of over 400 physicians.

    12. Branch is a Michigan corporation headquartered in Coldwater, Michigan. Its general acute-care hospital, which is in Branch County, Michigan, has 87 beds and a medical staff of over 100 physicians.

    13. ProMedica is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, with facilities in northwest Ohio and southern Michigan. ProMedica's Bixby and Herrick Hospitals are both in Lenawee County, Michigan. Bixby is a general acute-care hospital with 88 beds and a medical staff of over 120 physicians. Herrick is a general acute-care hospital with 25 beds and a medical staff of over 75 physicians.

    EN07JY15.099 BACKGROUND ON HOSPITAL COMPETITION

    14. Hillsdale competes with each of the other Defendants to provide many of the same hospital and physician services to patients. Hospitals compete on price, quality, and other factors to sell their services to patients, employers, and insurance companies. An important tool that hospitals use to compete for patients is marketing aimed at informing patients, physicians, and employers about a hospital's quality and scope of services. An executive from each Defendant has testified at deposition that marketing is an important strategy through which hospitals seek to increase their patient volume and market share.

    15. Defendants' marketing includes advertisements through mailings and media such as local newspapers, radio, television, and billboards. Allegiance's marketing to patients also includes the provision of free medical services, such as health screenings, physician seminars, and health fairs. Some Defendants also market to physicians through educational and relationship-building meetings that provide physicians with information about those Defendants' quality and range of services. Allegiance also engages in these marketing activities with employers.

    HILLSDALE'S UNLAWFUL AGREEMENTS

    16. Hillsdale has agreements limiting competition with Allegiance, ProMedica, and Branch.

    Unlawful Agreement Between Hillsdale and Allegiance

    17. Since at least 2009, Hillsdale and Allegiance have had an agreement that limits Allegiance's marketing for competing services in Hillsdale County. As Allegiance explained in a 2013 oncology marketing plan: “[A]n agreement exists with the CEO of Hillsdale Community Health Center, Duke Anderson, to not conduct marketing activity in Hillsdale County.”

    18. In compliance with this agreement, Allegiance has excluded Hillsdale County from marketing campaigns since at least 2009. For example, Allegiance excluded Hillsdale County from the marketing plans outlined in the above-referenced 2013 oncology marketing plan. And according to a February 2014 board report, Allegiance excluded Hillsdale from marketing campaigns for cardiovascular and orthopedic services.

    19. On at least two occasions, Hillsdale's CEO complained to Allegiance after Allegiance sent marketing materials to Hillsdale County residents. Both times—at the direction of Allegiance CEO Georgia Fojtasek—Allegiance's Vice President of Marketing, Anthony Gardner, apologized in writing to Hillsdale's CEO. In one apology he said, “It isn't our style to purposely not honor our agreement.” Mr. Gardner assured Hillsdale's CEO that Allegiance would not repeat this mistake.

    20. Allegiance also conveyed its hands-off approach to Hillsdale in 2009 when Ms. Fojtasek told Hillsdale's CEO that Allegiance would take a “Switzerland” approach towards Hillsdale, and then confirmed this approach by mailing Hillsdale's CEO a Swiss flag.

    21. Allegiance executives and staff have discussed the agreement in numerous correspondences and business documents. For example, Allegiance staff explained in a 2012 cardiovascular services analysis: “Hillsdale does not permit [Allegiance] to conduct free vascular screens as they periodically charge for screenings.” As a result, around that time, Hillsdale County patients were deprived of free vascular-health screenings.

    22. In another instance, in 2014 Allegiance discouraged one of its newly employed physicians from giving a seminar in Hillsdale County relating to competing services. In response to the physician's request to provide the seminar, the Allegiance Marketing Director asked the Vice President of Physician Integration and Business Development: “Who do you think is the best person to explain to [the doctor] our restrictions in Hillsdale? We're happy to do so but often our docs find it hard to believe and want a higher authority to confirm.”

    23. The agreement between Hillsdale and Allegiance has deprived Hillsdale County patients, physicians, and employers of information regarding their healthcare-provider choices and of free health-screenings and education.

    Unlawful Agreement Between Hillsdale and ProMedica

    24. Since at least 2012, Hillsdale and ProMedica have agreed to limit their marketing for competing services in one another's county.

