Federal Register Vol. 80, No.131,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 131 (July 9, 2015)

Page Range39377-39667
FR Document

80_FR_131
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 39432 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 39447 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 39482 - Prompt Payment Interest Rate; Contract Disputes ActPDF
80 FR 39479 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Philippine Gold: Treasures of Forgotten Kingdoms” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 39412 - United States Patent and Trademark Office and Korean Intellectual Property Office Collaborative Search Pilot ProgramPDF
80 FR 39409 - Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
80 FR 39409 - Foreign-Trade Zone 44-Mount Olive, New Jersey; Authorization of Production Activity; Givaudan Fragrances Corporation (Fragrance Compounds), Mount Olive, New JerseyPDF
80 FR 39478 - Arkansas Disaster #AR-00078PDF
80 FR 39478 - Texas Disaster Number TX-00447PDF
80 FR 39477 - Texas Disaster Number TX-00448PDF
80 FR 39479 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 39477 - Arkansas Disaster #AR-00077PDF
80 FR 39479 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Royal Hawaiian Featherwork: Nā Hulu Ali`i” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 39443 - Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC)PDF
80 FR 39474 - Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., et al.; Notice of Application and Temporary OrderPDF
80 FR 39428 - Proposed Settlement Agreement for Iron Springs Mining District Site, Uncompahgre National Forest, San Miguel County, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 39382 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saugus River, Saugus, MassachusettsPDF
80 FR 39403 - Regulated Navigation Area; Ice Covered Waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard DistrictPDF
80 FR 39400 - Safety Zone; Incredoubleman Triathlon, Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NYPDF
80 FR 39386 - Safety Zone; The Cleveland Yachting Club Annual Regatta Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Rocky River, OHPDF
80 FR 39384 - Safety Zone; Lake Metroparks Stand-Up Paddleboard Race; Lake Erie, Fairport Harbor, OHPDF
80 FR 39383 - Safety Zones; Captain of the Port Boston Fireworks Display Zone, Boston Harbor, Boston, MAPDF
80 FR 39407 - Grand Mesa Uncompahgre Gunnison Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 39408 - MeetingsPDF
80 FR 39481 - Illinois Company Rail Road, LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority and Grenada Railway, LLCPDF
80 FR 39480 - Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC and Permian Basin Railways-Continuance in Control Exemption-Illinois Company Rail Road, LLCPDF
80 FR 39421 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; EDFacts Data Collection School Years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19PDF
80 FR 39450 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3PDF
80 FR 39454 - Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4PDF
80 FR 39480 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Treasures From the House of Alba: 500 Years of Art and Collecting” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 39433 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 39436 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 39436 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 39481 - Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request (No. 54)PDF
80 FR 39410 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 39448 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Oil Pollution ActPDF
80 FR 39423 - Bioproducts To Enable Biofuels WorkshopPDF
80 FR 39420 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 39422 - National Power Transformer ReservePDF
80 FR 39424 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
80 FR 39411 - Marine Mammals; File Nos. 17278 and 17557PDF
80 FR 39410 - Marine Mammals; File No. 19293PDF
80 FR 39411 - Marine Mammals; File No. 14450PDF
80 FR 39430 - Notice of Suspension and Commencement of Proposed Debarment Proceedings; Federal Lifeline Universal Service Support MechanismPDF
80 FR 39429 - Notice of Suspension and Commencement of Proposed Debarment Proceedings; Federal Lifeline Universal Service Support MechanismPDF
80 FR 39483 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to Executive Order 13219, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 39440 - Heparin-Containing Medical Devices and Combination Products: Recommendations for Labeling and Safety Testing; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 39441 - Acute Ischemic Stroke Medical Devices Trials Workshop; Public Workshop; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 39438 - Meetings With the Office of Orphan Products Development; Guidance for Industry, Researchers, Patient Groups, and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 39437 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 39432 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review BoardPDF
80 FR 39408 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 39407 - Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 39447 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/WashingtonPDF
80 FR 39392 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 39444 - Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Endangered Smith's Blue Butterfly for Repair of Five Bridges, Point Sur State Historic Park, Monterey County, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 39446 - James River National Wildlife Refuge, Prince George County, VA; Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Finding of No Significant Impact for Environmental AssessmentPDF
80 FR 39394 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 39383 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations, Milford Haven; Grimstead and Gwynn's Island, VAPDF
80 FR 39397 - Tax on Certain Foreign Procurement; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 39390 - Regulatory Publication and Review Under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996PDF
80 FR 39458 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 39377 - Biorefinery, Renewable Chemicals, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 39389 - Proposed FOIA Fee Schedule UpdatePDF
80 FR 39437 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Annual Reporting Requirements for the Older American Act Title VI Grant ProgramPDF
80 FR 39454 - NuScale Power, LLC, Design-Specific Review Standard and Safety Review Matrix; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 39448 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety StandardsPDF
80 FR 39428 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Procurements Under EPA Financial Assistance Agreements (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 39450 - Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 39442 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 39458 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Discontinue Certain FeesPDF
80 FR 39473 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule To Discontinue Certain FeesPDF
80 FR 39463 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Expand FINRA's Alternative Trading System (“ATS”) Transparency Initiative To Publish OTC Equity Volume Executed Outside ATSsPDF
80 FR 39460 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written ComplaintsPDF
80 FR 39462 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; and EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to Liquidity Requirements for Securities Admitted to Unlisted Trading PrivilegesPDF
80 FR 39468 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Price List To Revise: (i) The Non-Tier Adding Credit; (ii) Certain Fees for Executions at the Close; (iii) Credits Applicable to Designated Market Makers; (iv) Credits Applicable to Supplemental Liquidity Providers; and (v) Pricing Related to the Retail Liquidity Program Under Rule 107C as it Relates to Designated Market Maker Transactions, and To Make Non-Substantive Changes to the Price ListPDF
80 FR 39439 - Patricia Durr: Debarment OrderPDF
80 FR 39608 - Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan ProgramPDF
80 FR 39418 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 39381 - Privacy Act; ImplementationPDF
80 FR 39542 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries ResearchPDF
80 FR 39382 - Special Local Regulations; Marine Events; Annual Bayview Mackinac RacePDF
80 FR 39644 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Integrated Light-Emitting Diode LampsPDF
80 FR 39377 - Rules of General Application; Investigations Relating to Global and Bilateral Safeguard Actions, Market Disruption, Trade Diversion, and Review of Relief Actions; Investigations With Respect to Commercial Availability of Textile Fabric and Yarn in Sub-Saharan African Countries; Trade Remedy AssistancePDF
80 FR 39486 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray ValvesPDF
80 FR 39427 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of AlaskaPDF
80 FR 39400 - Community Supervision: Administrative Sanctions and GPS Monitoring as a Supervision Tool; CorrectionPDF

Issue

80 131 Thursday, July 9, 2015 Contents Aging Aging Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Reporting Requirements for the Older American Act Title VI Grant Program, 39437 2015-16755 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39481-39482 2015-16791 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board NOTICES Meetings: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 39408 2015-16801 Fiscal Bureau of the Fiscal Service NOTICES Prompt Payment Interest Rate; Contract Disputes Act, 39482-39483 2015-16906 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39437-39438 2015-16772 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Milford Haven, Grimstead and Gwynn's Island, VA, 39383 2015-16762 Saugus River, Saugus, MA, 39382-39383 2015-16809 Safety Zones: Captain of the Port Boston Fireworks Display Zone, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA, 39383-39384 2015-16803 Cleveland Yachting Club Annual Regatta Fireworks Display, Lake Erie, Rocky River, OH, 39386-39388 2015-16805 Lake Metroparks Stand-Up Paddleboard Race, Lake Erie, Fairport Harbor, OH, 39384-39386 2015-16804 Special Local Regulations: Annual Bayview Mackinac Race, 39382 2015-16522 PROPOSED RULES Regulated Navigation Areas: Ice Covered Waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard District, 39403-39406 2015-16808 Safety Zones: Incredoubleman Triathlon, Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY, 39400-39402 2015-16806 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Publication and Review under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, 39390-39392 2015-16760 Court Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia PROPOSED RULES Community Supervision: Administrative Sanctions and GPS Monitoring as a Supervision Tool; Correction, 39400 2015-16007 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

RULES Privacy Act; Implementation, 39381-39382 2015-16575 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 39418-39420 2015-16576
Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board PROPOSED RULES Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule Update, 39389 2015-16756 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Petitions: Trade Adjustment Assistance Eligibility, 39408-39409 2015-16770 Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, 39608-39641 2015-16623 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: EDFacts Data Collection School Years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, 39421-39422 2015-16798 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Energy Information Administration

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, 39486-39539 2015-16336 Test Procedures for Integrated Light-Emitting Diode Lamps, 39644-39667 2015-16477 NOTICES Requests for Information: National Power Transformer Reserve, 39422-39423 2015-16784
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Meetings: Bioproducts to Enable Biofuels; Workshops, 39423-39424 2015-16786 Energy Information Energy Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39424-39427 2015-16783 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Procurements under EPA Financial Assistance Agreements, 39428-39429 2015-16751 Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: State of Alaska, Authorized Program Revision Approval, 39427-39428 2015-16252 Proposed Settlement Agreements: Iron Springs Mining District Site, Uncompahgre National Forest, San Miguel County, CO, 39428 2015-16810 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 39392-39397 2015-16763 2015-16766 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Debarments: Federal Lifeline Universal Service Support Mechanism; Suspension and Commencement, 39429-39432 2015-16777 2015-16778 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Publication and Review under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, 39390-39392 2015-16760 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39432 2015-16917 Federal Labor Federal Labor Relations Authority NOTICES Board Membership: Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board, 39432-39433 2015-16771 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Publication and Review under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, 39390-39392 2015-16760 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39433-39436 2015-16794 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 39436-39437 2015-16793 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 39436 2015-16792 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Conservation Plans: Smith's Blue Butterfly; Low-Effect Habitat; Repair of Five Bridges, Point Sur State Historic Park, Monterey County, CA, 39444-39446 2015-16765 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: James River National Wildlife Refuge, Prince George County, VA; Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 39446-39447 2015-16764 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Debarment Orders: Patricia Durr, 39439-39440 2015-16665 Guidance: Heparin-Containing Medical Devices and Combination Products: Recommendations for Labeling and Safety Testing, 39440-39441 2015-16775 Meetings with the Office of Orphan Products Development, 39438-39439 2015-16773 Meetings: Acute Ischemic Stroke Medical Devices Trials Workshop, 39441-39442 2015-16774 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 39483 2015-16776 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Givaudan Fragrances Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 44, Mount Olive, NJ, 39409 2015-16822 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Grand Mesa Uncompahgre Gunnison Resource Advisory Committee, 39407-39408 2015-16802 Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee, 39407 2015-16769 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Aging Administration

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39442-39443 2015-16735 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Tax on Certain Foreign Procurement; Correction, 39397-39400 2015-16761 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of China; Corrections, 39409 2015-16823 International Trade Com International Trade Commission RULES Investigations Relating to Global and Bilateral Safeguard Actions, Market Disruption, Trade Diversion, and Review of Relief Actions; Investigations with Respect to Commercial Availability of Textile Fabric and Yarn in Sub-Saharan African Countries; Trade Remedy Assistance, 39377-39381 2015-16435 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39447-39448 2015-16908 2015-16909 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under the Oil Pollution Act, 39448 2015-16787 Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Plats of Surveys: Oregon/Washington, 39447 2015-16767 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants; Correction, 39450 2015-16739 Petitions for Modifications: Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards, 39448-39450 2015-16752 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Takes and Importation of Marine Mammals: Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research, 39542-39605 2015-16574 NOTICES Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 39410-39411 2015-16788 2015-16789 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 14450, 39411 2015-16779 Marine Mammals; File No. 19293, 39410 2015-16780 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 17278 and 17557, 39411-39412 2015-16781 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39420-39421 2015-16785 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Guidance: NuScale Power, LLC, Design-Specific Review Standard and Safety Review Matrix; Correction, 39454 2015-16753 License Amendment Applications: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 39450-39454 2015-16797 Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4, 39454-39458 2015-16796 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES United States Patent and Trademark Office and Korean Intellectual Property Office Collaborative Search Pilot Program, 39412-39418 2015-16850 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 39458 2015-16759 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service RULES Biorefinery, Renewable Chemicals, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program; Correction, 39377 2015-16758 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service RULES Biorefinery, Renewable Chemicals, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program; Correction, 39377 2015-16758 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications and Temporary Orders: Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., et al., 39474-39477 2015-16812 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc.; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; et al., 39462-39463 2015-16727 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 39463-39468 2015-16729 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 39460-39462 2015-16728 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 39468-39472 2015-16726 NYSE Arca, Inc., 39473-39474 2015-16730 NYSE MKT LLC, 39458-39460 2015-16731 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39479 2015-16817 Disaster Declarations: Arkansas, 39477-39478 2015-16816 2015-16820 Texas; Amendment 3, 39477 2015-16818 Texas; Amendment 5, 39478 2015-16819 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Philippine Gold -- Treasures of Forgotten Kingdoms, 39479-39480 2015-16852 Royal Hawaiian Featherwork -- Na Hulu Ali'i, 39479 2015-16815 Treasures from the House of Alba--500 Years of Art and Collecting, 39480 2015-16795 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Continuance in Control Exemptions: Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC and Permian Basin Railways; Illinois Co. Rail Road, LLC, 39480 2015-16799 Lease and Operation Exemptions: Illinois Co. Rail Road, LLC; North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority and Grenada Railway, LLC, 39481 2015-16800 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations, 39443-39444 2015-16814 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 39486-39539 2015-16336 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 39542-39605 2015-16574 Part IV Education Department, 39608-39641 2015-16623 Part V Energy Department, 39644-39667 2015-16477 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.

80 131 Thursday, July 9, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Rural Utilities Service 7 CFR Parts 4279 and 4287 RIN 0570-AA73 Biorefinery, Renewable Chemicals, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program; Correction AGENCY:

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION:

Interim final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document corrects an error in the interim final rule that appeared in the Federal Register of June 24, 2015, entitled “Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program.” On page 36415, second column, the incorrect effective date was used and does not match with the date under the DATES section of the interim final rule.

DATES:

This document is effective July 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Hubbell, Energy Branch, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 3225, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225; telephone (202) 720-0410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In FR Doc. 2015-14989 of June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36410), make the following corrections:

1. On page 36415, in the second column, at the first line, remove “July 24” and add “August 24” in its place. Dated: July 2, 2015. Samuel Rikkers, Acting Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperate Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16758 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 19 CFR Parts 201, 206, 208, and 213, and 214 Through 299 Rules of General Application; Investigations Relating to Global and Bilateral Safeguard Actions, Market Disruption, Trade Diversion, and Review of Relief Actions; Investigations With Respect to Commercial Availability of Textile Fabric and Yarn in Sub-Saharan African Countries; Trade Remedy Assistance AGENCY:

International Trade Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) amends provisions of its Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act, certain investigations, and trade remedy assistance. The amendments are part of the agency's retrospective analysis of its Rules that attempts to determine whether rules should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving regulatory objectives.

DATES:

This rule is effective on August 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, telephone (202) 205-2000, United States International Trade Commission. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) authorizes the Commission to adopt such reasonable procedures, rules, and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. This rulemaking seeks to improve provisions of the Commission's existing Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Consistent with its ordinary practice, the Commission is issuing these amendments in accordance with provisions of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (5 U.S.C. 553), although such provisions are not mandatory with respect to this rulemaking. The APA procedure entails the following steps: (1) Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking; (2) solicitation of public comments on the proposed amendments; (3) Commission review of public comments on the proposed amendments; and (4) publication of final amendments at least thirty days prior to their effective date.

This rulemaking is a result of the Commission's Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, which was published on February 14, 2012, at 77 FR 8114. The plan was issued in response to Executive Order 13579 of July 11, 2011 (76 FR 41587, July 14, 2011), and established a process under which the Commission will periodically review its significant rules to determine whether any such rules should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving regulatory objectives. The Commission's Plan calls for the agency to seek public input on its Rules every two years.

Pursuant to the Plan, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking on February 6, 2015 (80 FR 6665). This notice proposed certain amendments to the Commission's Rules. The proposed amendments concerned the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act, certain investigations, and trade remedy assistance. The notice also sought input to assist the Commission in determining whether, in addition to the proposed amendments, any of the agency's Rules should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving regulatory objectives. The public was invited to comment both on the proposed amendments and on any of the Commission's existing Rules.

The Commission received comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. By letter dated April 6, 2015, the Customs and International Trade Bar Association (CITBA) filed comments and a request to revise the Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures dated August 8, 2014.

In its comments, CITBA stated that the Commission's approach of requiring the filing of both paper copies and electronic copies is burdensome on submitters and causes confusion and complications for both the agency and private parties. Citing the practices of the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Court of International Trade, CITBA urged the Commission to modify its procedures and revise the Handbook to eliminate the requirement that paper copies be submitted when filing electronically. In the alternative, CITBA urged the application of a “lag rule” to allow parties to file paper copies the next business day after electronic filing.

The Commission discussed similar concerns in its final rulemaking notice of June 25, 2014 (79 FR 35920). That notice acknowledged that there is a trend toward greater electronic filing in agency and court proceedings. The notice concluded that, for the time being, the Commission and its staff would need to continue to rely on receiving paper copies of documents in light of the tight deadlines and voluminous factual records entailed by its investigations and other proceedings, as well as the constraints of current technology and the Commission's ability to adopt new technology given budgetary restrictions. The situation has not changed materially since that time, and therefore the Commission is not yet in a position to change its practice with respect to paper and electronic filing. The Commission will continue to monitor requirements pertaining to filing of documents as technology develops.

A comment was received from the National Archives and Records Administration's Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). OGIS commended the Commission for proposing updates to make its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations more consistent with the OPEN Government Act of 2007. OGIS recommended that the Commission expand its rulemaking to cover additional changes to the law made by that statute, including recognizing the right of FOIA requesters to seek mediation services from OGIS as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation.