    25. This agreement has restrained marketing in several ways. For example, in June 2012, Bixby and Herrick's President asked Hillsdale's CEO if he would have any issue with Bixby marketing its oncology services to Hillsdale physicians. Hillsdale's CEO replied that he objected because his hospital provided those services. Bixby and Herrick's President responded that he understood. Bixby and Herrick then refrained from marketing their competing oncology services in Hillsdale County.

    26. Another incident occurred around January 2012, when Hillsdale's CEO complained to Bixby and Herrick's President about the placement of a ProMedica billboard across from a physician's office in Hillsdale County. At the conclusion of the conversation, Bixby and Herrick's President assured Hillsdale's CEO that he would check into taking down the billboard.

    27. ProMedica employees have discussed and acknowledged the agreement in multiple documents. For example, after Hillsdale's CEO called Bixby and Herrick's President to complain about ProMedica's billboard, a ProMedica communications specialist described the agreement to marketing colleagues via email: “According to [Bixby and Herrick's President] any potential marketing (including network development) efforts targeted for the Hillsdale, MI market should be run by him so that he can talk to Hillsdale Health Center in advance. The agreement is that they stay our [sic] of our market and we stay out of theirs unless we decide to collaborate with them on a particular project.”

    28. The agreement between Hillsdale and ProMedica deprived patients, physicians, and employers of Hillsdale and Lenawee Counties of information regarding their healthcare-provider choices.

    Unlawful Agreement Between Hillsdale and Branch

    29. Since at least 1999, Hillsdale and Branch have agreed to limit marketing in one another's county. In the fall of 1999, Hillsdale's then-CEO and Branch's CEO reached an agreement whereby each hospital agreed not to market anything but new services in the other hospital's county. Branch's CEO testified recently in deposition that “There's a gentlemen's agreement not to market services other than new services.”

    30. Branch has monitored Hillsdale's compliance with the agreement. For example, in November 2004, Hillsdale promoted one of its physicians through an advertisement in the Branch County newspaper. Branch's CEO faxed Hillsdale's then-CEO a copy of the advertisement, alerting him to the violation of their agreement.

    31. In addition to monitoring Hillsdale's compliance, Branch has directed its marketing employees to abide by the agreement with Hillsdale. For example, Branch's 2013 guidelines for sending out media releases instructed that it had a “gentleman's agreement” with Hillsdale and thus Branch should not send media releases to the Hillsdale Daily News.

    32. The agreement between Hillsdale and Branch deprived Hillsdale and Branch County patients, physicians, and employers of information regarding their healthcare-provider choices.

    NO PROCOMPETITIVE JUSTIFICATIONS

    33. The Defendants' anticompetitive agreements are not reasonably necessary to further any procompetitive purpose.

    VIOLATIONS ALLEGED First Cause of Action: Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act

    34. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 33.

    35. Allegiance, Branch, and ProMedica are each a horizontal competitor of Hillsdale in the provision of healthcare services in south-central Michigan. Defendants' agreements are facially anticompetitive because they allocate territories for the marketing of competing healthcare services and limit competition among Defendants. The agreements eliminate a significant form of competition to attract patients.

    36. The agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade that are per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. No elaborate analysis is required to demonstrate the anticompetitive character of these agreements.

    37. The agreements are also unreasonable restraints of trade that are unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, under an abbreviated or “quick look” rule of reason analysis. The principal tendency of the agreements is to restrain competition. The nature of the restraints is obvious, and the agreements lack legitimate procompetitive justifications. Even an observer with a rudimentary understanding of economics could therefore conclude that the agreements would have anticompetitive effects on patients, physicians, and employers, and harm the competitive process.

    Second Cause of Action: Violation of MCL 445.772

    38. Plaintiff State of Michigan incorporates paragraphs 1 through 37 above.

    39. Defendants entered into unlawful agreements with each other that unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772.