OGIS suggested defining certain terms for clarity; referencing the processes for tracking and referring requests; explaining the intersection between FOIA and the Privacy Act; providing that oral requests are not permitted; adding details on what information is provided when requests are denied and how fees are charged; describing how FOIA records are preserved; and providing web links to the agency's hearing reporter and to the agency's publications. OGIS recommended that a requester not be required to specify that his or her request is made under FOIA.

The Commission is adopting most of OGIS' suggestions in the final amendments set out below. In most changes, statutory language is summarized rather than reproduced in its entirety. The Commission is not adopting the suggestion that the rules no longer require a requester to indicate that the request is made under FOIA. Agency personnel receive a substantial number of informal requests that are handled without the need to go through the FOIA process. The Commission believes that it would be neither necessary nor practical to consider all such requests as being made under FOIA.

OGIS suggested providing a web link to the agency's hearing reporter. Because the Commission obtains court reporting by contract, the identity of the reporter may change over time, and is therefore not information that the Commission considers to be appropriate for inclusion in its Rules.

OGIS suggested that the Commission provide requesters with an estimated amount of fees, including a breakdown of the fees for search, review and/or duplication. The Commission rarely finds it necessary to charge FOIA fees. When a fee is charged, the Secretary attempts to provide as much information on the fees as practicable, but a detailed estimate and breakdown may not always be possible.

The Commission received an additional comment that did not pertain to the subject matter of the notice of proposed rulemaking.

The amendments set out in this final rulemaking notice correspond to the ones that were proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking published on February 6, 2015, with additional changes to respond to comments received. The notice of proposed rulemaking described most of the proposed amendments in a section-by-section analysis, and those amendments have not changed. With respect to the remainder of the amendments, which were prepared in response to OGIS' comments, the following sets out a section-by-section analysis.

Section 201.17 is revised to specify in paragraph (a)(5) the online location of the Commission's publications. The section is further amended to add paragraph (d) that provides information on how requests are tracked and how a requester can contact the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison. Paragraph (e) is added to clarify the relationship between FOIA and the Privacy Act. A new paragraph (f) describes the agency's procedure for referring FOIA requests to another agency. A new paragraph (g) covers records management matters, including the preservation of records relating to FOIA requests until disposition or destruction is authorized or until litigation is concluded. In section 201.18, paragraph (a) is amended to clarify that a FOIA request cannot be oral, and to describe what information is provided in a denial of a request. A new paragraph (f) provides for responses to FOIA appeals to make reference to the services offered by OGIS.

In section 201.20, paragraphs (j)(9) and (j)(10) are added to clarify the FOIA fee process by defining the terms “requester category” and “fee waiver.”

In addition to publishing rules amendments in final form, the Commission expects to continue taking other steps to implement its Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules to ensure that its Rules are kept up to date. Notably, the Commission's General Counsel has asked the Commission's Secretary, office directors, and administrative law judges for input on rules suitable for modification or elimination. The General Counsel's office will make recommendations to the Commission as necessary regarding the possible modification or elimination of existing regulations. Once an appropriate rule change has been identified, the Commission will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and solicit public comment on the proposed change.

Regulatory Analysis of Amendments to the Commission's Rules

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is inapplicable to this rulemaking because it is not one for which a notice of final rulemaking is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any other statute. Although the Commission chose to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, these regulations are “agency rules of procedure and practice,” and thus are exempt from the notice requirement imposed by 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Moreover, the rules are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The rules do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

No actions are necessary under title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) because these amended rules 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 will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

The Commission has determined that these amended rules do not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

The rules do not have Federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999).

The amendments are not “major rules” as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Moreover, they are exempt from the reporting requirements of the Act because they concern rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Parts 201, 206, 208, and 213

Administrative practice and procedure; imports; foreign trade.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1335, the United States International Trade Commission amends 19 CFR parts 201, 206, 208, and 213 as follows:

PART 201—RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION 1. Revise the authority citation for part 201 to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 1335; 19 U.S.C. 2482, unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 201.17, revise paragraph (a)(5) and add paragraphs (d) through (g) to read as follows:
§ 201.17 Procedures for requesting access to records.

(a) * * *

(5) Copies of public Commission reports and other publications are available online at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/by_type.htm, or can be requested by calling or writing the Office of the Secretary. Certain Commission publications are sold by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, and are available from that agency at the price set by that agency.

(d) Acknowledgment. The Secretary will provide to a requester an acknowledgment of the receipt of a request and an individualized tracking number for each request. The requester may obtain information about the status of the request and/or contact the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison by telephone (202-205-2595) or email ([email protected]). The FOIA Public Liaison is responsible for assisting in reducing delays, increasing transparency and understanding of the status of requests, and assisting in the resolution of disputes.

(e) First-party requests. The FOIA applies to third-party requests for documents concerning the general activities of the government and of the Commission in particular. When a U.S. citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence requests access to his or her own records, i.e., makes a first-party request, it is considered a Privacy Act request. Although requests are considered either FOIA requests or Privacy Act requests, the Commission processes first-party requests in accordance with both laws, which provides the greatest degree of lawful access while safeguarding an individual's personal privacy.

(f) Referrals. If the Secretary refers a request or a portion thereof to another agency, the Secretary will notify the requester of the referral and the part of the request that has been referred. If feasible, the Secretary will provide the requester with a point of contact within the receiving agency regarding the referral.

(g) Records management. (1) The Secretary shall preserve all correspondence pertaining to requests received as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized by a General Records Schedule of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or other NARA-approved records schedule.

(2) Materials that are identified as responsive to a FOIA request will not be disposed of or destroyed while the request or a related appeal or lawsuit is pending. This is true even if they would otherwise be authorized for disposition under a General Records Schedule or other NARA-approved records schedule.

3. In § 201.18, revise paragraph (a) and add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 201.18 Denials of requests, appeals from denial.

(a) Written requests for inspection or copying of records shall be denied only by the Secretary or Acting Secretary, or, for records maintained by the Office of Inspector General, the Inspector General. A denial shall be in writing and shall provide information on the exemptions that justify withholding and the amount of information withheld. The denial also shall advise the person requesting of the right to appeal to the Commission.

(f) A response to an appeal will advise the requester that the Office of Government Information Services offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation.

4. In § 201.19, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 201.19 Notification regarding requests for confidential business information.

(f) Opportunity to object to disclosure. Through the notice described in paragraph (c) of this section, the Commission will afford a submitter an opportunity, within the period afforded to the Commission to make its decision in response to the FOIA request, to provide the Commission with a detailed written statement of any objection to disclosure. Such statement shall be filed by a deadline set by the Secretary, and it shall specify all grounds for withholding any of the information under any exemption of FOIA. In the case of FOIA Exemptions 3 or 4, it shall demonstrate why the information should continue to be considered confidential business information within the meaning of § 201.6 of this part and should not be disclosed. The submitter's claim of continued confidentiality should be supported by a certification by an officer or authorized representative of the submitter. Information provided by a submitter pursuant to this paragraph may itself be subject to disclosure under FOIA.

5. In § 201.20, revise paragraph (j)(8) and add paragraphs (j)(9) and (10) to read as follows:
§ 201.20 Fees.

(j) * * *

(8) The term representative of the news media refers to any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term `news' means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news-media entities are television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large and publishers of periodicals (but only if such entities qualify as disseminators of `news') who make their products available for purchase by or subscription by or free distribution to the general public. These examples are not all-inclusive. Moreover, as methods of news delivery evolve (for example, the adoption of the electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media shall be considered to be news-media entities. A freelance journalist shall be regarded as working for a news-media entity if the journalist can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that entity, whether or not the journalist is actually employed by the entity. A publication contract would present a solid basis for such an expectation; the Government may also consider the past publication record of the requester in making such a determination.

(9) The term requester category means one of the three categories that requesters are placed in for the purpose of determining whether a requester will be charged fees for search, review and duplication, including commercial requesters; non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters, and all other requesters.

(10) The term fee waiver means the waiver or reduction of processing fees if a requester can demonstrate that certain statutory standards are satisfied including that the information is in the public interest and is not requested for a commercial interest.

6. In § 201.23, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 201.23 Definitions.

(e) The term Privacy Act Officer refers to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, or his or her designee.

7. In § 201.34, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
§ 201.34 Definitions.

(a) * * *

(3) Conference telephone calls among the Commissioners are considered meetings as defined by paragraph (a)(1) of this section if they involve the number of Commissioners requisite for Commission action, and where the deliberations of the Commissioners determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official Commission business.

PART 206—INVESTIGATIONS RELATING TO GLOBAL AND BILATERAL SAFEGUARD ACTIONS, MARKET DISRUPTION, TRADE DIVERSION, AND REVIEW OF RELIEF ACTIONS 8. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 1335, 2112 note, 2251-2254, 2436, 2451-2451a, 3351-3382, 3805 note, 4051-4065, and 4101.

9. Revise § 206.2 to read as follows:
§ 206.2 Identification of type of petition or request.

An investigation under this part may be commenced on the basis of a petition, request, resolution, or motion as provided for in the statutory provisions listed in §§ 206.1 and 206.31. Each petition or request, as the case maybe, filed by an entity representative of a domestic industry under this part shall state clearly on the first page thereof “This is a [petition or request] under section [citing the statutory provision] and Subpart [B, C, D, E, F, or G] of part 206 of the rules of practice and procedure of the United States International Trade Commission.” A paper original and eight (8) true paper copies of a petition, request, resolution, or motion shall be filed. One copy of any exhibits, appendices, and attachments to the document shall be filed in electronic form on CD-ROM, DVD, or other portable electronic format approved by the Secretary.

PART 208—[REMOVED AND RESERVED] 10. Under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1335, remove and reserve part 208. Subchapter D—Special Provisions 11. Under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1335, add subchapter D with the heading set forth above, and transfer part 213, consisting of §§ 213.1 through 213.6, and reserved parts 214 through 299 into it. PART 213—TRADE REMEDY ASSISTANCE 12. Revise the authority citation for part 213 to read as follows: Authority:

19 U.S.C. 1335, 1339.

13. In § 213.2, revise paragraphs (d) through (g) to read as follows:
§ 213.2 Definitions.

(d) Technical Assistance. Technical assistance is informal advice and assistance, including informal legal advice, provided under 19 U.S.C. 1339(b) and intended to enable eligible small businesses to determine the appropriateness of pursuing particular trade remedies, to prepare petitions and complaints and to seek to obtain the remedies and benefits available under the trade laws identified in § 213.2(b). Technical assistance is available to eligible small businesses at any time until the completion of administrative review or of an appeal to the administering agency regarding proceedings under the trade laws listed in § 213.2(b). Technical assistance does not include legal representation of an eligible small business or advocacy on its behalf and receipt of technical assistance does not ensure that the recipient will prevail in any trade remedy proceeding. The Office provides such technical assistance independently of other Commission staff but may consult with other staff as appropriate.

(e) Applicant. An applicant is an individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture, trade or other association, cooperative, group of workers, or certified or recognized union, or other entity that applies for technical assistance under this part.

(f) Eligible small business. An eligible small business is an applicant that the Office has determined to be entitled to technical assistance under 19 U.S.C. 1339(b) in accordance with the SBA size standards and the procedures set forth in this part.

(g) SBA size standards. The Office has adopted for its use SBA size standards, which are the small business size standards of the Small Business Administration set forth in 13 CFR part 121.

14. In § 213.3, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 213.3 Determination of small business eligibility.

(a) Application for technical assistance from small businesses. An applicant for technical assistance under 19 U.S.C. 1339(b) must certify that it qualifies as a small business under the appropriate size standard(s) and that it is an independently owned and operated company. An application for technical assistance is available from the Office and on the Commission's Web site. The application must be signed under oath by an officer or principal of the applicant. The completed application should be submitted to the Office at the address set forth in § 213.2(a).

15. Revise § 213.6 to read as follows:
§ 213.6 Information concerning assistance.

Any person may contact the Office with questions regarding eligibility for technical assistance. Summaries of the trade laws and the SBA size standards can be obtained by writing to the Trade Remedy Assistance Office, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Information is also provided on the Commission's Web site at http://www.usitc.gov.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: June 29, 2015. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-16435 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 323 [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0063] Privacy Act; Implementation AGENCY:

Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

ACTION:

Direct final rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is exempting records maintained in the system of records notice S240.28 DoD, Case Adjudication Tracking System (CATS) from pertinent provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. In this rulemaking, the DLA is exempting portions of this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil and administrative enforcement requirements.

DATES:

The rule will be effective on September 17, 2015 unless adverse comments are received by September 8, 2015. If adverse comment is received, the Department of Defense will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

* Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. LaDonne L. White (703) 767-5045.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This direct final rule makes non-substantive changes to the DLA Program rules. This will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD's program by ensuring the integrity of the security and counterintelligence records by the DLA and the Department of Defense.

This rule is being published as a direct final rule as the Department of Defense does not expect to receive any adverse comments, and so a proposed rule is unnecessary.

Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments

DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves nonsubstantive changes dealing with DoD's management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. This rule does not (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive orders.

Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)

It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule does not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.

Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule does not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Section 202, Public Law 104-4, “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act”

It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that this rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”

It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule does not have federalism implications. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 323

Privacy.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 323 is amended as follows:

PART 323—DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 323 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Pub. L. 93-579, Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).

2. In § 323.6, add paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 323.6 Exemption rules.

(j) System identifier: S240.28 DoD (Specific exemption).

(1) System name: Case Adjudication Tracking System (CATS)

(2) Exemption: (i) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.

(ii) Therefore, portions of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) from the following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d)(1)(2)(3)(4), and (e)(1).

(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).

(4) Reasons: (i) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (d)(1)(2)(3)(4), when access to accounting disclosures and access to or amendment of records would cause the identity of a confidential source to be revealed. Disclosure of the confidential source's identity not only will result in the Department breaching the express promise of confidentiality made to the source but it would impair the Department's future ability to compile investigatory material for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, Federal contracts, or access to classified information. Unless sources may be assured that a promise of confidentiality will be honored, they will be less likely to provide information considered essential to the Department in making the required determinations.

(ii) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1), as in the collection of information for investigatory purposes, it is not always possible to determine the relevance and necessity of particular information in the early stages of the investigation. In some cases, it is only after the information is evaluated in light of other information that its relevance and necessity becomes clear. Such information permits more informed decision-making by the Department when making required suitability, eligibility, and qualification determinations.

Dated: June 22, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2015-16575 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2012-0403] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events; Annual Bayview Mackinac Race AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the annual Bayview Mackinac Race, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on July 20, 2013. This special local regulated is necessary to safely control vessel movements in the vicinity of the race and provide for the safety of the general boating public and commercial shipping. During this period, no person or vessel may enter the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 100.902 will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. on July 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LTJG Matthew Stroebel, Waterway Management Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH at (216) 902-6060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the annual Bayview Mackinac Race from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. on July 18, 2015. This Notice of Enforcement applies to all U.S. navigable waters of the Black River, St. Clair River, and lower Lake Huron, bound by a line starting at latitude 042°58′47″ N., longitude 082°26′0″ W.; then easterly to latitude 042°58′24″ N., longitude 082°24′47″ W.; then northward along the International Boundary to latitude 043°02′48″ N., longitude 082°23′47″ W.; then westerly to the shoreline at approximate location latitude 043°02′48″ N., longitude 082°26′48″ W.; then southward along the U.S. shoreline to latitude 042°58′54″ N., longitude 082°26′01″ W.; then back to the beginning [DATUM: NAD 83].

In order to ensure the safety of spectators and participating vessels, the Coast Guard will patrol the race area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). Vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the PATCOM and when so directed by that officer. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.” Vessels, permitted to transit the regulated area, will operate at no wake speed and in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft. The rules contained above shall not apply to participants in the event or vessels of the patrol operating in the performance of their assigned duties.

In the event this special local regulation affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the PATCOM to transit the area of the event by hailing call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander” on VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ).

This document is issued under the authority of 33 CFR 100.902 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the District Commander, Captain of the Port or PATCOM determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 11, 2015. Scott E. Anderson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting District Prevention, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-16522 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0578] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saugus River, Saugus, Massachusetts AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Saugus RR Bridge, across the Saugus River, mile 2.1, at Saugus, Massachusetts. This deviation is necessary to facilitate essential maintenance repairs. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position during the maintenance repairs.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on September 12 to 11:59 p.m. on September 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0578] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Saugus RR Bridge, mile 2.1, across Saugus River has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 7 feet at mean high water and 17 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.5.

Saugus River is transited by commercial lobstermen and recreational vessel traffic.

Keolis Commuter Railroad requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate essential maintenance repairs.

Under this temporary deviation, the Saugus RR Bridge may remain in the closed position from 12:01 a.m. on September 12, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on September 13, 2015.

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

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

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

Dated: June 25, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-16809 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0601] Drawbridge Operation Regulations, Milford Haven; Grimstead and Gwynn's Island, VA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Gwynn's Island (SR#223) Draw Bridge across the Milford Haven, mile 0.5, between Grimstead and Gwynn's Island VA. This deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on July 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0601], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6222, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the Gwynn's Island (SR#223) Draw Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.5, to facilitate bridge maintenance.

Under the regular operating schedule, the Gwynn's Island (SR#223) Draw Bridge, mile 0.5, between Grimstead and Gwynn's Island, VA, opens on signal. The bridge is a swing draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 12 feet above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be closed to navigation from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on July 8, 2015.

The Milford Haven is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Dated: July 2, 2015. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-16762 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0554] Safety Zones; Captain of the Port Boston Fireworks Display Zone, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in the Captain of the Port Boston Zone on the specified date and time listed below. This action is necessary to ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with this annual recurring event. Under the provisions of our regulations, no person or vessel, except for the safety vessels assisting with the event may enter the safety zone unless given permission from the COTP or the designated on-scene representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

DATES:

The regulation for the safety zone described in 33 CFR 165.119(a)(3) will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday, July 12, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this document, call or email Mr. Mark Cutter, Coast Guard Sector Boston Waterways Management Division, telephone 617-223-4000, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.119(a)(3); Fan Pier Safety Zone. All U.S. navigable waters of Boston inner Harbor within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 42°21′23.2″ N. 071°02′26″ W. (NAD 1983), located off of the Fan Pier, South Boston, MA.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.119 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 22, 2015. C.C. Gelzer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. 2015-16803 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0612] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lake Metroparks Stand-Up Paddleboard Race; Lake Erie, Fairport Harbor, OH AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Fairport Harbor, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Lake Metroparks Stand-Up Paddleboard Race. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and race participants from the navigational hazards associated with a paddleboard race.