    REQUESTED RELIEF

    The United States and the State of Michigan request that the Court:

    (A) judge that Defendants' agreements limiting competition constitute illegal restraints of interstate trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772;

    (B) enjoin Defendants and their members, officers, agents, and employees from continuing or renewing in any manner the conduct alleged herein or from engaging in any other conduct, agreement, or other arrangement having the same effect as the alleged violations;

    (C) enjoin each Defendant and its members, officers, agents, and employees from communicating with any other Defendant about any Defendant's marketing in its or the other Defendant's county, unless such communication is related to the joint provision of services, or unless the communication is part of normal due diligence relating to a merger, acquisition, joint venture, investment, or divestiture;

    (D) require Defendants to institute a comprehensive antitrust compliance program to ensure that Defendants do not establish any similar agreements and that Defendants' members, officers, agents and employees are fully informed of the application of the antitrust laws to hospital restrictions on competition; and

    (E) award Plaintiffs their costs in this action, including attorneys' fees and investigation costs to the State of Michigan, and such other relief as may be just and proper.

    Dated: June 25, 2015 Respectfully submitted, FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: WILLIAM J. BAER Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust DAVID I. GELFAND Deputy Assistant Attorney General KATRINA ROUSE (D.C. Bar #1013035) JENNIFER HANE JOSEPH POTCHEN Division Chief BARRY JOYCE Attorneys, Litigation I, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 4100, Washington, D.C. 20530, (202) 305-7498, E-mail: [email protected] LOCAL COUNSEL: BARBARA L. McQUADE United States Attorney PETER CAPLAN Assistant United States Attorney, 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001, Detroit, Michigan 48226, (313) 226-9784, P30643 FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF MICHIGAN: BILL SCHUETTE Attorney General State of Michigan MARK GABRIELSE (P75163) D.J. PASCOE, Assistant Attorney Generals, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Corporate Oversight Division, G. Mennen Williams Building, 6th Floor, 525 W. Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan 48933, (517) 373-1160, Email: [email protected] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiffs, v. HILLSDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, W.A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, D/B/A ALLEGIANCE HEALTH, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER OF BRANCH COUNTY, and PROMEDICA HEATLH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants.

    Case No.: 2:15-cv-12311 Hon. Judith E. Levy COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT

    Plaintiff United States of America, pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

    I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING

    On June 25, 2015, the United States and the State of Michigan filed a civil antitrust Complaint alleging that Defendants Hillsdale Community Health Center (“Hillsdale”), W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital, d/b/a Allegiance Health (“Allegiance”), Community Health Center of Branch County (“Branch”), and ProMedica Health System, Inc. (“ProMedica”) violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772. The Complaint alleges that Hillsdale agreed with its closest Michigan competitors to unlawfully allocate territories for the marketing of competing healthcare services and to limit competition between them. Specifically, according to the Complaint, Hillsdale entered into agreements with Allegiance, Branch, and ProMedica to limit marketing of competing healthcare services. The agreements eliminated a significant form of competition to attract patients and overall substantially diminished competition in south-central Michigan. Defendants' agreements to allocate territories for marketing are per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772.

    With the Complaint, the United States and the State of Michigan filed a Stipulation and proposed Final Judgment with respect to Hillsdale, Branch, and ProMedica (collectively “Settling Defendants”). The proposed Final Judgment, as explained more fully below, enjoins Settling Defendants from (1) agreeing with any healthcare provider to prohibit or limit marketing or to allocate geographic markets or territories, and (2) communicating with any other Defendant about any Defendant's marketing in its or the other Defendant's county, subject to narrow exceptions.

    The United States, the State of Michigan, and the Settling Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA, unless the United States and the State of Michigan withdraw their consent. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action with respect to Settling Defendants, except that this Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, and enforce the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof. The case against Allegiance will continue.

    II. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS A. Background on the Defendants and their Marketing Activities

    Allegiance, Branch, Hillsdale, and ProMedica's Bixby and Herrick Hospitals are general acute-care hospitals in adjacent counties in south-central Michigan. Defendants are the only hospital or hospitals in their respective counties. Hillsdale directly competes with each of the other Defendants to provide many of the same hospital and physician services to patients.

    An important tool that hospitals use to compete for patients is marketing aimed at informing patients, physicians, and employers about a hospital's quality and scope of services. Defendants' marketing includes advertisements through mailings and media, such as local newspapers, radio, television, and billboards. Allegiance's marketing efforts have also included the provision of free medical services, such as health screenings, physician seminars, and health fairs. Some Defendants also market to physicians through educational and relationship-building meetings that provide physicians with information about Defendants' quality and range of services. Allegiance also engages in these marketing meetings with employers.

    B. Defendants' Unlawful Agreements to Limit Marketing

    Allegiance, Branch, and ProMedica's Bixby and Herrick Hospitals are Hillsdale's closest Michigan competitors. Hillsdale orchestrated agreements with each to limit marketing of competing healthcare services. Defendants' senior executives created and enforced these agreements, which have lasted for many years.

    1. Unlawful Agreement Between Hillsdale and Allegiance

    Since at least 2009, Hillsdale and Allegiance have had an agreement that limits Allegiance's marketing for competing services in Hillsdale County. As Allegiance explained in a 2013 oncology marketing plan: “[A]n agreement exists with the CEO of Hillsdale Community Health Center . . . to not conduct marketing activity in Hillsdale County.” In compliance with this agreement, which Allegiance executives acknowledge in numerous documents, Allegiance has excluded Hillsdale County from marketing campaigns since at least 2009. Allegiance has on occasion apologized to Hillsdale for violating the agreement and assured Hillsdale that Allegiance would honor the previously agreed upon agreement going forward. And Allegiance has avoided giving free health benefits, such as physician seminars and health screenings, to residents of Hillsdale County because of the agreement. For example, Allegiance discouraged one of its newly employed physicians from giving a seminar relating to competing services in Hillsdale County. This unlawful agreement between Hillsdale and Allegiance has deprived Hillsdale County patients, physicians, and employers of information regarding their healthcare provider choices and of free health screenings and education.

    1. Unlawful Agreement Between Hillsdale and ProMedica

    Since at least 2012, Hillsdale and ProMedica have agreed to limit their marketing for competing services in one another's county. As one ProMedica communications specialist described: “The agreement is that they stay our [sic] of our market and we stay out of theirs unless we decide to collaborate with them on a particular project.” This agreement has restrained the hospitals' marketing in each other's county. For example, in June 2012, Hillsdale's CEO refused to allow ProMedica to market competing oncology services in Hillsdale County. This unlawful agreement between Hillsdale and ProMedica deprived patients, physicians, and employers of Hillsdale and Lenawee Counties of information regarding their healthcare provider choices.

    2. Unlawful Agreement Between Hillsdale and Branch

    Since at least 1999, Hillsdale and Branch have agreed to limit their marketing for competing services in one another's county. In the fall of 1999, Hillsdale's then-CEO and Branch's CEO reached an agreement whereby each hospital agreed not to market anything but new services in the other hospital's county. Branch's CEO testified recently in deposition that “[t]here's a gentlemen's agreement not to market services other than new services.” Branch has monitored Hillsdale's compliance with the agreement and directed its marketing employees to abide by the agreement. This unlawful agreement between Hillsdale and Branch deprived Hillsdale and Branch County patients, physicians, and employers of information regarding their healthcare provider choices.

    3. Defendants' Marketing Agreements Are Per Se Illegal

    Defendants' agreements have disrupted the competitive process and harmed patients, physicians, and employers. For instance, the agreements have deprived patients, physicians, and employers of information they otherwise would have had when making important healthcare decisions. Another impact of the agreement between Allegiance and Hillsdale was to deprive Hillsdale County patients of free medical services such as health screenings and physician seminars that they would have received but for the unlawful agreement. Moreover, Allegiance's agreement with Hillsdale denied Hillsdale County employers the opportunity to receive information and to develop relationships that could have allowed them to improve the quality of their employees' medical care.

    Defendants' anticompetitive agreements are not reasonably necessary to further any procompetitive purpose. Each of the agreements among the Defendants allocates territories for marketing and constitutes a naked restraint of trade that is per se unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772. See United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., 405 U.S. 596, 607-08 (1972) (holding that naked market allocation agreements among horizontal competitors are plainly anticompetitive and illegal per se); United States v. Cooperative Theatres of Ohio, Inc., 845 F.2d 1367, 1371, 1373 (6th Cir. 1988) (holding that the defendants' agreement to not “actively solicit[] each other's customers” was “undeniably a type of customer allocation scheme which courts have often condemned in the past as a per se violation of the Sherman Act”); Blackburn v. Sweeney, 53 F.3d 825, 828 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that the “[a]greement to limit advertising to different geographical regions was intended to be, and sufficiently approximates[,] an agreement to allocate markets so that the per se rule of illegality applies”).