DATES:

This rule will be effective from 7:45 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. on July 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0612]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Stephanie Pitts, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0128, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect race participants and spectators from the hazards associated with a paddleboard race.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

Between 7:45 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. on July 11, 2015, a paddleboard race will be held along the shoreline of Lake Erie, Fairport Harbor, OH, directly north of Fairport Harbor Lakefront Park. It is anticipated that numerous spectator vessels will be in the immediate vicinity of the race. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that such an event proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include hazardous navigation situations with less maneuverable watercraft and people falling into the water.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and safety vessels during the Lake Metroparks Stand-Up Paddleboard Race. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Fairport Harbor, OH directly north of Fairport Harbor Lakefront Park from 41° 45.5′ N. and 081° 16.5′ W. to 41° 45.8′ N. and 081° 16.5′ W. to 41° 45.9′ N. and 081° 15.6′ W. to 41° 45.6′ N. and 081° 15.6′ W. (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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 conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie on the morning of July 11, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only four hours and 15 minutes early in the morning. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the “For Further Information Contact” section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it 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.T09-0612 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0612 Safety Zone; Lake Metroparks Stand-Up Paddleboard Race, Fairport Harbor, OH.

(a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Fairport Harbor, OH directly north of Fairport Harbor Lakefront Park from 41° 45.5′ N. and 081° 16.5′ W. to 41° 45.8′ N. and 081° 16.5′ W. to 41° 45.9′ N. and 081° 15.6′ W. to 41° 45.6′ N. and 081° 15.6′ W. (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced on July 11, 2015 from 7:45 a.m. until 12:15 p.m.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

Dated: June 25, 2015. B.W. Roche, Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2015-16804 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0613] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; The Cleveland Yachting Club Annual Regatta Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Rocky River, OH AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Rocky River, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Cleveland Yachting Club Annual Regatta fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display.

DATES:

This rule will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0613]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Stephanie Pitts, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-012843, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

Between 9:30 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. on July 12, 2015, a fireworks display will be held on the shoreline of Lake Erie, in Rocky River, OH, in vicinity of the western point of the entrance to the Rocky River. It is anticipated that numerous vessels will be in the immediate vicinity of the launch point. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that such a launch proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Cleveland Yachting Club Annual Regatta fireworks display. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 12, 2015. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Rocky River, OH within a 280-foot radius of position 41° 29′ 25.7″ N. and 081° 50′ 18.5″ W. (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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 conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie on the evening of July 12, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 45 minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the “For Further Information Contact” section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it 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.T09-0613 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0613 Safety Zone; Cleveland Yachting Club Regatta Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Rocky River, OH.

(a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Rocky River, OH within a 280-foot radius of position 41° 29′ 15.7″ N. and 081° 50′ 18.5″ W. (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced on July 12, 2015 from 9:30 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

Dated: June 25, 2015. B.W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2015-16805 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
80 131 Thursday, July 9, 2015 Proposed Rules DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 10 CFR Part 1703 Proposed FOIA Fee Schedule Update AGENCY:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Board's regulations, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is publishing its proposed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fee Schedule Update and solicits comments from interested organizations and individual members of the public.

DATES:

To be considered, comments must be mailed or delivered to the address listed below by 5:00 p.m. on or before August 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Comments on the proposed fee schedule should be mailed or delivered to the Office of the General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901. All comments will be placed in the Board's public files and will be available for inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except on federal holidays), in the Board's Public Reading Room at the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark T. Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (202) 694-7060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FOIA requires each Federal agency covered by the Act to specify a schedule of fees applicable to processing of requests for agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i). Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations, the Board's General Manager will update the FOIA Fee Schedule once every 12 months. Previous Fee Schedule Updates were published in the Federal Register and went into effect, most recently, on June 1, 2014, 79 FR 31848. The Board's proposed fee schedule is consistent with the guidance. The components of the proposed fees (hourly charges for search and review and charges for copies of requested documents) are based upon the Board's specific cost.

Board Action

Accordingly, the Board proposes to establish the following schedule of updated fees for services performed in response to FOIA requests:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Schedule of Fees for FOIA Services [Implementing 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)] Search or Review Charge $85.00 per hour. Copy Charge (paper) $.05 per page, if done in-house, or generally available commercial rate (approximately $.10 per page). Electronic Media $5.00 per electronic media. Copy Charge (audio and video cassette) Actual commercial rates. Duplication of DVD $25.00 for each individual DVD; $16.50 for each duplicate DVD. Copy Charge for large documents (e.g., maps, diagrams) Actual commercial rates. Dated: June 30, 2015. Mark T. Welch, General Manager.
[FR Doc. 2015-16756 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Chapter I [Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001] FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Chapter II [Docket No. R-1510] FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Chapter III Regulatory Publication and Review Under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 AGENCY:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”).

ACTION:

Notice of outreach meeting.

SUMMARY:

The OCC, Board, and FDIC (“Agencies”) announce the fourth in a series of outreach meetings on the Agencies' interagency process to review their regulations under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (“EGRPRA”). The particular focus of this meeting is the effects of the Agencies' regulations on rural banks and their communities.

DATES:

An outreach meeting will be held in Kansas City, Missouri on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, beginning at 9 a.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT). Online registrations will be accepted through July 27, 2015, or until all seats are filled, whichever is earlier. If seats are available after the close of online registration, individuals may register in person at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City on the day of the meeting. Additional outreach meetings are scheduled for October 19, 2015, in Chicago, Illinois, and December 2, 2015, in Washington, DC.

ADDRESSES:

The Agencies will hold the August 4, 2015, outreach meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198. Live video of this meeting will be streamed at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/. Participants attending in person should register at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/outreach-index.html.

In addition, to enhance participation by bankers, consumer and community groups, and other interested persons who are located in various rural areas, interested persons anywhere in the country will have the opportunity to view and participate in the meeting online using their computers. These participants may provide comments following each panel presentation or at the conclusion of the meeting, as time permits. Members of the public watching online will be able to submit written comments using the text chat feature and verbal comments using the audio feature of the webcast. A toll-free telephone number also will be provided for members of the public who would like only to listen to the meeting, and who may choose later to submit written comments. Information regarding these additional participation options is described in the meeting details section for the Kansas City meeting at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/outreach-meeting-details-kansascity.html.

Any interested individual may submit comments through the EGRPRA Web site during open comment periods at: http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/submit-comment/submit-comment-index.html.

On this site, click “Submit a Comment” and follow the instructions. Alternatively, comments may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal “Regulations.gov” at: http://www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001” in the Search Box, click “Search,” and click “Comment Now.” Those who wish to submit their comments by an alternate means may do so as indicated by each agency below.

OCC:

The OCC encourages commenters to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Regulations.gov, in accordance with the previous paragraph. Alternatively, comments may be emailed to [email protected] or sent by mail to Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Mail Stop 9W-11, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. Comments also may be faxed to (571) 465-4326 or hand delivered or sent by courier to 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For comments submitted by any means other than Regulations.gov, you must include “OCC” as the Agency name and “Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001” in your comment.

In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them without change on Regulations.gov. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, as well as any business or personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, or phone number, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Therefore, please do not include any information with your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

You may inspect and photocopy in person all comments received by the OCC at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect or photocopy comments. You may make an appointment by calling (202) 649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to a security screening.

Board:

The Board encourages commenters to submit comments regarding the Board's regulations by any of the following methods:

• Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site.

• Federal eRulemaking Portal, in accordance with the directions above.

• Email: [email protected] Include “EGRPRA” and Docket No. R-1510 in the subject line of the message.

• FAX: (202) 452-3819.

• Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal ReserveSystem, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

In general, the Board will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them without change on the Board's public Web site, www.federalreserve.gov; Regulations.gov; and http://egrpra.ffiec.gov. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, as well as any business or personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, or phone number, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Therefore, please do not enclose any information with your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

You may inspect and photocopy in person all comments received by the Board in Room 3515, 1801 K Street NW. (between 18th and 19th Street NW.), Washington, DC 20006, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. For security reasons, the Board requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may make an appointment by calling (202) 452-3000. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to a security screening.

FDIC:

The FDIC encourages commenters to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Regulations.gov, in accordance with the directions above. Alternatively, you may submit comments by any of the following methods:

• Agency Web site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal. Follow instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site.

• Email: [email protected] Include “EGRPRA” in the subject line of the message.

• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (EDT).

The FDIC will post all comments received to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal without change, including any personal information provided. Comments may be inspected and photocopied in the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (EDT) on business days. Paper copies of public comments may be ordered from the Public Information Center by calling (877) 275-3342.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OCC: Heidi M. Thomas, Special Counsel, (202) 649-5490; Rima Kundnani, Attorney, (202) 649-5545; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY (202) 649-5597.

Board: Kevin Wilson, Financial Analyst, (202) 452-2362; Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel (202) 452-2552; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY (202) 263-4869.

FDIC: Ruth R. Amberg, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 898-3736; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY 1-800-925-4618.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

EGRPRA 1 directs the Agencies, along with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (Council), not less frequently than once every ten years, to conduct a review of their regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulations imposed on insured depository institutions. As part of this review, the Agencies are holding a series of six outreach meetings to provide an opportunity for bankers, consumer and community groups, and other interested persons to present their views directly to senior management and staff of the Agencies on any of 12 specific categories of the Agencies' regulations, as further described below. The Agencies held the first of these outreach meetings on December 2, 2014, in Los Angeles, California; the second outreach meeting on February 4, 2015, in Dallas, Texas; and the third outreach meeting on May 4, 2015, in Boston, Massachusetts. Recorded videos and transcripts of these outreach meetings are available on the EGRPRA Web site at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/outreach-index.html.

1 Public Law 104-208 (1996), 110 Stat. 3009-414, codified at 12 U.S.C. 3311.

The fourth outreach meeting will be held on August 4, 2015, in Kansas City, Missouri, and will be streamed live at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/. Senior agency staff from the Board, OCC, and FDIC are scheduled to attend. The meeting will consist of panels of bankers and consumer and community groups who will present particular issues. As the fourth outreach meeting will focus on the effects of banking regulations on rural banks and their communities, the Agencies have requested that panelists give attention to these issues. There will be limited time after each panel for comments from meeting attendees and online participants. In addition, there will be a session at the end of the meeting during which audience members and online participants may present views on any of the regulations under review. The Agencies reserve the right to limit the time of individual commenters, if needed, in order to accommodate the number of persons desiring to speak.

Comments made by panelists, audience members, and online participants at this meeting will be part of the public record. Audience members who do not wish to comment orally may submit written comments at the meeting. As noted above, any interested person may submit comments through the EGRPRA Web site during open comment periods at: http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/submit-comment/submit-comment-index.html or directly to the Agencies through any of the other manners specified above.

All persons wanting to participate in person should register for the Kansas City outreach meeting at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/outreach-index.html. Because of space constraints, on-site attendance will be limited. Online registrations will be accepted through July 27, 2015, or until all seats are filled, whichever is earlier. If seats are available, individuals may register in person at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City on the day of the meeting. Individuals do not need to register to view the live-stream broadcast.

We note that the meeting will be recorded and publicly webcast in order to increase education and outreach. By participating in the meeting, either in person or online, you consent to appear and to be heard in such recordings.

Additional Background on EGRPRA

Section 2222 of EGRPRA directs the Agencies, along with the Council, to conduct a review of their regulations not less frequently than once every ten years to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions. In conducting this review, the Agencies are required to categorize their regulations by type and, at regular intervals, provide notice and solicit public comment on categories of regulations, requesting commenters to identify areas of regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. The statute requires the Agencies to publish in the Federal Register a summary of the comments received, identifying significant issues raised and commenting on these issues. The statute also directs the Agencies to eliminate unnecessary regulations to the extent that such action is appropriate. Finally, section 2222 requires the Council, of which the Agencies are members, to submit a report to Congress that summarizes any significant issues raised in the public comments and the relative merits of such issues. The report also must include an analysis of whether the Agencies are able to address the regulatory burdens associated with such issues by regulation or whether these burdens must be addressed by legislative action.

For purposes of this review, the Agencies have grouped their regulations into 12 categories: Applications and Reporting; Banking Operations; Capital; Community Reinvestment Act; Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers and Employees; International Operations; Money Laundering; Powers and Activities; Rules of Procedure; Safety and Soundness; and Securities. On June 4, 2014, the Agencies published a Federal Register notice announcing the start of the EGRPRA review process and also asking for public comment on three of these categories—Applications and Reporting; Powers and Activities; and International Operations regulations.2 In that notice the Agencies published a chart, listing their regulations in the 12 categories included in the EGRPRA review. On February 13, 2015, the Agencies published a second Federal Register notice asking for public comment on three additional categories—Banking Operations; Capital; and the Community Reinvestment Act.3 The comment period for the second Federal Register notice closed on May 14, 2015. On June 5, 2015, the Agencies published a third Federal Register notice asking for public comment on three additional categories—Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers and Employees; and Money Laundering.4 The comment period for the current notice will close on September 3, 2015.

2 79 FR 32172.

3 80 FR 7980.

4 80 FR 32046.

The third Federal Register notice also announced the Agencies' decision to expand the scope of the EGRPRA review in order to be as inclusive as possible. The Agencies will now take comment on all of their regulations issued in final form up to the date that they publish their last EGRPRA notice for public comment. The Agencies have included a separate chart in the third notice that lists the newly issued rules included in the review.

Dated: June 29, 2015. Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 29, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board. Dated: June 30, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation by Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16760 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 6714-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2459; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-002-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fire and smoke at the engine aft pylon area resulting from fuel leakage caused by a damaged O-ring in the fuel coupling attached to the wing front spar. This proposed AD would require applying sealant to fill the gap between the lower wing panels adjacent to the strut aft vapor barrier. We are proposing this AD to prevent fire and smoke at the engine aft pylon area in the event of a fuel leak, which could cause personal injury during ground operations. A fire spreading back and up to the aft fairing pylon can result in an uncontrolled fire in the strut and ignite the fuel tank.

DATES:

We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2459.

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-2015-2459; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6501; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-2459; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-002-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

Discussion

We received reports of fire and smoke at the engine aft pylon area resulting from fuel leakage caused by a damaged O-ring in the fuel coupling attached to the wing front spar. The fuel was captured by the fuel coupling rubber boot and was discharged into the flammable fluid leakage zone of the strut-to-wing cavity, as intended. However, the fuel did not follow its intended drain paths into the aft strut and lower wing panel drains, but instead followed an unintended drain path through an unsealed gap between the lower wing panels above the strut aft vapor barrier. The leaking fuel then followed gaps and seams in the aft fairing structure to the outside of the strut fairing side panels, ignited after contact with the hot engine exhaust heat shield, and caused a fire and smoke. We are proposing this AD to prevent fire and smoke at the engine aft pylon area in the event of a fuel leak, which could cause personal injury during ground operations. A fire spreading back and up to the aft fairing pylon can result in an uncontrolled fire in the strut and ignite the fuel tank.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0035, dated October 30, 2014. The service information describes procedures for applying sealant to fill the gap between the lower wing panels adjacent to the strut aft vapor barrier. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

Explanation of “RC” Steps in Service Information

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

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 196 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Sealant application 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $49,980
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-2459; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-002-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 24, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0035, dated October 30, 2014.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/Pylons.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fire and smoke at the engine aft pylon area resulting from fuel leakage caused by a damaged O-ring in the fuel coupling attached to the wing front spar. We are issuing this AD to prevent fire and smoke at the engine aft pylon area in the event of a fuel leak, which could cause personal injury during ground operations. A fire spreading back and up to the aft fairing pylon can result in an uncontrolled fire in the strut and ignite the fuel tank.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Sealant Application

    Within 1,875 days after the effective date of this AD, apply sealant to fill the gap between the lower wing panels adjacent to the strut aft vapor barrier, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0035, dated October 30, 2014.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) apply.

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

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6501; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 30, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16766 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2460; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-163-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-26-10, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-200C, -200F, -400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. AD 2010-26-10 currently requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the lap joints, modification of certain lap joints, and certain post-repair inspections of the lap joints. Since we issued AD 2010-26-10, an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) has indicated that certain lap joints are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would add new repetitive post-modification inspections for cracking in the lap joints, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in certain lap joints, which could result in rapid depressurization and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2460.
    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-2015-2460; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-2460; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-163-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On December 13, 2010, we issued AD 2010-26-10, Amendment 39-16549 (75 FR 81427, December 28, 2010), for certain Model 747-200C, -200F, -400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. AD 2010-26-10 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the lap joints, modification of certain lap joints and certain post-repair inspections of the lap joints. AD 2010-26-10 resulted from a structural review of affected skin lap joints for WFD. We issued AD 2010-26-10 to prevent fatigue cracking in certain lap joints, which could result in rapid depressurization and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Widespread Fatigue Damage

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses. This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as widespread fatigue damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    Actions Since AD 2010-26-10, Amendment 39-16549 (75 FR 81427, December 28, 2010), Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2010-26-10, Amendment 39-16549 (75 FR 81427, December 28, 2010), an evaluation by the DAH has indicated that certain lap joints are subject to WFD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014. The service information describes procedures for body skin lap joint inspections and modifications in sections 41, 42, and 43. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2010-26-10, Amendment 39-16549 (75 FR 81427, December 28, 2010), this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2010-26-10. Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between this Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Refer to this service information for details on the procedures and compliance times.

    Difference Between This Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin

    Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014, specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

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

    Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Pre-modification inspections [retained action from AD 2010-26-10, Amendment 39-16549 (75 FR 81427, December 28, 2010)] Up to 675 work-hours, = up to $57,375 $0 Up to $57,375 per inspection cycle Up to $6,885,000 per inspection cycle. Modification [retained action from AD 2010-26-10, Amendment 39-16549 (75 FR 81427, December 28, 2010)] Up to 5,819 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $494,615 0 Up to $494,615 Up to $59,353,800. New proposed post-modification inspections Up to 105 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $8,925 0 Up to $8,925 per inspection cycle Up to $1,071,000 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-26-10, Amendment 39-16549 (75 FR 81427, December 28, 2010), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-2460; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-163-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 24, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2010-26-10, Amendment 39-16549 (75 FR 81427, December 28, 2010).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-200C, -200F, -400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain lap joints are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in certain lap joints, which could result in rapid depressurization and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Lap Joint Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in Table 1 and Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Do eddy current inspections for cracks in the skin of the lap joints, and do all applicable repairs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable repairs before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in Table 1 and Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014

    (h) Lap Joint Modification

    At the applicable time specified in Tables 2, 4, 5, and 6 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Modify the applicable lap joints, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of the modification required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the length of the modified lap joint.

    (i) Lap Joint Post-Modification Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Do the applicable inspections specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 of paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014. If any crack is found during any inspection, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes identified as Groups 2 through 5 and 8 through 10 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014: Internal detailed and surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for any crack in the skin or internal doubler.

    (2) For airplanes identified as Groups 6, 11, and 19 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014: External detailed and low frequency eddy current inspections of the upper and lower skin panels for cracking, external detailed and HFEC inspections of the doubler for cracking, and internal detailed and HFEC inspections of the upper and lower skin panels for cracking (for airplanes with a stringer 6 lap joint modification installed between STA 340 and STA 400 as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2272); or internal detailed and surface HFEC inspections for any crack in the skin or internal doubler (for airplanes with lap joints modified as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499.)

    (3) For airplanes identified as Groups 1, 7, and 12 through 18 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014: Internal detailed and surface HFEC inspections for any crack in the skin or internal doubler.

    (j) Exceptions to Service Bulletin Procedures

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 3 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 3, dated July 15, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    Actions done before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

    (1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2010-26-10, Amendment 39-16549 (75 FR 81427, December 28, 2010).

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2010-26-10, Amendment 39-16549 (75 FR 81427, December 28, 2010), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) this AD.

    (m) Related Information

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 29, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16763 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1, 301, and 602 [REG-103281-11] RIN 1545-BK06 Tax on Certain Foreign Procurement; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-103281-11) that was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22449), the proposed regulations are relating to the 2 percent tax on payments made by the U.S. government to foreign persons pursuant to certain contracts.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and request for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 22449, April 22, 2015, are still being accepted and must be received by July 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Hwa, at (202) 317-6934 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this document is under section 5000C of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-103281-11) contains errors that are misleading and are in need of clarification.

    Correction to Publication

    Accordingly, notice of proposed rulemaking, that is the subject of FR Doc. 2015-09383, is corrected as follows:

    1. On page 22452, in the preamble, second column, under the paragraph heading “A. Increase Amount Deducted and Withheld Under Chapter 3”, the eleventh line from the top of the paragraph, the language “annual or periodical income (FDAP).” is corrected to read “annual or periodical income.”.
    § 1.5000C-2 [Corrected]
    2. On pages 22460 through 22461, paragraph (d)(7), the “Section 5000C Certificate” is corrected to read as follows: EP09JY15.001 EP09JY15.002
    § 1.5000C-3 [Corrected]
    3. On page 22462, second column, the seventeenth and eighteenth lines of paragraph (b)(2), the language “publications prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), acquiring” is corrected to read “publications prescribed by the IRS, acquiring”. 4. On page 22462, third column, the fourteenth line from the bottom of paragraph (c)(1), the language “a copy of Form 1042, Form 1042-S, the” is corrected to read “a copy of Form 1042, Forms 1042-S, the”. 5. On page 22462, third column, the seventh line from the bottom of paragraph (c)(1), the language “to file Form 1042 must retain any” is corrected to read “to file Form 1042 must retain all”. Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-16761 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 28 CFR Part 810 RIN 3225-AA00 Community Supervision: Administrative Sanctions and GPS Monitoring as a Supervision Tool; Correction AGENCY:

    Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) is correcting the authority citation in a proposed rule published May 22, 2015, regarding amendments to its current rule regarding the conditions of release requirements for offenders under CSOSA supervision.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Carrigg, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 220-5352 or by email at [email protected] Questions about this publication are welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the telephone.

    Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2015-12204, published on May 22, 2015 (80 FR 29569), make the following correction. On page 29570, in the first column, correct both instances of the “Authority” to read as follows:

    Authority:

    Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 712 (D.C. Code 24-133(b)(2)(B)).

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Diane Bradley, Assistant General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16007 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3129-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0509] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Incredoubleman Triathlon, Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY for a triathlon event. This safety zone is necessary to protect swimmers from vessels operating in the area. This safety zone would restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Ontario during the swimming portion of the Incredoubleman Triathlon event.

    DATES:

    Comments and related materials must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 10, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received July 29, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0509 using any one of the following methods:

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

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    (4) Delivery: At the same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LTJG Amanda Garcia, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9573, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2015-0509), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when the comment is successfully transmitted. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when the comment is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0509] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0509) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

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

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. If you want us to hold a public meeting, submit your request by July 29, 2015, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Any subsequent meetings held where public comment is sought to aid this rulemaking would be held at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rulemaking are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

    Between 7:45 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on September 12 and 13, 2015, a triathlon/swimming race will be held offshore of Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that a large scale swimming event on a navigable waterway will pose a significant risk to participants and the boating public.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo proposes to establish a safety zone that will ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and vessels during the IncreDoubleman Triathlon event. The proposed safety zone would be effective and enforced from 7 a.m. until 10 a.m. on September 12 and 13, 2015. The proposed zone would encompass all areas on the waters of Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY within the following positions: 43°53′52.58″ N. and 076°7′40.19″ W., then Northwest to 43°54′4.44″ N. and 076°7′43.89″ W., then Southwest to 43°53′57.19″ N. and 076°8′19.19″ W., then Southeast to 43°53′52.58″ N. and 076°7′40.19″ W. (NAD 83).

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the proposed safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this proposed rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the proposed safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Ontario near Sackets Harbor, NY between 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. on September 12 and 13, 2015.

    This proposed safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The safety zone will be enforced for only 3 hours early in the day for two days. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction because it involves the establishment of a safety zone.

    A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and a preliminary categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0509 to subpart F under the undesignated center heading Ninth Coast Guard District to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0509 Safety Zone; Incredoubleman Triathlon, Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All areas on the waters of Henderson Bay, Lake Ontario, Sackets Harbor, NY within the following positions: 43°53′52.58″ N. and 076°7′40.19″ W., then Northwest to 43°54′4.44″ N. and 076°7′43.89″ W., then Southwest to 43°53′57.19″ N. and 076°8′19.19″ W., then Southeast to 43°53′52.58″ N and 076°7′40.19″ W. (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 10 a.m. on September 12 and 13, 2015.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 15, 2015. B.W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16806 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0051] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Ice Covered Waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard District AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) on the navigable waters of the Fifth Coast Guard District. This RNA will allow the Coast Guard to impose and enforce restrictions on vessels operating within the RNA where a threat to navigation exists due to ice covered waterways. This action is necessary to promote navigational safety, provide for the safety of life and property, and facilitate the reasonable demands of commerce.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before October 7, 2015.

    Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2014-0051. 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.

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

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

    (2) Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Tiffany Johnson, Fifth Coast Guard District Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6516, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register RNA Regulated Navigation Area A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

    1. Submitting Comments

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

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0051 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

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

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0051 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

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

    4. Public Meeting

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

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    This is the first publication for this proposed action.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rulemaking is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1. Under these authorities the Coast Guard may establish a Regulated Navigation Area in defined water areas that are determined to have hazardous conditions and in which vessel traffic can be regulated in the interest of safety. The purpose of this RNA is to mitigate the potential threat ice poses to the maritime public in the Fifth Coast Guard District by implementing control measures on vessels of certain characteristics.

    During an average or severe winter, the presence of ice in waterways presents numerous hazards to vessels. Such hazards include vessels becoming beset or dragged off course, sinking or grounding and creating hazards to navigation. The presence of ice in a waterway may hamper a vessel's ability to maneuver. Visual aids to navigation may become submerged, destroyed, or moved off station, potentially misleading the vessel operator to unsafe waters. Ice abrasions and ice pressure may compromise a vessel's watertight integrity, and non-steel hulled vessels would be exposed to a greater risk of hull breach. Vessels operating in these conditions could introduce hazards to the maritime public and environment.

    To ensure navigation and vessel safety, the cognizant COTP will impose navigation restrictions through this regulation in ice covered waters. Ice generally begins to form in the northern area of the Fifth Coast Guard District between late December and early January, and later in the southern area. Once ice buildup begins, it may affect the transit of large ocean-going vessels. Air and water temperatures typically return to levels that are no longer favorable for ice formation in early to mid-March.

    D. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    To address the aforementioned hazards, this proposed rule will establish an RNA encompassing all navigable waters of the United States, as that term is used in 33 CFR 2.36, within the geographic boundaries of the Fifth Coast Guard District, as defined in 33 CFR 3.25-1. The Coast Guard will implement control measures on vessels with certain characteristics in waterways when necessary to safeguard people and vessels from the hazards associated with ice. As indicated above, the Coast Guard expects to control marine traffic in certain waterways if ice conditions present hazards that threaten safe navigation.

    Whenever it is determined that control measures are necessary, the cognizant COTP will notify the maritime community of any limitations, restrictions, or prohibitions in place affecting vessels that intent to transit through the RNA. Notification will be through a variety of means, including via a variety of means, the Homeport Web site, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, email notifications and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. When determining if vessels may transit through the RNA, the Coast Guard will consider the prevailing ice conditions, hull material types, horsepower, volume of vessel traffic and any other relevant factors. Vessels capable of operating in the prevailing ice condition will be allowed to enter into or transit within the RNA as specified by the cognizant COTP.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rulemaking 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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this proposed regulation could limit or prevent traffic from transiting certain waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard District, the effect of this proposed regulation will not be significant because there is little vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during the effective period. The Coast Guard anticipates only having to implement control measures in certain waterways within the RNA for limited durations of time. Vessel traffic capable of operating in such conditions will be allowed to enter into or transit within the RNA as specified by the cognizant COTP. The cognizant COTP will make notifications of the regulated area to the maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

    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 Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter into or transit within the RNA during times when ice formation is favorable. This regulated navigation area will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons described under Regulatory Planning and Review.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed 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 proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this 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 proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a temporary RNA. This proposed 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 proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.550 to read as follows:
    § 165.550 Regulated Navigation Area; Ice Covered Waterways within the Fifth Coast Guard District.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA): The navigable waters of the Fifth Coast Guard District, as described in 33 CFR 3.25.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:

    (1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the cognizant Captain of the Port (COTP) to assist in enforcing the RNA area described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (2) Official patrol vessel means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessel(s) assigned and authorized by cognizant COTP.

    (3) Horsepower means the total maximum continuous shaft horsepower of a vessel's main propulsion machinery.

    (4) Cognizant COTP means the Coast Guard Captain of the Port with jurisdiction over the geographic area affected.

    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing Regulated Navigation Areas found in 33 CFR 165.10, 165.11, and 165.13, including the Regulated Navigation Area described in paragraph (a) and the following regulations, apply.

    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, vessels of certain characteristics are not authorized to enter or transit within this RNA when the cognizant COTP determines prevailing ice conditions threaten the navigational safety of vessels. The cognizant COTP or designated representative will evaluate local marine environment conditions prior to issuing any control measures regarding vessel navigation. Control measures that may be implemented include, but are not limited to, vessel restrictions associated with horsepower and hull material type, and the requirement to participate in vessel convoys.

    (3) Any deviation from the requirements set forth by the cognizant COTP per paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be authorized by the Coast Guard District Commander, the cognizant COTP, or a designated representative. Vessels not meeting the requirements established by the cognizant COTP that are granted permission to enter or transit the RNA must do so in accordance with the directions provided by the cognizant COTP or designated representative. To request permission to transit the regulated navigation area, the COTP or COTP representative can be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) or via telephone, as follows:

    (i) COTP Delaware Bay: 215-271-4940;

    (ii) COTP Baltimore: 410-576-2693;

    (iii) COTP Hampton Roads: 757-483-8567;

    (iv) COTP North Carolina: 910-343-3882.

    (4) The cognizant COTP will notify the public of restrictions via the methods described in 33 CFR 165.7, through the Coast Guard Homeport Web site, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, and through email listservs. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this RNA can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHZ). The cognizant COTP and his or her designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number listed in paragraph (c)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section. Additionally, official patrol vessels may be on-scene to advise the public of enforcement of any restrictions on vessel navigation within the RNA.

    (5) The Cognizant COTP or a designated representative will notify the public of any changes in the status of this RNA via broadcast notices to mariners on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 22A (157.1 MHZ) or VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHZ).

    Dated: June 2, 2015. Robert J. Tarantino, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16808 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    80 131 Thursday, July 9, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sonora, California. 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://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/specialprojects/racweb.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held August 17, 2015, from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the City of Sonora Fire Department, 201 South Shephard Street, Sonora, California.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 209-532-3671, extension 321; 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 to:

    1. Provide RAC updates, and

    2. Review project proposal submittals.

    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 at least a week in advance 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 Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, California 95370; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to ATTN: Beth Martinez at 209-533-1890.

    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: July 1, 2015. Jeanne M. Higgins, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16769 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Grand Mesa Uncompahgre Gunnison Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Grand Mesa Uncompahgre Gunnison (GMUG) Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Delta, Colorado. 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/allRAcs.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held August 26, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 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 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (NF), Forest Headquarters, North Spruce Conference Room, 2250 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado.

    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 GMUG NF Forest Headquarters Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lee Ann Loupe, RAC Coordinator by phone at 970-874-6717 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is:

    1. The RAC will meet to conduct RAC business,

    2. Review and discuss project proposals, and

    3. Make recommendations for projects to fund from Title II monies for Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa and Montrose counties, Colorado.

    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 August 6, 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 Lee Ann Loupe, RAC Coordinator, 2250 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado 81416; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 970-874-6686.

    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: July 1, 2015. Scott G. Armentrout, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16802 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Meetings AGENCY:

    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings in Washington, DC, Monday through Wednesday, July 27-29, 2015 at the times and location listed below.

    DATES:

    The schedule of events is as follows:

    Monday, July 27, 2015 10:00-12:30 p.m. Ad Hoc Committee Meetings: Closed to Public Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:30-10:00 a.m. Budget Committee 10:00-11:00 Technical Programs Committee 11:00-Noon Planning and Evaluation Committee 1:30-2:30 p.m. Ad Hoc Committee on Design Guidance 2:30-4:00 Ad Hoc Committee on Frontier Issues: Real Time Text Demonstration Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:30-11:30 a.m. Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee Report Presentation 1:30-3:00 p.m. Board Meeting ADDRESSES:

    Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information regarding the meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-0010 (voice); (202) 272-0054 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    At the Board meeting scheduled on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 from 1:30 to 3:00 p.m., the Access Board will consider the following agenda items:

    • Approval of the draft March 11, 2015 meeting minutes (vote)

    • Ad Hoc Committee Reports: Information and Communications Technologies; Self-Service Transaction Machines; Public Rights-of-Way and Shared Use Paths; Transportation Vehicles; Passenger Vessels; Medical Diagnostic Equipment; Frontier Issues; and Design Guidance

    • Budget Committee • Technical Programs Committee • Planning and Evaluation Committee • Election Assistance Commission Report • Guest Speakers: Maria Town, Associate Director, White House Office of Public Engagement and Marilyn Golden, author of the NCD report, “Transportation Update: Where We've Gone and What We've Learned” • Executive Director's Report

    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board meeting and committee meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/the-board/policies/fragrance-free-environment for more information).

    You may view the Wednesday, July 29, 2015 meeting through a live webcast from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at: http://www.access-board.gov/webcast. Call-in information (listen only) and a communication access real-time translation (CART) Web streaming link for the presentation of the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee report will be posted on the Access Board's Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee Web site page at www.access-board.gov/rvaac.

    David M. Capozzi, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16801 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [6/23/2015 through 7/2/2015] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Steward Plastics, Inc. d/b/a Smooth-Bor Plastics 23322 Del Lago Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 6/29/2015 The firm manufactures medical tubing and residential construction tubing for various applications. Astro Tool Corporation 21615 Southwest Tualatin-Valley Highway, Beaverton, OR 97003 6/30/2015 The firm manufactures hand tools for crimping and accessories. Pompanoosuc Mills Corporation 3184 Route 5, East Thetford, VT 05043 6/29/2015 The firm manufactures hand crafted hardwood furniture and upholstered furniture. Etron, Inc 1410 Peruville Road, Freeville, NY 13068 6/30/2015 The firm manufactures micro programmable controllers used as variable speed vacuum controllers. Corry Rubber Corporation 601 West Main Street, Corry, PA 16407 7/2/2015 The firm manufactures molded and extruded rubber products for the automotive, aerospace and other industrial markets. Criterion Technology, Inc 101 McIntosh Parkway, Thomaston, GA 30286 7/1/2015 The firm manufactures optical quality polymer dome covers and parts. KAM Manufacturing, Inc 1197 Grill Road, Van Wert, OH 45891 7/1/2015 The firm manufactures handbags with outer surface textile.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Michael S. DeVillo, Eligibility Examiner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16770 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-15-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone 44—Mount Olive, New Jersey; Authorization of Production Activity; Givaudan Fragrances Corporation (Fragrance Compounds), Mount Olive, New Jersey

    On March 4, 2015, Givaudan Fragrances Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within FTZ 44—Site 1 in Mount Olive, New Jersey.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 14094-14095, 3-18-2015). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.14.