    III. EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The proposed Final Judgment will prevent the continuation and recurrence of the violations alleged in the Complaint and restore the competition restrained by Settling Defendants' anticompetitive agreements. Section X of the proposed Final Judgment provides that these provisions will expire five years after its entry.

    A. Prohibited Conduct

    Under Section IV of the proposed Final Judgment, Settling Defendants cannot agree with any healthcare provider to prohibit or limit marketing or to allocate geographic markets or territories. Settling Defendants are also prohibited from communicating with any other Defendant about any Defendant's marketing in its or the other Defendant's county, subject to narrow exceptions. There is an exception for communication about joint marketing if the communication is related to the joint provision of services, i.e., any past, present, or future coordinated delivery of any healthcare services by two or more healthcare providers. There is another exception for communications about marketing that are part of customary due diligence relating to a merger, acquisition, joint venture, investment, or divestiture.

    B. Compliance and Inspection

    The proposed Final Judgment sets forth various provisions to ensure Defendants' compliance with the proposed Final Judgment. Section V of the proposed Final Judgment requires each Settling Defendant to appoint an Antitrust Compliance Officer within 30 days of the Final Judgment's entry. The Antitrust Compliance Officer must furnish copies of this Competitive Impact Statement, the Final Judgment, and a notice explaining the obligations of the Final Judgment to each Settling Defendant's officers, directors, and marketing managers at the level of director and above. The Antitrust Compliance Officer must also obtain from each recipient a certification that he or she has read and agreed to abide by the terms of the Final Judgment, and must maintain a record of all certifications received. Additionally, each Antitrust Compliance Officer shall annually brief each person receiving a copy of the Final Judgment and this Competitive Impact Statement on the meaning and requirements of the Final Judgment and the antitrust laws.

    For a period of five years following the date of entry of the Final Judgment, the Settling Defendants separately must certify annually to the United States that they have complied with the provisions of the Final Judgment. Additionally, upon learning of any violation or potential violation of the terms and conditions of the Final Judgment, Settling Defendants must within thirty days file with the United States a statement describing the violation, and must promptly take action to terminate it.

    To facilitate monitoring of the Settling Defendants' compliance with the Final Judgment, Section VII of the proposed Final Judgment requires each Settling Defendant to grant the United States or the State of Michigan access, upon reasonable notice, to Settling Defendant's records and documents relating to matters contained in the Final Judgment. Settling Defendants must also make their employees available for interviews or depositions and answer interrogatories and prepare written reports relating to matters contained in the Final Judgment upon request.

    C. Settling Defendants' Cooperation

    Section VI of the proposed Final Judgment provides that Settling Defendants must cooperate fully and truthfully with the United States and the State of Michigan in any investigation or litigation alleging that Defendants unlawfully agreed to restrict marketing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1, or Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772. Such cooperation includes, but is not limited to, producing documents, making officers, directors, employees, and agents available for interviews, and testifying at trial and other judicial proceedings fully, truthfully, and under oath.

    IV. REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO POTENTIAL PRIVATE LITIGANTS

    Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against the Settling Defendants.

    V. PROCEDURES AVAILABLE FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The United States, the State of Michigan, and the Settling Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.

    The APPA provides a period of at least sixty days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within sixty days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register, or the last date of publication in a newspaper of the summary of this Competitive Impact Statement, whichever is later. All comments received during this period will be considered by the U.S. Department of Justice, which remains free to withdraw its consent to the proposed Final Judgment at any time prior to the Court's entry of judgment. The comments and the response of the United States will be filed with the Court. In addition, comments will be posted on the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's internet Web site and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register.

    Written comments should be submitted to:

    Peter J. Mucchetti Chief, Litigation I Section Antitrust Division United States Department of Justice 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 4100 Washington, DC 20530

    The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.

    VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against the Settling Defendants. The United States is satisfied, however, that the relief proposed in the Final Judgment will prevent the recurrence of the violations alleged in the Complaint and ensure that patients, physicians, and employers benefit from competition between Defendants. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment would achieve all or substantially all of the relief the United States would have obtained through litigation, but avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits.