    Dated: July 1, 2015. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16822 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-023] Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Tran or Joy Zhang, Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1503 and (202) 482-1168, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 29, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination on certain uncoated paper from the People's Republic of China.1 The Preliminary Determination contained inadvertent errors related to certain company names. Specifically, in the Preliminary Determination the Department should have indicated that the mandatory respondent, referred to in the collective as the Asia Symbol Companies, is comprised of the following firms: Asia Symbol (Guangdong) Paper Co., Ltd. (AS Guangdong), Asia Symbol (Shandong) Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd. (AS Shandong), Asia Symbol (Guangdong) Omya Minerals Co., Ltd. (AS Omya), and Greenpoint Global Trading (Macao Commercial Offshore) Limited (Greenpoint). Additionally, in the Preliminary Determination, the Department should have referred to UPM Changshu as UPM (China) Co. Ltd. (UPM).

    1See Certain Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 80 FR 36968 (June 29, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    This correction to the Preliminary Determination is issued and published in accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16823 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD797 Marine Mammals; File No. 19293 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permit.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to Dolphin World Productions Ltd, 59 Cotham Hill, Bristol, BS6 6JR, United Kingdom to conduct commercial or educational photography on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    On March 2, 2015, notice was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 11177) that a request for a permit to commercial or educational photography on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Florida Bay had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The permit authorizes filming and photography of the Florida Bay stock of bottlenose dolphins for purposes of a documentary film. The activities fall under the definition of level B harassment via aircraft and from a small 20 ft vessel. Filming would take place for approximately 30 days between May 20, 2015 and September 1, 2015. The permit is valid through September 30, 2015.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16780 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE034 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Atlantic Bluefish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on July 27, 2015, from 9 a.m. until noon.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option. Details on webinar registration and telephone-only connection details are available at: http://www.mafmc.org.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is for the Council's Atlantic Bluefish Monitoring Committee to discuss and recommend multi-year (2016-18) annual catch targets (ACTs) and other associated management measures for the Atlantic bluefish fisheries.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 6, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16789 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE031 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 23 through Friday, July 24, 2015. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Royal Sonesta Harbor Court Baltimore, 550 Light St, Baltimore, MD 21202, telephone: (410) 234-0550.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org will also have details on the meeting location and agenda.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee will meet from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday, July 23 and from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Friday, July 24 to discuss and recommend 2016 annual catch targets (ACTs) and other associated management measures for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. Multi-year ACTs and management measures, applicable to fishing years 2016-18, may be considered.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 6, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16788 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XS35 Marine Mammals; File No. 14450 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 [Principal Investigator: Dr. Keith Mullin], has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 14450-02.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the Features box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 14450 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. 14450 in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject amendment to Permit No. 14450-02 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    Permit No. 14450-02, last amended on December 31, 2014, authorizes the SEFSC to take all cetacean species that occur in U.S. and international waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Activities include aerial and vessel-based line-transect sampling, acoustic sampling, behavioral observations, vessel-based photo-identification, and biopsy sampling. Satellite tagging of ESA-listed large whales is also authorized. Tissue samples collected in other countries may be imported into the U.S. The permit expires on February 28, 2019.

    The SEFSC is requesting the permit be amended to authorize satellite tagging of non-ESA listed cetaceans during authorized vessel surveys to support NMFS stock assessments as follows: 40 Bryde's whales (Balaenoptera edeni), 40 of each species of short-finned (Globicephala macrorhynchus) and long-finned (Globicephala melas) pilot whales, and 20 individuals each of the 21 other authorized non-listed cetacean species, annually. Tags would be either suction cup attachments, fully implantable or minimally invasive dart attachments. A maximum of 2 tags could be placed on an animal at one time. Adults of both sexes without calves would be tagged. In addition, the SEFSC is requesting authorization to import and export marine mammals samples from sources (other than currently authorized biopsy sampling) to support the NMFS research on these species.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the amendment requests to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16779 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD825 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 17278 and 17557 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permit amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that major amendments have been issued to James Shine, Ph.D., Harvard University School of Public Health, 401 Park Drive, 404H West, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, (Permit No. 17278-01) and the NMFS Forensics Office, 219 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412 (Permit No. 17557-01).

    ADDRESSES:

    The permit amendments and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Skidmore, Amy Sloan, or Malcolm Mohead, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 20, 2015, notice was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 14907) that requests for amendments to Permit Nos. 17278 and 17557 to import specimens from long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas; 17278) and scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewinia; 17557) for scientific research had been submitted by the above-named applicants. The requested permit amendments have been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), as applicable.

    Permit No. 17278 authorizes Dr. Shine to import and receive parts from subsistence-collected long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) archived at the Faroese Museum of Natural History, Faroe Islands. The permit, as amended, increases the number of samples authorized to be imported from 15 to 100 animals annually, as well as authorization to conduct analyses of chlorinated and fluorinated organic chemicals using the same samples.

    Permit No. 17557 authorizes the NMFS Forensics Office to receive, import, export, transfer, archive, and conduct analyses on marine mammal and ESA-listed species parts under NMFS jurisdiction. The permit has been amended to include scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewinia) recently listed under the ESA.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    As required by the ESA, issuance of the permit amendment (Permit No. 17557-01) was based on a finding that such permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16781 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO-P-2015-0026] United States Patent and Trademark Office and Korean Intellectual Property Office Collaborative Search Pilot Program AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is initiating a joint Work Sharing Pilot Program with the Korean Intellectual Patent Office (KIPO) to study whether the exchange of search reports between offices for corresponding counterpart applications improves patent quality and facilitates the examination of patent applications in both offices. In the pilot program, each office will concurrently conduct a prior art search for its corresponding counterpart application. The search report from each office will then be exchanged between offices before either office issues a communication concerning patentability to the applicant. As a result of this exchange of search reports, the examiners in both offices may have a more comprehensive set of references before them when making an initial patentability determination. Each office will accord special status to its counterpart application to first action. First Action Interview (FAI) pilot program procedures will be applied during the examination of the U.S. application and make the Korean search report of record concurrently with the issuance of a Pre-Interview Communication.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: September 1, 2015.

    Duration: Under the United States-Korean Collaboration Pilot (US-KR CSP) program, the USPTO and KIPO will accept petitions to participate for two years from its effective date. During the pilot program, each office will be limited to granting 400 petitions. The offices may extend the pilot program (with or without modification) for an additional amount of time, if necessary. Both offices reserve the right to terminate the pilot program at any time.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel Hunter, Director of International Work Sharing, Planning, and Implementation, Office of International Patent Cooperation, by telephone at 571-272-8050 regarding the handling of any specific application participating in the pilot. Any questions concerning this notice may be directed to Joseph Weiss, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, by phone (571) 272-7759. Any inquiries regarding this pilot program can be emailed to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The USPTO is continually looking for ways to improve the quality of issued patents and to promote work sharing between other Intellectual Property (IP) Offices throughout the world. The USPTO has launched several work sharing pilot programs in recent years (e.g., numerous Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Programs). In furtherance of promoting interoffice work sharing, the USPTO and KIPO will cooperate in a study to determine whether work sharing between IP offices, in the form of exchanging the results from independently performed concurrent searches, increases the efficiency and quality of patent examination. This exchange of search reports would occur prior to making determinations regarding patentability. Work sharing benefits applicants by promoting compact prosecution, reducing pendency, and supporting patent quality by reducing the likelihood of inconsistencies in patentability determinations (not predicated upon differences in national patent laws) between IP offices when considering corresponding counterpart applications.

    Currently, an application filed in the USPTO with a claim of foreign priority may have a search report and art cited by the foreign office in the priority application provided to applicant during the U.S. application's pendency. After review of the search report and cited art, an applicant may submit an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) in the U.S. application to provide the information to the USPTO. Often this submission occurs after examination on the merits is already underway in the U.S. application. Upon evaluation of the search report and cited art, the U.S. examiner may determine that the art cited by the foreign office is relevant to patentability and merits further examination before making a final determination on patentability. The delay caused by further examination results in additional costs to an applicant and the USPTO that could have been avoided if the U.S. examiner was in possession of the foreign office's search results before commencing examination of the application. Furthermore, in light of the various expedited examination programs currently in place, the potential exists that a U.S. application may reach final disposition before an applicant is in receipt of a foreign office's search report. Work sharing between intellectual Property (IP) offices in the form of an exchange of search reports may increase efficiency and promote patent examination quality by providing the examiner with both offices' search reports when examination commences. In order to study the benefits of the exchange of search reports between offices, current USPTO examination practice would need to be modified to conduct a search and generate a search report, without issuance of an Office action. The U.S. application also would need to be “made special” pursuant to USPTO procedures to ensure that it could be contemporaneously searched with its corresponding counterpart application.

    The USPTO is using the First Action Interview Pilot Program (FAI) in this search report work sharing pilot program because its procedure bifurcates the determination and evaluation of a prior art search from the notice of rejection. See Full First Action Interview Pilot Program, 1367 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 42 (June 7, 2011). Under the FAI pilot program, participants receive a Pre-Interview Communication providing the results of a prior art search conducted by the examiner. Participants then have three options: (1) File a request not to conduct a first action interview; (2) submit a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 after reviewing the Pre-Interview Communication; or (3) conduct an interview with the examiner. Participants in the FAI pilot program experience many benefits including: (1) The ability to advance prosecution of an application; (2) enhanced interaction between applicant and the examiner; (3) the opportunity to resolve patentability issues one-on-one with the examiner at the beginning of the prosecution process; and (4) the opportunity to facilitate possible early allowance.

    The US-KR CSP program differs from the FAI pilot program procedure by requiring a Petition to Make Special for the participating application, and providing for the exchange of information with KIPO at different stages of prosecution as set forth in this notice.

    The USPTO also is initiating a joint Work Sharing Pilot Program with the Japan Patent Office (JPO). The KIPO and JPO pilot programs are different in the way that they operate. Thus, while there may be applications that are eligible for both work sharing pilot programs, such applications will not be permitted to participate in both pilot programs due to the differences in work sharing procedures of these two different programs. More information about the US-KR CSP program can be found on the USPTO's Internet Web site at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/collaborative-search-pilot-program-csp.

    II. Overview of Pilot Program Structure

    An application must meet all of the requirements set forth in section III of this notice to be accepted into this pilot program. An applicant must file a Petition to Make Special using form PTO/SB/437KR via EFS-web in a U.S. application. Use of the form will assist an applicant in complying with the pilot program's requirements. Form PTO/SB/437KR is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/collaborative-search-pilot-program-csp. An applicant's use of this form allows the USPTO to quickly identify participating applications, facilitates timely processing in accordance with this notice, and simplifies petition preparation and submission for an applicant. The collection of information involved in this pilot program has been submitted to OMB. The collection will be available at the OMB's Information Collection Review Web site (www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain).

    No fee is required for submission of petitions using Form PTO/SB/437KR. The fee (currently $140.00) for a petition under 37 CFR 1.102 (other than those enumerated in 37 CFR 1.102(c)) is hereby sua sponte waived for petitions to make special based upon the procedure specified in this notice.

    Each office may reevaluate the workload and resources needed to administer the pilot program at any time. The USPTO will provide notice of any substantive changes to the program (including early termination of the program) at least thirty (30) days prior to implementation of any changes.

    New patent applications are normally taken up for examination in the order of their U.S. filing date. Applications accepted into the US-KR CSP program will receive expedited processing by being granted special status and taken out of turn until issuance of a Pre-Interview Communication, or first action allowance, but will not maintain special status thereafter. While KIPO and USPTO will be sharing search reports, the possibility exists that there may be differences in the listing of references made of record by the USPTO versus those made of record in the corresponding KIPO counterpart application. Participants in the US-KR CSP program should review the references cited in each respective office's search reports. If any KIPO communication to an applicant cites references that are not already of record in the USPTO application and the applicant wants the examiner to consider the references, the applicant should promptly file an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that includes a copy of the KIPO communication along with copies of the newly cited references in accordance with 37 CFR 1.98 and MPEP section 609.04(a)-(b). See also MPEP sections 609 and 2001.06(a).

    III. Requirements for Participation in the Pilot Program

    The following requirements must be satisfied for a petition under the US-KR CSP Program to be granted:

    (1) The application must be a non-reissue, non-provisional utility application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), or an international application that has entered the national stage in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 371(c), with an effective filing date of no earlier than March 16, 2013. The U.S. application and the corresponding KIPO counterpart application must have a common earliest priority date that is no earlier than March 16, 2013.

    (2) A completed petition form PTO/SB/437KR must be filed in the application via EFS-Web. Form PTO/SB/437KR is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/collaborative-search-pilot-program-csp.

    (3) The petition submission must include an express written consent under 35 U.S.C. 122(c) for the USPTO to accept and consider prior art references and comments from KIPO, during the examination of the U.S. application participating in the pilot program. The petition also must provide written authorization for the USPTO to provide KIPO access to the participating U.S. application's bibliographic data and search reports in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 122(a) and 37 CFR 1.14(c). Form PTO/SB/437KR includes language compliant with the consent requirements for this pilot program.

    (4) The petition must be filed at least one day before a first Office action on the merits of the application appears in the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system (i.e., at least one day prior to the date when a first Office action on the merits, notice of allowability or allowance, or action under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 11 (1935), appears in the PAIR system). An applicant should check the status of the application using the PAIR system prior to submitting the petition to ensure that this requirement is met.

    (5) The petition for participation filed in the corresponding KIPO counterpart application for the US-KR CSP Program must be grant or have granted by KIPO. The KIPO and the USPTO petitions should be filed within fifteen days of each other. Both the KIPO and the USPTO petitions must be granted for the applications to be treated under the US-KR CSP program. As the requirements of each office's pilot program may differ, applicants should review the requirements for both pilot programs when considering participation, ensuring that the respective corresponding counterpart applications can comply with each office's requirements.

    (6) The petition submission must include a claims correspondence table that notes which claims between the pending U.S. and KIPO applications have a substantially corresponding scope to each other. Claims are considered to have a “substantially corresponding scope” where, after accounting for differences due to claim format requirements, the scope of the corresponding claims in the corresponding KIPO counterpart application would either anticipate or render obvious the subject matter recited under U.S. law. Additionally, claims in the corresponding U.S. counterpart application that introduce a new/different category of claims than those presented in the corresponding KIPO counterpart application are not considered to substantially correspond. For example, where the corresponding KIPO counterpart application contains only claims relating to a process of manufacturing a product, then any product claims in the corresponding U.S. counterpart application are not considered to substantially correspond, even if the product claims are dependent on process claims which substantially correspond to claims in the corresponding KIPO counterpart application. Applicants may file a preliminary amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 to amend the claims of the corresponding U.S. counterpart application to satisfy this requirement when attempting to make the U.S. application eligible for the program.

    (7) The application must contain three or fewer independent claims and twenty or fewer total claims. The application must not contain any multiple dependent claims. For an application that contains more than three independent claims or twenty total claims, or any multiple dependent claims, applicants may file a preliminary amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 to cancel the excess claims and/or the multiple dependent claims to make the application eligible for the program.

    (8) The claims must be directed to a single invention. If the Office determines that the claims are directed to multiple inventions (e.g., in a restriction requirement), the applicant must make a telephonic election without traverse in accordance with the procedures outlined in section V of this notice. An applicant is responsible for ensuring that the same invention is elected in both the U.S. and KIPO corresponding counterpart applications for concurrent treatment in the US-KR CSP program.

    (9) All submissions for the participating application while being treated under the US-KR CSP program's procedure must be filed via EFS-Web.

    (10) The petition must include a statement that the applicant agrees not to file a request for a refund of the search fee and any excess claim fees paid in the application after the mailing or notification date of the Pre-Interview Communication. See form PTO/SB/413C. Any petition for express abandonment under 37 CFR 1.138(d) to obtain a refund of the search fee and excess claim fee filed after the mailing or notification date of a Pre-Interview Communication will not be granted.

    IV. Decision on Petition To Make Special Under the US-KR Collaborative Search Pilot Program (Form PTO/SB/437KR)

    An applicant must file a Petition to Make Special using Form PTO/SB/437KR in an eligible U.S. application for entry into the US-KR CSP program. Applicant also must file the appropriate petition paper in the corresponding KIPO counterpart application for participation in the US-KR CSP program. Once both petitions are granted, the U.S. application will receive expedited processing by being placed on the examiner's special docket for examination in accordance with sections V-VIII of this notice.

    A. Petition Decision Making

    An applicant must file appropriate petition papers in both the USPTO and KIPO corresponding counterpart applications within fifteen days of each other. If the petitions are not filed within fifteen days of each other, an applicant runs the risk of one of the pending applications being acted upon by an examiner before entry into the pilot program, which will result in both applications being denied entry into the pilot program. Both offices must grant the respective petitions in order for the applications to participate in the pilot program. Once the USPTO issues a decision granting the petition, an applicant will no longer have a right to file a preliminary amendment that amends the claims. Any preliminary amendment filed after petition grant and before issuance of a Pre-Interview Communication amending the claims will not be entered unless approved by the examiner. After the petition is granted and before issuance of the Pre-Interview Communication, an applicant may still submit preliminary amendments to the specification that do not affect the claims. If either office determines that the petition must be denied, then the other office will be informed of the denial determination, and both offices will issue decisions denying the petition.

    B. Petition Dismissal

    If an applicant files an incomplete Form PTO/SB/437KR, or if an application accompanied by Form PTO/SB/437KR does not comply with the requirements set forth in this notice, the USPTO will notify the applicant of the deficiency by issuing a dismissal decision and the applicant will be given a single opportunity to correct the deficiency. If an applicant still wishes to participate in the pilot program, the applicant must make appropriate corrections within one month or thirty days of the mailing date of the dismissal decision, whichever is longer. The time period for reply is not extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a). If the applicant fails to correct all of the noted deficiencies within the time period set forth, the USPTO will render a denial decision and notify KIPO in accordance with this notice, and neither application will be eligible for the pilot program. The U.S. application will then be taken up for examination in accordance with standard examination procedures, unless designated special in accordance with another established procedure (e.g., Prioritized Examination, Special Based on Applicant's Age, etc.). If an applicant timely files a response to the dismissal that corrects all the noted deficiencies and does not introduce new instances of non-compliance, the USPTO will issue a decision granting the petition.