    VII. STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE APPA FOR THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:

    (A) The competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and

    (B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.

    15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B).1 In considering these statutory factors, the court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one as the government is entitled to “broad discretion to settle with the Defendant within the reaches of the public interest.” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see generally United States v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, 75 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting the court has broad discretion of the adequacy of the relief at issue); United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (describing the public-interest standard under the Tunney Act); United States v. InBev N.V./S.A., No. 08-1965 (JR), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2009) (noting that the court's review of a consent judgment is limited and only inquires “into whether the government's determination that the proposed remedies will cure the antitrust violations alleged in the complaint was reasonable, and whether the mechanisms to enforce the final judgment are clear and manageable”).

    1 The 2004 amendments substituted “shall” for “may” in directing relevant factors for courts to consider and amended the list of factors to focus on competitive considerations and to address potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 U.S.C. 16(e) (2004), with 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1) (2006); see also SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (concluding that the 2004 amendments “effected minimal changes” to Tunney Act review).

    Under the APPA, a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458-62. With respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, a court may not “engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public.” United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460-62; United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 152 F. Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001); InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3. One court explained:

    [t]he balancing of competing social and political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General. The court's role in protecting the public interest is one of [e]nsuring that the government has not breached its duty to the public in consenting to the decree. The court is required to determine not whether a particular decree is the one that will best serve society, but whether the settlement is “within the reaches of the public interest.” More elaborate requirements might undermine the effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by consent decree. Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).2 In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, a district court “must accord deference to the government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies, and may not require that the remedies perfectly match the alleged violations.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that a court should not reject the proposed remedies because it believes others are preferable); Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting the need for courts to be “deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies”); United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court should grant due respect to the United States' prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its views of the nature of the case).

    2Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the court's “ultimate authority under the [APPA] is limited to approving or disapproving the consent decree”); United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way, the court is constrained to “look at the overall picture not hypercritically, nor with a microscope, but with an artist's reducing glass”). See generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether “the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the `reaches of the public interest' ”).

    Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is `within the reaches of public interest.' ” United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted); see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that room must be made for the government to grant concessions in the negotiation process for settlements) (citing Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461); United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the consent decree even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy). To meet this standard, the United States “need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17.

    Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.” Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (noting that the court must simply determine whether there is a factual foundation for the government's decisions such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (“the `public interest' is not to be measured by comparing the violations alleged in the complaint against those the court believes could have, or even should have, been alleged”). Because the “court's authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government's exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,” it follows that “the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,” and not to “effectively redraft the complaint” to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459-60. As a court confirmed in SBC Communications, courts “cannot look beyond the complaint in making the public interest determination unless the complaint is drafted so narrowly as to make a mockery of judicial power.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15.

    In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of using consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (noting that a court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or to permit intervenors as part of its review under the Tunney Act). The language captured Congress's intent when it enacted the Tunney Act in 1974. Senator Tunney explained: “The court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.” 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public-interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the court's “scope of review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.3 A court can make its public-interest determination based on the competitive impact statement and response to public comments alone. U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76.

    3 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the “Tunney Act expressly allows the court to make its public interest determination on the basis of the competitive impact statement and response to comments alone”); United States v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., No. 73-CV-681-W-1, 1977-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980, *22 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (“Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public interest finding, should . . . carefully consider the explanations of the government in the competitive impact statement and its responses to comments in order to determine whether those explanations are reasonable under the circumstances.”); S. Rep. No. 93-298, at 6 (1973) (“Where the public interest can be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that should be utilized.”).

    VIII. DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS

    There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.

    Dated: June 25, 2015 Respectfully submitted, FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Katrina Rouse Trial Attorney Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Litigation I Section 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 4100 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: (202) 305-7498 D.C. Bar #1013035 Email: [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 25, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system and sent it via email to the following counsel at the email addresses below.