    C. Withdrawal of Petition

    An application can be withdrawn from the pilot program only by filing a withdrawal of the petition to participate in the pilot program prior to issuance of a decision granting the petition. Once the petition for participation in the pilot program has been granted (one day before it appears in PAIR), withdrawal from the pilot program is not permitted. The USPTO will treat any request for withdrawal from the pilot program filed after the mailing or notification of acceptance into the pilot program as a request to not conduct an interview, and subsequent to the mailing of the Pre-Interview Communication, the USPTO will issue a First-Action Interview Office Action, in due course. (See section VII.B.1. of this notice.)

    V. Requirement for Restriction

    If the examiner determines that not all the claims presented are directed to a single invention, the telephone restriction practice set forth in MPEP section 812.01 will be followed. An applicant must make an election without traverse during the telephonic interview. If the applicant refuses to make an election without traverse, or if the examiner cannot reach the applicant after a reasonable effort (i.e., three business days), the examiner will treat the first claimed invention (the group of claim 1) as constructively elected without traverse for examination. When a telephonic election is made, the examiner will provide a complete record of the telephone interview, including the restriction or lack of unity requirement and the applicant's election, as an attachment to the Pre-Interview Communication. Applicants are strongly encouraged to ensure that applications submitted for the pilot program are written such that they claim a single, independent, and distinct invention. An applicant is responsible to ensure the same invention is elected in both the U.S. and KIPO corresponding counterpart applications for concurrent treatment in this joint office work sharing pilot program.

    VI. Pre-Interview Communication

    If the application contains only one invention or an applicant has elected one invention without traverse, the examiner will conduct a prior art search for the claimed invention under consideration. The examiner may prepare either a Notice of Allowability or a Pre-Interview Communication.

    A. Notice of Allowability

    If the examiner determines that the application is in condition for allowance or the application could be placed in condition for allowance with minor corrections or a possible amendment or submission, a Pre-Interview Communication and all subsequent FAI procedures under this pilot program will not be necessary. The examiner may allow the application, or contact the applicant and conduct an interview in accordance with MPEP section 713 to discuss any possible amendments or submissions to place the application in condition for allowance. If the USPTO has not received the KIPO search report at the time the examiner has decided the claims are allowable, the USPTO will notify KIPO of the examiner's findings and references identified during the search. The USPTO will wait for up to 90 days from the date of notification for receipt of the KIPO search. Upon receipt of the KIPO search report, the examiner will consider the references cited in the KIPO search report before making a final determination whether to issue a Notice of Allowability. If the KIPO search report is not received within 90 days, the examiner will issue a Notice of Allowability without consideration of the KIPO search report. An applicant will be responsible for determining the appropriateness of any future correspondence with the USPTO for information later obtained from KIPO. If the examiner issues a Notice of Allowability with consideration of the KIPO search report, the examiner will cite references from the KIPO search report in a Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The Notice of Allowability with a completed form PTO-892 also will be forwarded to KIPO for further consideration by the KIPO examiner of record for the corresponding KIPO counterpart application. If a Notice of Allowability will not issue, then the examiner will prepare and issue a Pre-Interview Communication in accordance with Section VI.B of this notice.

    B. Pre-Interview Communication

    If the examiner determines the application is not in condition for allowance, the examiner will prepare a Pre-Interview Communication and a PTO-892 citing the prior art references, identifying any rejections or objections relevant to the claimed invention, and any designation of allowable subject matter. If the USPTO has not received the KIPO search report at the time the examiner has completed the Pre-Interview Communication, the USPTO will notify KIPO of the examiner's findings and references identified during the search. The USPTO will wait for up to 90 days from the date of notification for receipt of the KIPO search. Upon receipt of the KIPO search report, the examiner will issue a Pre-Interview Communication and include a copy of the KIPO search report. Thus, the examiner is not required to cite in the Pre-Interview Communication references cited in the KIPO search report, because the KIPO search report is being sent to the applicant with the Pre-Interview Communication. If the KIPO search report is not received within 90 days, the examiner will issue the Pre-Interview Communication to the applicant, and the application will be removed from the pilot program for evaluation purposes only, but will continue to be treated in accordance with this notice. An applicant is responsible for responding to the USPTO Pre-Interview Communication in accordance with the First Action Interview Program procedures discussed in Section VII of this notice.

    The Pre-Interview Communication issued to an applicant will set forth a time period of one month or thirty days, whichever is longer, for the applicant to request or decline an interview. An applicant is responsible for responding to the Pre-Interview Communication in accordance with the First Action Interview Program procedures discussed in Section VII of this notice. The USPTO will permit the applicant to extend this time period for reply pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) for one additional month as set forth in section VII, subsection B (Applicant's Options and Reply to Pre-Interview Communication) and subsection C (Failure to Respond to Pre-Interview Communication) of this notice. The examiner's typical working schedule also will be provided with the Pre-Interview Communication to indicate the examiner's availability for scheduling the interview.

    VII. Post Pre-Interview Communication A. Amendments Filed After Pre-Interview Communication

    Once a Pre-Interview Communication has been entered in an application, an applicant no longer has a right to amend the application until the first action interview is conducted and the First-Action Interview Office Action is sent. Therefore, any amendments filed after the Pre-Interview Communication, but before the interview and the mailing or notification date of a First-Action Interview Office Action (PTOL-413FA), will not be entered unless approved by the examiner or in accordance with the procedure of the Full First Action Interview Pilot Program in section VII, subsection B(2), or section VIII, subsection B(3), of this notice. This is because the examiner has devoted a significant amount of time to the preparation of the Pre-Interview Communication. See 37 CFR 1.115(b) and MPEP section 714.01(e). The USPTO may enter the amendment if it is clearly limited to: Cancellation of claims; adoption of examiner suggestions; placement of the application in condition for allowance, including an explanation on how the proposed amendments overcome art cited and/or applied in the KIPO search report, if necessary, in accordance with U.S. patent laws; and/or correction of informalities (similar to the treatment of an after-final amendment). Amendments will be entered solely at the examiner's discretion.

    B. Applicant Options and Reply to Pre-Interview Communication

    Upon receipt of a Pre-Interview Communication, the applicant has three options:

    (1) File a “Request to Not Have a First Action Interview”;

    (2) File a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 waiving the first action interview and First-Action Interview Office Action—an applicant is accepting that the Pre-Interview Communication is the first Office action on the merits; or

    (3) Schedule the first action interview—an applicant must file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) electronically via EFS-Web, accompanied by a proposed amendment or arguments, and schedule the interview to be conducted within two months or sixty days, whichever is longer, from the filing of the Applicant Initiated Interview Request.

    1. Request To Not Have a First Action Interview

    If an applicant wishes not to have the first action interview, the applicant should electronically file a letter requesting not to have a first action interview within the time period set forth in the Pre-Interview Communication. In this situation, a first action interview will not be conducted, and the examiner will provide the First-Action Interview Office Action setting forth the requirements, objections, and rejections relevant to the claimed invention. However, such a request will not preclude the examiner from contacting the applicant and conducting a regular interview in accordance with MPEP section 713 to discuss any issues or possible amendment to place the application in condition for allowance. To ensure that the request will be processed and recognized timely, an applicant should file the request electronically via EFS-Web, selecting the document description “Request to Not Have a First Action Interview” on the EFS-Web screen.

    Once the petition for entry into the pilot program has been granted (one day before it appears in PAIR), withdrawal from the pilot program is not permitted. Therefore, the USPTO will treat a request for withdrawal from the pilot program filed after the mailing or notification of granting an applicant's petition to participate in the pilot program as a request to not conduct an interview, issue a Pre-Interview Communication, and subsequently enter a First-Action Interview-Office Action, in due course.

    2. File a Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111, Waiving the First Action Interview and First-Action Interview Office Action

    Applicants may file, preferably in conjunction with a request to not conduct the interview, a reply in compliance with 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c) to address every rejection, objection, and requirement set forth in the Pre-Interview Communication, including any issues of patentability raised by the art cited and/or applied in the KIPO search report, if necessary, in accordance with U.S. patent laws, thereby waiving the first action interview and First Action Interview Office Action. The reply under 37 CFR 1.111 must be filed within the time period for reply set forth in the Pre-Interview Communication. To ensure that the request will be processed and recognized timely, an applicant should file the request electronically via EFS-Web, selecting the document description “Reply under 1.111 to Pre-Interview Communication” on the EFS-Web screen.

    In this situation, a first action interview will not be conducted, and a First Action Interview Office Action will not be provided to the applicant. The Pre-Interview Communication will be deemed the first Office action on the merits. The examiner will consider the reply under 37 CFR 1.111 and provide an Office action in response to the reply, in due course. The Office action will be the second Office action on the merits, and thus it could be a final Office action, a notice of allowability, or other appropriate action.

    3. Schedule the First Action Interview

    If an applicant wants a first action interview with the examiner, the applicant must timely file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL 413A), electronically using EFS-Web, accompanied by a proposed amendment and/or arguments (as an attachment to the request). To ensure that the request will be processed and recognized timely, the applicant should select the document description “First Action Interview—Schedule Interview Request.”

    An applicant must designate a proposed date to conduct the interview to facilitate scheduling of the first action interview. The applicant's proposed date to conduct the interview must be within two months or sixty days, whichever is longer, from the filing of the Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form. An applicant should consult the examiner's work schedule provided in the Pre-Interview Communication and discuss with the examiner the best date for conducting the interview.

    After filing the Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form, the applicant must contact the examiner to confirm the interview date. The applicant's failure to conduct an interview within two months or sixty days, whichever is longer, from the filing of Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form will be treated as a failure to respond to the Pre-Interview Communication. See section VII; subsection C (Failure to Respond to Pre-Interview Communication) of this notice. The interview may be in person, telephonic, or a video-conference. The applicant must provide written authorization to conduct any Internet email communications with the examiner. See MPEP section 502.03 for more information.

    The proposed amendment or arguments must be clearly labeled as “PROPOSED” at the header or footer of each page and filed electronically via EFS-Web as an attachment to the Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form. The proposed amendment or arguments will not be entered as a matter of right. The proposed amendment or arguments must address every proposed rejection, objection, and requirement set forth in the Pre-Interview Communication, including any issues of patentability raised by the art cited and/or applied in the KIPO search report, if necessary, in accordance with U.S. patent laws. The examiner, based upon discussions, feedback, and agreement with an applicant during the interview may at his or her discretion enter the amendment if found sufficient to advance prosecution on the merits. See MPEP sections 713.01 III and 713.04; see also MPEP sections 714 and 1302.04. Even if the examiner denies entry of the proposed amendment, the proposed amendment will be placed in the application file.

    Preparation for the Interview: An applicant must be prepared to fully discuss the prior art of record, any relevant interview talking points from the interview talking points posted at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/fai_talking_points.pdf, and any rejections or objections with the intent to clarify and resolve all issues with respect to patentability during the interview, including any issues of patentability raised by the art cited and/or applied in the KIPO search report, if necessary, in accordance with U.S. patent laws. An applicant also must be prepared to discuss any proposed amendment or arguments previously submitted and discuss and resolve any relevant issues that arise. The interview talking points posted at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/fai_talking_points.pdf represent a non-exhaustive list of potential topics for discussion in a first action interview. The talking points are available to the public and the patent examining corps to assist and facilitate comprehensive and effective first action interviews.

    Multiple proposed amendments or sets of arguments are not permitted.

    Inventor Participation: Inventor participation in the interview process is encouraged, as it may assist in the resolution of outstanding rejections and/or objections.

    C. Failure To Respond to Pre-Interview Communication

    If an applicant fails to: (1) Respond to the Pre-Interview Communication within the time period for reply or (2) conduct the interview within two months or sixty days, whichever is longer, from the filing of the Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form, the Office will enter a First-Action Interview Office Action. Therefore, the consequence for failure to respond to the Pre-Interview Communication is issuance of a First-Action Interview Office Action without the benefit of an interview.

    VIII. First-Action Interview and First-Action Interview Office Action A. First-Action Interview

    The interview will be conducted in accordance with the procedure provided in MPEP section 713 except as otherwise provided in this notice. The interview should focus on and include:

    1. A discussion to assist the examiner in developing a better understanding of the invention;

    2. A discussion to establish the state of the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, including the prior art references cited by the applicant and the examiner (as only applications subject to the First Inventor to File provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) are eligible for this pilot program); and

    3. A discussion of the features of the claimed subject matter which make the invention patentable, including any proposed amendments to the claims.

    4. A discussion regarding any issues of patentability raised by the art cited and/or applied in the KIPO search report, if necessary, in accordance with U.S. patent laws.

    B. Three Possible Outcomes of a First-Action Interview

    1. An agreement is reached and all claims are in condition for allowance. If the applicant and the examiner reach agreement that the application is in condition for allowance, the examiner must complete an Interview Summary (PTOL-413), enter and attach any necessary amendments or arguments (e.g., the proposed amendment and/or an examiner's amendment), generate a notice of allowability (PTOL-37), and attach a copy of the completed Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form. If the examiner agrees to enter the proposed amendment, the examiner must annotate the first page of the proposed amendment (e.g., “OK to enter”). In an in-person interview, a courtesy copy of the completed forms will be given to the applicant at the conclusion of the interview. The completed forms will then be promptly made of record with a Notice of Allowability and a Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL 85). The Notice of Allowability and the Notice of Allowance, interview summary, and all amendments made of record along with a completed Notice of References Cited form PTO-892 listing any newly cited references will also be forwarded to KIPO for consideration by the KIPO examiner of record for the corresponding KIPO counterpart application.

    2. An agreement as to allowability is not reached. If the applicant and the examiner do not reach agreement during the interview, the examiner will set forth any unresolved, maintained, or new requirements, objections, and rejections in the First-Action Interview Office Action. The examiner also will complete an Interview Summary, highlighting the basis for any unresolved, maintained, or new requirements, objections, and rejections as well as resolution of any issues that occurred during the interview, attaching a copy of the completed Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form and any proposed amendments or arguments. In a personal interview, a courtesy copy of the completed forms may be given to the applicant at the conclusion of the interview. The completed forms will be promptly made of record.

    For this situation, the First-Action Interview Office Action is deemed the first Office action on the merits. Because the requirements, objections, and grounds of rejection are provided in the Pre-Interview Communication and the First-Action Interview Office Action, the applicant has sufficient notice of the requirements, objections, and grounds of rejection. To avoid abandonment of the application, the applicant must, within two months or sixty days, whichever is longer, from the mailing or notification date of the First-Action Interview Office Action, file a reply in compliance with 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c). This time period for reply is extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a) for only two additional months. The First-Action Interview Office Action, interview summary and a completed Notice of References Cited form PTO-892 listing any newly cited references also will be forwarded to KIPO for consideration by the KIPO examiner of record for the corresponding KIPO counterpart application.

    3. An agreement as to allowability is not reached, and applicant wishes to convert the previously submitted proposed amendment into a reply under 37 CFR 1.111(b) and waive receipt of a First-Action Interview Office Action. Applicants may request the USPTO to enter the previously filed proposed amendment and/or arguments as a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 to address every rejection, objection, and requirement set forth in the Pre-Interview Communication, waiving a First-Action Interview Office Action, if the proposed amendment and/or arguments comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 and 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c). If the examiner agrees to enter the proposed amendment as the reply under 37 CFR 1.111 to the Pre-Interview Communication, the examiner must annotate the first page of the proposed amendment (e.g., “OK to enter”), and provide a statement in the Interview Summary (e.g., “Applicant requested to enter the proposed amendment as a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 to the Pre-Interview Communication, waiving the First-Action Interview Office Action”). The applicant cannot file any additional amendment and/or arguments until the mailing or notification of the next Office action.

    In this situation, a First-Action Interview Office Action will not be provided to the applicant. The Pre-Interview Communication and the interview will be deemed the first Office action on the merits. The interview summary and a completed Notice of References Cited form PTO-892 listing any newly cited references, if any, also will be forwarded to KIPO for consideration by the KIPO examiner of record for the corresponding KIPO counterpart application. The examiner will enter the proposed amendment and/or arguments, consider it as the reply under 37 CFR 1.111, and provide an Office action in response to the reply. The Office action will be the second Office action on the merits, and thus it could be a final Office action, a notice of allowability, or other appropriate action.

    C. Substance of Interview Must Be Made of Record

    A complete written statement as to the substance of the interview with regard to the merits of the application must be made of record in the application, whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached at the interview. It is the applicant's responsibility to make of record the substance of an interview, and it is the examiner's responsibility to see that such a record is made and to correct inaccuracies, including those which bear directly on the question of patentability. See MPEP section 713.04.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16850 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0064] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to add a new system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to add a new system of records, S240.28 DoD, entitled “Case Adjudication Tracking System (CATS)” for personnel security, suitability, fitness, access management, and National Security that provides a common comprehensive medium to record and document personnel security adjudicative actions within the Department, federal agencies, and for DoD contractors; CATS also provides a status of investigative and adjudicative updates to security officers and security managers, and appropriately screened, investigated, and eligible users with direct access to CATS based on a user's specific functions, security eligibility, and access level; This includes the adjudicators in the DoD Central Adjudications Facility (CAF) and personnel security officers in the services, DoD Components, approved non-DoD agencies, and Industry security offices with an approved DD Form 254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification. CATS also provides records to the DoD Personnel Security Research Center (PERSEREC) to create models for personnel security continuous evaluation and insider threat assessment, and compile statistical data used for analyses and studies.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before August 10, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Officer, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. LaDonne L. White, HQ Privacy Officer, Defense Logistics Agency, Headquarters McNamara Complex 8725 John J. Kingman Rd, Suite 3533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 or by calling (703) 767-5045.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Defense Logistics Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on June 19, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: June 22, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. S240.28 DoD System name:

    Case Adjudication Tracking System (CATS)

    System location:

    Department of Defense (DoD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF), 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    DoD civilian employees, federal contractor personnel, active military personnel, reserve and national guard personnel, whose personnel security, suitability, and eligibility for an HSPD-12 compliant credential are adjudicated by the DoD CAF.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Information used to view and review adjudicative actions, determinations, and decisions on summary investigation packages and documenting records conducted by Federal investigative organizations (e.g., U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) and locator references to such investigations. Records documenting fitness determinations, eligibility for an HSPD-12 compliant credential, and the personnel security adjudicated and management process, to include an individual's Social Security Number (SSN); DoD Identification Number (DoD ID Number); name (including current, former, and alternate names); date of birth (DOB); place of birth; country of citizenship; type of DoD affiliation; employing activity; current employment status; position sensitivity; personnel security investigative basis; status of current adjudicative action; security clearance eligibility and access status; whether eligibility determination was based on a condition (personal, medical, or financial), deviation from prescribed investigative standards, or waiver of adjudication guidelines; reports of security-related incidents, to include issue files; suspension of eligibility and/or access; denial or revocation of eligibility and/or access; eligibility recommendations or decisions made by an appellate authority; non-disclosure execution dates; indoctrination date(s); level(s) of access granted; debriefing date(s) and reasons for debriefing; off-site visit requests; foreign travel and contacts; and security reporting, to include results from continuous evaluation and insider threat; and self-reporting.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    E.O. 10450, as amended, Security Requirements for Government Employment; E.O. 10865, as amended, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry; E.O. 12829, as amended, National Industrial Security Program; E.O. 12968, as amended, Access to Classified Information; E.O. 13467, Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information; E.O. 13488, Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractors Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust; E.O. 13478, Amendments to Executive Order 9397 Relating to Federal Agency Use of Social Security Numbers; E.O. 13587, Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information; the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs; DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1400.25, Volume 731, DoD Civilian Personnel Management System: Suitability and Fitness Adjudication for Civilian Employees; DoDI 5200.02, DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP); DoDI 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program (NISP); DoDD 5205.16, DoD Insider Threat Program; DoD Regulation 5200.2R, DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP); DoD Manual 5105.21, Volume 1, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) Administrative Security Manual: Administration of Information and Information Systems Security; Director of National Intelligence, Intelligence Community Directive Number 704, Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information and Other Controlled Access Program Information; Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD-12), Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors; Office of Personnel Management Memorandum, Final Credentialing Standards for Issuing Personal Identity Verification Cards under HSPD-12; and authorities cited therein.

    Purpose(s):

    CATS is an information system for personnel security, suitability, fitness, access management, and National Security that provides a common comprehensive medium to record and document personnel security adjudicative actions within the Department, federal agencies, and for DoD contractors. CATS also provides a status of investigative and adjudicative updates to security officers and security managers, and appropriately screened, investigated, and eligible users with direct access to CATS based on a user's specific functions, security eligibility and access level—this includes the adjudicators in the DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF), DoD Continuous Evaluation Program Analysts, the DoD Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center analysts, and personnel security officers in the Services, DoD Components, approved non-DoD agencies, and Industry security offices with an approved DD Form 254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification. CATS also provides records to the DoD Personnel Security Research Center (PERSEREC) to create models for personnel security continuous evaluation and insider threat assessment, and compile statistical data used for analyses and studies.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To the Department of Justice when: (a) the agency or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records by the Department of Justice is therefore deemed by the agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.

    To a court or adjudicative body in a proceeding when: (a) the agency or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States Government is a party to litigation or has interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is therefore deemed by the agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.

    Except as noted in Sections 23 and 27 {of SF 86}, when a record on its face or in conjunction with other records indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute, particular program statute, regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records may be disclosed to the appropriate Federal, foreign, State, local, tribal, or other public authority responsible for enforcing, investigating, or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, role, regulation, or order.

    To any source or potential source from which information is requested in the course of an investigation concerning the hiring or retention of an employee or other personnel action, or the issuing or retention of a security clearance, contract, grant, license, or other benefit, to the extent necessary to identify the individual, inform the source of the nature and purpose of the investigation, and to identify the type of information requested.

    To a Federal, State, local, foreign, tribal, or other public authority the fact that this system of records contains information relevant to the retention of an employee, or the retention of a security clearance, contract, license, grant, or other benefit. The other agency or licensing organization may then make a request supported by written consent of the individual for the entire record if it so chooses. No disclosure will be made unless the information has been determined to be sufficiently reliable to support a referral to another office within the agency or to another Federal agency for criminal, civil, administrative personnel, or regulatory action.

    To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, or volunteers when necessary to perform a function or service related to this record for which they have been engaged. Such recipients shall be required to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.

    To the news media or the general public, factual information the disclosure of which would be in the public interest and which would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    To a Federal, State, or local agency, or other appropriate entities or individuals, or through established liaison channels to selected foreign governments, in order to enable an intelligence agency to carry out its responsibilities under the national Security Act of 1947 as amended, the CIA Act of 1949 as amended, Executive Order 12333 or an successor order, applicable national security directives, or classified implementing procedures approved by the Attorney General and promulgated pursuant to such statutes, orders, or directives.

    To a Member of Congress or to a Congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the Congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.

    To the National Archives and Records Administration for records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    To the Office of Management and Budget when necessary for the review of private relief legislation.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Paper records and electronic storage media.

    Retrievability:

    Information is retrieved by SSN and/or DOD ID number. When a user does an SCI search, the system requires a DOB and place of birth in addition to SSN and/or DoD ID Number to complete the lookup as an additional security mechanism.

    Safeguards:

    Records are stored on a secure military installation and in a building with 24-hour controlled access. Access to offices requires swipe access with Common Access Card and PIN. Records are maintained under the direct control of office personnel in the CAF during duty hours. Office is locked at all times and alarmed when unoccupied. Access to all records is role based and access to electronic records requires use of Common Access Card and PIN.

    Retention and disposal:

    Disposition pending, treat records as permanent until the National Archives and Records Administration have approved the retention and disposition schedule.

    System manager(s) and address:

    Director, DLA Information Operations (J6) and Chief Information Officer, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to Privacy Access Requests, DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility, 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.

    Requesters should provide full name and any former names used, date and place of birth, and SSN and/or DoD ID Number.

    Record access procedures:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Privacy Access Requests, DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility, 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.

    A request for information must contain the full name and any former names used, date and place of birth, SSN and/or DoD ID Number, and address where the records are to be returned.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for their representative to act on their behalf.

    Contesting record procedures:

    DoD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing adverse adjudication determinations are contained in DoD 5200.2-R, “DoD Personnel Security Program” (January 1987), or may be obtained from the DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Privacy Act Requests, 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.

    Record source categories:

    Information is received from individuals, their attorneys, and other authorized representatives; investigative reports from Federal investigative agencies; personnel security records and correspondence; medical and personnel records, reports, and evaluations; correspondence from employing agencies; and from the following systems: Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System; Defense Civilian Personnel Data System; Electronic Military Personnel Record System-Program; Marine Corps Total Forces System; Total Army Personnel Database (Active, Reserve and Guard); Operational Data Store Enterprise; Navy Accessions Security Information System; Bureau of Naval Personnel; Military Personnel Data System; Air Force Recruiting Information Support System (Active and Reserve); Office of Personnel Management (Federal Investigative Services); Manpower Programming and Execution System (MPES); Joint Access Data System; Special Access Program Personnel Adjudication Database Enterprise.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.

    An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 323. For additional information, contact the system manager.

    [FR Doc. 2015-16576 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [Docket ID: USN-2015-0004] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the United States Marine Corps announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Children, Youth and Teen Programs (CYTP), Marine and Family Programs Division (MFY-3), 3280 Russell Road, Marsh Center, Quantico, VA 22134, or call CYTP at 703-784-9553.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: USMC Children, Youth and Teen Programs (CYTP) Registration Packet; NAVMC 11720, NAVMC 1750/4, and NAVMC 1750/5; OMB Control Number 0703-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collected on these forms is used by Marine Corps Family Care Programs (MFP) and Inclusion Action Team (IAT) professionals for purposes of patron registration, to determine the general health status of patrons participating in CYTP activities and if necessary the appropriate accommodations for the patron for full enjoyment of CYTP services, and provides consent for information to be exchanged between MFP personnel and other designated individuals or organizations about a patron participating in MFP. These forms may potentially be completed by a member of the public. Collected information will be filed pursuant to the Privacy Act System of Records Notice NM01754-3.

    NAVMC 1750/5 USMC Children, Youth & Teen Programs (CYTP) Registration Form:

    Annual Burden Hours: 56,000.

    Number of Respondents: 112,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    NAVMC 1750/4 USMC Children, Youth & Teen Programs (CYTP) Health Assessment and Health Screening Tool for Inclusion Action Team (IAT):

    Annual Burden Hours: 56,000.

    Number of Respondents: 112,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    NAVMC 11720 USMC Family Care Programs—Consent to Release Information:

    Annual Burden Hours: 32,167.

    Number of Respondents: 193,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Total:

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 165,000.

    Number of Respondents: 198,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Annual Responses: 396,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 25 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondents are MFP patrons who provide information to MFP and IAT personnel in order to allow the child to participate in CYTP activities, determine the general health status of patrons participating in CYTP activities, and if necessary, determine the appropriate accommodations for the patron for full enjoyment of CYTP services, and provide consent for information about the patron from other specified individuals and organizations. These forms provide CYTP personnel with demographic information and emergency contact information. It also allows parents/guardians to provide consent for specific activities that may take place while participating in CYTP. Failure to provide information may limit MFP's ability to properly consider participants' health and special needs, adversely impact individuals from participation in CYTP activities, and will limit MFP's ability to communicate with organizations or individuals outside of DoD which may adversely affect available services. Having these forms is essential in providing the requested child care services and activities to all CYTP participants, and maintaining the continuity of care, safety and health of CYTP participants.

    Dated: July 6, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16785 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0090] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; EDFacts Data Collection School Years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revised information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 8, 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-0090 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 Kashka Kubzdela, (202) 502-7411.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: EDFacts Data Collection School Years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19.

    OMB Control Number: 1850—NEW (previously 1875-0240).

    Type of Review: A revised information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 61.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 126,880.

    Abstract: EDFacts is a U.S. Department of Education (ED) initiative to collect, analyze, report on and promote the use of high-quality, pre-kindergarten through grade 12 (pre-K-12) performance data for use in education planning, policymaking, and management and budget decision making to improve outcomes for students. EDFacts enables the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to report on students, schools, staff, services, and education outcomes at the state, district, and school levels, by centralizing data provided by state education agencies, local education agencies, and schools. This centralized approach provides ED users with the ability to efficiently analyze and report on submitted data and has reduced the reporting burden for state and local data producers through the use of streamlined data collection, analysis, and reporting tools. EDFacts collects information on behalf of ED grant and program offices for approximately 180 data groups for all 50 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, and seven outlying areas and freely associated states (American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Republic of Palau, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). NCES seeks authorization from OMB to continue its EDFacts data collection and is requesting a new clearance for the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 school years in order to continue to provide EDFacts data to Department of Education program offices, as well as SEAs, LEAs, and schools. This collection package will be available for public comment during two open periods, a 60 day and a 30 day, and revisions will be made accordingly. This submission includes a few proposed changes to the EDFacts data collection. In addition to reviewing the proposed changes (detailed in Attachment C and the B Attachments), ED requests that SEAs and other stakeholders respond to the directed questions found in Attachment D.

    Dated: July 6, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16798 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Power Transformer Reserve AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Request for information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), is seeking comments and information from interested parties to inform its policy development related to the possible establishment of a national reserve of power transformers that support the bulk power grid. The focus of the RFI is on the design and implementation of a National Power Transformer Reserve Program.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments can be submitted by any of the following methods and must be identified as “Transformer Reserve.” By the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. By email: [email protected], and include “Transformer Reserve” in the subject line of the message. By mail: Alice Lippert, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-078, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Note: Delivery of the U.S. Postal Service mail to DOE may be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. DOE, therefore, encourages those wishing to comment to submit comments electronically by email.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Alice Lippert, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 at [email protected], 202-586-9600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The U.S. electricity sector operates a complex and highly reliable electric power system, upon which the Nation's economy and security depend. The North American Bulk Power System (BPS) is extensive, consisting of various infrastructure components, including transformers, switches, transmission towers and lines, control centers, and computer controls. Of the BPS' physical infrastructure, large power transformers (LPTs) are critical components, because the reliable operation of the BPS depends heavily on the safe and efficient operation of a network of interconnected LPTs.

    LPTs have long been a concern for the U.S. electricity sector because the failure of a single unit can interrupt electricity service to a large number of customers and lead to collateral damage, and it could be difficult to quickly replace it. LPTs are large, custom-designed pieces of equipment that entail a significant capital expenditure and a long lead-time to manufacture and ship. LPTs are not usually interchangeable. System owners often own and maintain spare LPTs at a number sufficient to mitigate risks from premature failure. The limited availability of spare LPTs, and the long lead times to procure replacements, could pose a potential threat to the availability and reliability of the Nation's bulk power system in the event of an emergency where a relatively large number of existing LPTs are damaged or destroyed.

    Large-scale disruptions to the U.S. BPS are rare; however, it faces a wide variety of evolving threats, including but not limited to: Cyber and physical security intrusions, weather-related incidents; geomagnetic disturbances (GMD); and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects. The electricity sector serves one of the four lifeline functions as identified by the Department of Homeland Security, which means that its reliable operation is so critical that a disruption or loss of electricity will directly affect the security and resilience of other critical infrastructure and the Nation.

    The recently released “Quadrennial Energy Review, Energy Transmission, Storage and Distribution Infrastructure Report, April 2015,” recommends that “DOE should coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies, States, and industry—an initiative to mitigate the risks associated with the loss of transformers (p. 2-42).” This request for comment is an initial step in executing that recommendation. Part of the national strategy to reduce risk from large power transformers, which has been under development by the DOE, includes assessing the need for a reserve of LPTs.

    II. Request for Information

    For the reasons stated above, DOE is exploring possible National strategies to mitigate risk to the reliability of the bulk power system arising from the loss of LPTs. This RFI provides the public, and industry stakeholders, the opportunity to provide their view on the development and structure of a National program to establish and maintain large power transformer reserves in the United States. The intent of this RFI is to solicit information pertinent to the need and viability—regulatory, economic, and technical—of such a program. The information obtained is meant to be used by DOE for program design and strategy development purposes. In your comments, please reference the question(s) to which you are responding. Please also provide supporting information if noted, including studies, reports, data, and examples relevant to mitigating the risks associated with the loss of LPTs.

    1. Program Need

    Is there a need for a National Power Transformer Reserve? How would such a reserve affect the reliability and resiliency of the North American bulk power system? Are there alternatives to a power transformer reserve program that can help ensure the reliability, resiliency, and recovery of the bulk power system? Is there a need for a nationally-maintained inventory of large power transformers?

    2. Power Transformer Criteria

    What types and sizes of power transformers should be considered for inclusion in a transformer reserve program versus operational spare capacity? What are the design considerations for replacement transformers to support the bulk power system?

    3. Ownership and Economics

    What would be an appropriate structure for procuring and inventorying power transformers? How, and by whom, should a program of this type be administered? How would a transformer reserve be funded?

    4. Technical Considerations

    Is it technically feasible to develop a reserve of large power transformers when most are custom engineered? Is additional research and development (R&D) necessary to develop suitable replacement transformers that can be rapidly deployed from inventory in the event of an emergency?

    5. Procurement and Management

    How should procurement, maintenance and management of the reserve power transformers be conducted? For example, should manufacturers be pre-qualified, and if so, according to what criteria?

    6. Supply Chain

    What are the critical supply chain components for the manufacture and delivery of large power transformers (e.g., electrical steel, copper, silicone, high voltage bushings, etc.)? Are there shortages or other considerations that could necessitate using the Defense Production Act Priority Ratings to ensure sufficient parts are available in a time of need? Are there related skilled workforce issues?

    7. Manufacturing

    Is there adequate manufacturing capacity to support a transformer reserve program? What is the lead time for engineering, manufacture, and delivery of large power transformers? Are there approaches that could help to speed manufacture and delivery of large power transformers?

    8. Transport and Deployment

    What specialized transport infrastructure would be necessary to ship large power transformers from manufacturing site to storage locations, and from storage locations to field site in the event of an emergency? What should be the number and location of transformer storage sites? What are feasible delivery times for LPTs that reside in a reserve to an affected site?

    9. Field Engineering and Installation

    Are there adequate domestic engineering and installation resources available throughout the United States to install multiple bulk power transformers simultaneously? What additional resources would be necessary?

    10. Criteria for Deploying Transformers

    What criteria should be used for activating and deploying transformers from the reserve? How would deployment be funded?

    11. Additional Comments

    Are there additional concerns regarding a National Power Transformer Reserve Program that need to be considered?

    Issued at Washington, DC, on July 2, 2015. Patricia A. Hoffman, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16784 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Bioproducts To Enable Biofuels Workshop AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing a public workshop entitled, “Bioproducts to Enable Biofuels Workshop”. The Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) is seeking to collect information from key industry, university, national laboratory, and other stakeholders regarding challenges associated with the coproduction of biomass derived chemicals, products, and biofuels.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will be held on July 16, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. MDT in Westminster, Colorado.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at The Westin Westminster, 10600 Westminster Blvd., Westminster, Colorado 80020.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions may be directed to Andrea Bailey at 303-425-6800 ext. 460 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Meeting

    BETO seeks to collect information from key industry, university, national laboratory, and other stakeholders regarding the challenges associated with the coproduction of biomass-derived chemicals, products, and biofuels. The following topic areas of interest are intended to be covered at the workshop:

    1. Identifying and evaluating economic drivers for producing bioproducts.

    2. Identifying and prioritizing targets for bioproducts produced from biofuel waste streams, coproduced with biofuels, or produced at standalone facilities.

    3. Identifying research and development challenges associated with bioproducts produced from biofuel waste streams, coproduced with biofuels, or produced at standalone facilities.

    4. Identifying environmental considerations (i.e., life-cycle analysis), carbon percentage dedicated to fuels vs. products (i.e., split stream), and ideal intermediates for bioproduct production to enable biofuels.