    Counsel for Defendants Hillsdale Community Health Center and Community Health Center of Branch County:

    Larry Jensen Hall Render 201 West Big Beaver Rd. Columbia Center, Suite 1200 Troy, MI 48084 Phone: (248) 457-7850 Email: [email protected]

    Counsel for Defendant W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital, d/b/a Allegiance Health:

    James M. Burns Dickinson Wright PLLC 1875 Eye St. NW., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 659-6945 Email: [email protected]

    Counsel for Defendant ProMedica Health System, Inc.:

    Stephen Y. Wu McDermott Will & Emery LLP 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60606-5096 Phone: (312) 372-2000 Email: [email protected] Attorney Litigation I Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 4100 Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 305-7498 DC Bar #1013035 Email: [email protected] EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiffs, v. HILLSDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, W.A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, D/B/A ALLEGIANCE HEALTH, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER OF BRANCH COUNTY, and PROMEDICA HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants.

    Case No.: 2:15-cv-12311 Hon. Judith E. Levy [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT

    WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, the United States of America and the State of Michigan, filed their joint Complaint on June 25, 2015, alleging that Defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772;

    AND WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants Hillsdale Community Health Center, Community Health Center of Branch County, and ProMedica Health System, Inc. (collectively, “Settling Defendants”), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law;

    AND WHEREAS, Plaintiffs require the Settling Defendants to agree to undertake certain actions and refrain from certain conduct for the purpose of remedying the anticompetitive effects alleged in the Complaint;

    NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by Settling Defendants regarding any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties to this action, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

    I. JURISDICTION

    This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against the Settling Defendants under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772.

    II. DEFINITIONS

    As used in this Final Judgment:

    (A) “Allegiance” means Defendant W. A. Foote Memorial Hospital doing business as Allegiance Health, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan with its headquarters in Jackson, Michigan, its (i) successors and assigns, (ii) controlled subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and (iii) their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

    (B) “Agreement” means any contract, arrangement, or understanding, formal or informal, oral or written, between two or more persons.

    (C) “Branch” means Defendant Community Health Center of Branch County, a municipal health facility corporation formed under Public Act 230 of the Public Acts of 1987 (MCL 331.1101, et. seq.) with its headquarters in Coldwater, Michigan, its (i) successors and assigns, (ii) controlled subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and (iii) their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

    (D) “Communicate” means to discuss, disclose, transfer, disseminate, or exchange information or opinion, formally or informally, directly or indirectly, in any manner.

    (E) “Hillsdale” means Defendant Hillsdale Community Health Center, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan with its headquarters in Hillsdale, Michigan, its (i) successors and assigns, (ii) controlled subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and (iii) their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

    (F) “Joint Provision of Services” means any past, present, or future coordinated delivery of any healthcare services by two or more healthcare providers, including a clinical affiliation, joint venture, management agreement, accountable care organization, clinically integrated network, group purchasing organization, management services organization, or physician hospital organization.

    (G) “Marketing” means any past, present, or future activities that are involved in making persons aware of the services or products of the hospital or of physicians employed or with privileges at the hospital, including advertising, communications, public relations, provider network development, outreach to employers or physicians, and promotions, such as free health screenings and education.

    (H) “Marketing Manager” means any company officer or employee at the level of director, or above, with responsibility for or oversight of Marketing.

    (I) “Person” means any natural person, corporation, firm, company, sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, association, institute, governmental unit, or other legal entity.

    (J) “ProMedica” means Defendant ProMedica Health System, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio with its headquarters in Toledo, Ohio, its (i) successors and assigns, (ii) controlled subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, including Emma L. Bixby Medical Center, Inc. (d/b/a ProMedica Bixby Hospital), a Michigan nonprofit corporation located in Adrian, Michigan, and Herrick Hospital, Inc. (d/b/a ProMedica Herrick Hospital), a Michigan nonprofit corporation located in Tecumseh, Michigan, but excluding Paramount Health Care, and (iii) their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

    (K) “Provider” means any physician or physician group and any inpatient or outpatient medical facility including hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, urgent care facilities, and nursing facilities.

    (L) “Relevant Area” means Branch, Hillsdale, Jackson, and Lenawee Counties in the State of Michigan.

    III. APPLICABILITY

    This Final Judgment applies to the Settling Defendants, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.

    IV. PROHIBITED CONDUCT

    (A) Each Settling Defendant shall not attempt to enter into, enter into, maintain, or enforce any Agreement with any other Provider that:

    (1) Prohibits or limits Marketing; or

    (2) allocates any geographic market or territory between or among the Settling Defendant and any other Provider.

    (B) Each Settling Defendant shall not Communicate with any other Defendant about any Defendant's Marketing in its or the other Defendant's county, except each Settling Defendant may:

    (1) Communicate with any other Defendant about joint Marketing if the communication is related to the Joint Provision of Services; or

    (2) communicate with any other Defendant about Marketing if the communication is part of customary due diligence relating to a merger, acquisition, joint venture, investment, or divestiture.

    V. REQUIRED CONDUCT

    (A) Within thirty days of entry of this Final Judgment, each Settling Defendant shall appoint an Antitrust Compliance Officer and identify to Plaintiffs his or her name, business address, and telephone number.

    (B) Each Antitrust Compliance Officer shall:

    (1) Furnish a copy of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and a cover letter that is identical in content to Exhibit 1 within sixty days of entry of the Final Judgment to each Settling Defendant's officers, directors, and Marketing Managers, and to any person who succeeds to any such position, within thirty days of that succession;

    (2) annually brief each person designated in Section V(B)(1) on the meaning and requirements of this Final Judgment and the antitrust laws;

    (3) obtain from each person designated in Section V(B)(1), within sixty days of that person's receipt of the Final Judgment, a certification that he or she (i) has read and, to the best of his or her ability, understands and agrees to abide by the terms of this Final Judgment; (ii) is not aware of any violation of the Final Judgment that has not already been reported to the Settling Defendant; and (iii) understands that any person's failure to comply with this Final Judgment may result in an enforcement action for civil or criminal contempt of court against each Settling Defendant and/or any person who violates this Final Judgment;

    (4) maintain a record of certifications received pursuant to this Section; and

    (5) annually communicate to the Settling Defendant's employees that they may disclose to the Antitrust Compliance Officer, without reprisal, information concerning any potential violation of this Final Judgment or the antitrust laws.

    (C) Each Settling Defendant shall:

    (1) Upon learning of any violation or potential violation of any of the terms and conditions contained in this Final Judgment, promptly take appropriate action to terminate or modify the activity so as to comply with this Final Judgment and maintain all documents related to any violation or potential violation of this Final Judgment;

    (2) upon learning of any violation or potential violation of any of the terms and conditions contained in this Final Judgment, file with the United States and the State of Michigan a statement describing any violation or potential violation within thirty days of its becoming known. Descriptions of violations or potential violations of this Final Judgment shall include, to the extent practicable, a description of any communications constituting the violation or potential violation, including the date and place of the communication, the persons involved, and the subject matter of the communication; and

    (3) certify to the United States and the State of Michigan annually on the anniversary date of the entry of this Final Judgment that the Settling Defendant has complied with the provisions of this Final Judgment.

    VI. SETTLING DEFENDANTS' COOPERATION

    Each Settling Defendant shall cooperate fully and truthfully with the United States and the State of Michigan in any investigation or litigation alleging that Defendants unlawfully agreed to restrict Marketing in the Relevant Area in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1, or Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772. Each Settling Defendant shall use its best efforts to ensure that all officers, directors, employees, and agents also fully and promptly cooperate with the United States and the State of Michigan. The full, truthful, and continuing cooperation of each Settling Defendant will include, but not be limited to:

    (A) Producing all documents and other materials, wherever located, not protected under the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine, in the possession, custody, or control of that Settling Defendant, that are relevant to the unlawful agreements among Defendants to restrict Marketing in the Relevant Area in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1, or Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.772, alleged in the Complaint, upon the request of the United States or the State of Michigan;

    (B) making available for interview any officers, directors, employees, and agents if so requested by the United States or the State of Michigan; and

    (C) testifying at trial and other judicial proceedings fully, truthfully, and under oath, subject to the penalties of perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621), making a false statement or declaration in court proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1623), contempt (18 U.S.C. 401-402), and obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1503, et seq.), or the equivalent Michigan provisions, when called upon to do so by the United States or the State of Michigan;

    (D) provided however, that the obligations of each Settling Defendant to cooperate fully with the United States and the State of Michigan as described in this Section shall cease upon the sooner of (i) when all Defendants settle all claims in this matter and all settlements have been entered by this Court, or (ii) at the conclusion of all investigations and litigation alleging the non-Settling Defendant unlawfully agreed to restrict Marketing in the Relevant Ar