    Public Participation

    Members of the public are welcome to attend the workshop. Registration is free and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online by 4 p.m. MDT, July 15, 2015. Early registration is recommended because facilities are limited and, therefore, DOE may limit the number of participants from each organization. To register for the public workshop, please visit http://www.yesevents.com/MEGABio2015. Registrants will receive confirmation after they have been accepted. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Andrea Bailey no later than July 15, 2015.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2015. Kevin Craig, Program Manager—Bioenergy Technologies Office, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16786 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Information Administration Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Agency Information Collection Activities: Information collection extension with changes; notice of request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The EIA, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Petroleum Supply Program (OMB No. 1905-0165). EIA is soliciting comments on the proposed revisions to the following forms: EIA-22M, “Monthly Biodiesel, Biojet, Biokerosene and Renewable Diesel Report,” (previously the EIA-22M, “Biodiesel Production Report”), EIA-800, “Weekly Refinery and Fractionator Report,” EIA-802, “Weekly Product Pipeline Report,” EIA-803, “Weekly Crude Oil Stocks Report,” EIA-804, “Weekly Imports Report,” EIA-805, “Weekly Bulk Terminal and Blender Report,” EIA-809, “Weekly Oxygenate Report,” EIA-810, “Monthly Refinery Report,” EIA-812, “Monthly Product Pipeline Report,” EIA-813, “Monthly Crude Oil Report,” EIA-814, “Monthly Imports Report,” EIA-815, “Monthly Bulk Terminal and Blender Report,” EIA-816, “Monthly Natural Gas Plant Liquids Report,” EIA-817, “Monthly Tanker, Barge and Rail Movement and Stocks in Transit Report” (previously the “Monthly Tanker and Barge Movement Report”), EIA-819, “Monthly Biofuel and Oxygenate Report,” (previously the “Monthly Oxygenate Report” and EIA-820, “Annual Refinery Report.” Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 8, 2015. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Shawna Waugh via email at ([email protected]). The mailing address is the Petroleum and Biofuels Statistics, EI-25, Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. [Note that the receipt of mailed comments is sometimes delayed]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of any forms and instructions should be directed to Shawna Waugh at the address listed above. The proposed forms and changes in definitions and instructions are available on EIA's Web site at: http://www.eia.gov/survey/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1905-0165; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Petroleum Supply Reporting System; (3) Type of Request: Three-year extension; (4) Purpose: The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 761 et seq.) and the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) require the EIA to carry out a centralized, comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and related economic and statistical information. This information is used to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet near and longer term domestic demands and to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.

    The EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), provides the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to comment on collections of energy information conducted by or in conjunction with the EIA. Also, the EIA will later seek approval for this collection by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Section 3507(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    The weekly petroleum supply surveys (Forms EIA-800, EIA-802, EIA-803, EIA-804, EIA-805 and EIA-809) are designed to provide an early, initial estimate of weekly petroleum refinery and fractionator operations, inventory levels, and imports of selected petroleum products in a timely manner. The information appears in the publications listed below and is also available electronically on EIA's Web site at http://www.eia.doe.gov/.

    Publications: Internet only publications are the Weekly Petroleum Status Report (http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/weekly/), Short-Term Energy Outlook (http://www/forecasts/steo/), and This Week in Petroleum (http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/).

    The monthly petroleum supply surveys (Forms EIA-22M, EIA-810, EIA-812, EIA-813, EIA-814, EIA-815, EIA-816, EIA-817, and EIA-819) are designed to provide statistically reliable and comprehensive monthly information to EIA, other Federal agencies, and the private sector for use in forecasting, policy making, planning, and analysis activities. The information appears in the publications listed below and is also available electronically on EIA's Web site at http://www.eia.doe.gov/.

    Publications: Internet only publications are the Petroleum Supply Monthly (http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/monthly/), Company-Level Imports (http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/imports/companylevel/), the Petroleum Supply Annual, Volume 1 (http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/annual/volume1/), the Annual Energy Outlook (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm); and the Monthly Biodiesel Production Report (http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biodiesel/production/).

    The annual refinery survey (Form EIA-820) provides data on refinery capacities, fuels consumed, natural gas consumed as hydrogen feedstock, and crude oil receipts by method of transportation, for operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction), and refineries shutdown during the previous year. The information appears in the Refinery Capacity Report (http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/) and the Refinery Outage Report (http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinery/outage/).

    Please refer to the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the “For Further Information Contact” section.

    (4a) Proposed Changes to Information Collection: The following changes are proposed to the data elements collected on surveys in the Petroleum Supply Reporting System.

    We propose the following changes to the geographical detail collected and published on surveys.

    Midwest (Petroleum Administration for Defense District 2): EIA proposes two new subregions for the Midwest, PADD 2. as follows: Subregion PADD 2A will include Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin and Subregion PADD 2B will include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Given the increased production of crude oil in the proposed new PADD 2A Subregion, there is increasing interest in the flows of crude oil into and out of that area. This change will allow EIA to track movements of crude oil from Subregion PADD 2A to other parts of the Midwest and to also provide more detailed regional data on inventories of propane, a key heating fuel, during winter months. This change applies to Forms EIA-812, EIA-813, and EIA-817.

    Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Island (PADD 6): We propose to add PADD 6 because this information is needed to report to the International Energy Agency (IEA). This change applies to Forms EIA-813 and EIA-817.

    Texas Gulf Coast Refining District: We propose to collect data on crude oil inventories in tank farms in the Texas Gulf Coast as a subset of total PADD 3 inventories, in a manner comparable to those collected for tank farms in Cushing, Oklahoma. The Texas Gulf Coast is composed of the counties that define the Texas Gulf Coast Refinery District. This area includes the Houston Ship Channel and the Corpus Christi area, both areas where crude oil inventory levels are critical for oil markets. This change applies to Forms EIA-803 and EIA-813.

    We propose to revise and rearrange categories for reporting biofuel, distillate fuel oil (by sulfur category), hydrocarbon gas liquids, kerosene-type jet fuel, and motor gasoline on select surveys as indicated below.

    Biofuels: We propose to collect data on biofuel products for the following categories (and subcategories): Ethanol (cellulosic and noncellulosic), Butanol, Biodiesel, Biojet and biokerosene (cellulosic and noncellulosic), bionaphtha and biogasoline (cellulosic and noncellulosic), and other (cellulosic and noncellulosic). This change assures continued relevance of the data and improves market coverage by accommodating potential for introduction of new biofuels. This change applies to all the monthly survey forms except Forms EIA-813 and EIA-816.

    Distillate Fuel Oil: We propose to reduce from four to three the number of categories of distillate fuel oil, based on sulfur content. We currently collect the following four distillate categories (by sulfur content): (1) Less than 15 parts per million (ppm), (2) 15-500 ppm, (3) 500-2000 ppm, and (4) greater than or equal to 2000 ppm. We plan to merge the latter two categories, 500-2000 ppm, and greater than or equal to 2000 ppm, into a single category—distillates with greater than 500 ppm of sulfur. Federal and State legislation requires more areas to use distillate fuel that contains less than 15 ppm sulfur, also known as Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) Many Northeast states also require that ULSD be used for heating purposes. While there are diminishing volumes of 15-500 ppm distillate fuel produced currently, capturing its production and disposition is important for maintaining data quality control, so we've proposed to continue collecting it even though we intend to publish data for the categories of ULSD and other distillate fuel.

    Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids (formerly Natural Gas Plant Liquids (NGPL) and Liquefied Refinery Gases (LRG): We propose to adopt EIA's framework for Hydrocarbon Gas Liquid that was described in the report “Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids (HGL): Recent Market Trends and Issues,” released November, 2014, and available at http://www.eia.gov/analysis/hgl. We have rearranged the existing categories to include the following categories (and sub-categories): Ethane/Ethylene (Ethane by sources (Gas Plant and Refinery) and Ethylene); Propane/Propylene (Propane by source (Gas Plant and Refinery)) and Propylene); Normal Butane/Butylene (Normal Butane by sources (Gas Plant and Refinery (Refinery Grade and excluding Refinery Grade)) and Butylene); Isobutane/Isobutylene (Isobutane by sources (Gas Plant and Refinery) and Isobutylene; Natural Gasoline (previously Pentanes Plus). We also propose to add categories for Plant Condensate and Consumer and Export-Grade Propane. The primary reason for this rearrangement of categories and subcategories is to use the same categories to collect data consistently across all EIA surveys. This change applies to all of the survey forms except for Forms EIA-22M, 803, 809, and 813.

    Kerosene-type Jet Fuel: We propose to discontinue breaking out the end use categories of commercial and military and only collect total kerosene jet-fuel as a single category. Military jet fuel represents less than three percent (3%) of all jet fuel produced in 2014. We expect sales for military use to continue to decline further as a result of the military's decision to allow military aircraft to use commercial grade jet fuel. We do not foresee any impact on analytical capabilities as a result of this change. This change applies only to Forms EIA-800 and EIA-810.

    Motor Gasoline: We propose to reduce the number of motor gasoline categories from nine to five. We propose to collect the following data on motor gasoline and blending components: Motor gasoline blended with less than 51 volume percent ethanol (<E51), motor gasoline blended with 51 volume percent ethanol or more (≥E51), motor gasoline not blended with ethanol, motor gasoline blending components, and reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB). Currently, the gasoline categories are based upon reformulated and conventional gasoline. The new categories EIA proposes are based on gasoline with ethanol and gasoline without ethanol. We expect this change will support and improve the utility of the information needed for important analytical and policy issues relating to gasoline markets at this time and in the future. This change applies to all of the survey forms except for Forms EIA-22M, 803, 809, and 813.

    Pipeline and Tank Farm activities: We propose to collect data separately for pipelines and tank farms. These changes apply to the following Forms: EIA-803 and EIA-813.

    Storage Capacity: We propose to discontinue storage capacity on Forms EIA-812 and EIA-819. We currently collect storage capacity twice a year (as of March 31 and September 30). Collecting storage capacity of product pipelines and ethanol plants did not provide useful information for assessing available petroleum supplies. Product pipeline inventories are used for operational purposes, not commercial purposes. Stocks held at fuel ethanol plants also are primarily for operational rather than commercial purposes. EIA will still collect storage capacity data for petroleum products held at terminals and refineries. Discontinuing the collection of storage capacity on Forms EIA-812 and EIA-819 will eliminate confusion in analyzing storage capacity utilization and improve data quality. Storage Capacity in Operation: We propose to discontinue reporting storage capacity by the subcategories for exclusive use and leased to others on Forms EIA-813 and EIA-815. This data is no longer needed for analysis purposes.

    Stocks in Transit: We propose to discontinue collecting stocks in transit by tanker, barge and rail on Forms EIA-800, 802, 803, 805, 809, 810, 812, 813, 815, 816, and 819. EIA proposes to collect the stocks in transit data at the corporate level on the EIA-817. Collecting this stock information on one form reduces respondent burden and will improve data quality.

    Unit of Measurement: We propose to collect data in actual barrels rather than thousand barrels. For some of our data collection we are missing small volumes from respondents because they are reporting in thousands of barrels. These missing volumes may not add up to a large volume, but data for some small-volume products, such as certain biofuels and fuels blended with biofuels, are important for assessment of important policy decisions. For example, if a respondent produces less than 500 barrels of E85, they would report that production as zero (0) when using current thousand barrels reporting units. Under this proposal, they would report the actual volume they produced. Rather than collecting information by two different units of measurement using barrels, EIA proposes to apply this change consistently across all of the surveys except for the EIA-22M which collects data in gallons.

    We propose to make the following survey-specific changes to forms in this program.

    We propose to change the scope and title of the EIA-22M, “Monthly Biodiesel Production Report” to the EIA-22M, “Biodiesel, Biojet, Biokerosene and Renewable Diesel Report.” We are expanding the survey to collect data on renewable fuels in addition to biodiesel as growth is anticipated in the renewable fuels industry in the future.

    We propose to eliminate parts 3D “Sales of B100 and blended biodiesel” and 3E “End use sales of biodiesel” from the current Form EIA-22M. Data from these sections of the survey form were found not to be useful for analysis of available biodiesel supplies.

    We propose to expand part 2A of the existing Form EIA-22M to include capacities of renewable diesel fuel plants in addition to biodiesel producers. We also propose to expand part 3A of the existing Form EIA-22M to account for production and blending of noncellulosic biofuels (biojet, biokerosene, renewable diesel fuel, and other) and cellulosic biofuels (cellulosic distillate fuel, cellulosic biojet and biokerosene, and other). Information on production and blending are relevant to understand activities of the renewable and biofuel industries.

    We propose to collect Input and Production of Unfinished Oils instead of Total Input” on Part 3: Refinery and Fractionator Activity on Form EIA-800, “Weekly Refinery and Fractionator Report.” We are trying to collect more relevant data for data users on refinery activities.

    We propose to discontinue collecting data on volumes of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel (15 ppm and under) downgraded during the report week on Part 4: Diesel Fuel Downgrade on Form EIA-802, “Weekly Product Pipeline Report.” This data is no longer relevant.

    We propose to change the list of countries in Part 4: Total U.S. Crude Oil Imports by Country of Origin and to adopt the U.S. Census Bureau's country codes on Form EIA-804, “Weekly Imports Report.” We propose to allow companies to report imports from 31 countries from which the U.S. imported the most crude oil during 2015, and for Iran. Crude oil imports from any other countries are reported in the “Other” country category. We anticipate this change will enhance information quality.

    We propose to collect ethanol and to discontinue collecting denatured and undenatured ethanol separately on Form EIA-809, “Weekly Oxygenate Report.”

    We propose to discontinue collecting lease inventories on Form EIA-813, “Monthly Crude Oil Report.” Lease inventories are inventories stored at crude oil production sites. The purpose of stocks held on oil and gas producing leases (lease stocks) is to facilitate oil and gas production operations. Lease stocks are typically held only long enough for oil to be picked up by trucks or otherwise removed from production sites. While the total number of barrels held as lease stocks is significant, the barrels are widely dispersed at producing sites with only small quantities at any given location. For these reasons, we have determined that continued tracking of lease stocks on EIA surveys has limited value for assessment of crude oil supplies available to markets. In addition, our research has shown that some or all of the barrels included as lease stocks are actually outside of the U.S. and regional crude oil balances developed by EIA because barrels may be recorded as crude oil production, which is the first supply component of our balance, only after the barrels are withdrawn from lease stocks. EIA will create and publish historical data series of crude oil stocks excluding lease stocks in order to meet analyst requirements for crude oil inventory data that are consistent over time.

    We propose to continue to collect data on API gravity, sulfur content, processing plant name and location of crude oil and to continue to collect data on sulfur categories for distillate fuels. However, we will discontinue collecting data for the processing plants name and location of unfinished oils and motor gasoline blending components on Form EIA-814, “Monthly Imports Report.” We have determined that the data proposed for elimination on Form EIA-814 have limited value and the respondent burden for reporting was not justified.

    No additional changes proposed for Form EIA-815, “Monthly Terminal Blenders Report.”

    We propose to add plant condensate to Part 2 of Form EIA-816, “Monthly Natural Gas Liquids Report.” In addition, we are asking in Part 2 for the volume blended into crude oil. The quantity of plant condensate blended into crude oil is important as a way to balance crude oil supply and disposition and thereby reduce the crude oil adjustment (unaccounted-for crude oil) quantity.

    We propose to change the title of Form EIA-817, “Monthly Tanker and Barge Movements Report” to EIA-817, Monthly Tanker, Barge, and Rail Movements and Stocks in Transit Report.” We intend to collect rail movements and stocks in transit for all Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADDs) and select sub-PADDs on this survey. Rail movements of crude oil and petroleum products have increased in recent years due to changes in the regional distribution of crude oil, petroleum product, and biofuel supplies. Based on cognitive interviews with companies that report on Form EIA-817, respondents indicated that reporting stocks in transit on a company basis reduces respondent burden and improves data quality.

    We propose to change the title of Form EIA-819 “Monthly Oxygenate Report” to EIA-819 “Monthly Biofuel and Oxygenate Report”. We also plan to reorganize the Form EIA-819 to clarify reporting requirements. The new Form EIA-819 will have separate sections for reporting biofuel production, non-biofuel oxygenate production, and blending activity involving biofuels, petroleum products, and hydrocarbon gas liquids. In addition, product details will be added to identify products as non-cellulosic biofuels (ethanol, butanol, bionaphtha and biogasoline, and other) and cellulosic biofuels (cellulosic ethanol, cellulosic naphtha and gasoline, and other). Currently EIA collects petroleum refinery fuel consumption data, but not renewable fuel plant consumption data. Collecting this data will allow analysts and modelers to gauge trends in energy efficiency at ethanol and biodiesel plants as they do now with data collected from petroleum refineries.

    Gasoline products included in Part 6 “Blending Activity including Addition of Denaturants” will be updated with new gasoline products described earlier. We also propose to add normal butane and isobutane in addition to natural gasoline (formerly pentanes plus) to Part 6. We are also expanding the coverage from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, to the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

    In addition to clarifying reporting requirements by separating activities into separate sections of the form, the addition of new products will position EIA to provide data on new biofuel products that may become important sources of U.S. fuel supplies.

    We propose to redesign the layout of Part 1 and 2 of the forms due to the new electronic modes of data collection. Most of this information will be prepopulated and we will use skip patterns to request respondents provide updates as needed. We are doing this to reduce respondent burden. This change applies to all of the surveys.

    Please refer to the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose of the survey, who must submit, when to submit, provision for confidentiality, elements to be reported, and uses (including nonstatistical uses) of the information. These materials are available on EIA's Web site at http://www.eia.gov/survey/.

    (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,503.

    (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 102,656.

    (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 198,321.

    (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: EIA estimates that there are no additional costs to respondents associated with the surveys other than the costs associated with the burden hours. The information is maintained in the normal course of business. The cost of burden hours to the respondents is estimated to be $14,273,162 (198,321 burden hours times $71.97 per hour), which represents a reduction of 15,241 burden hours from the prior renewal of this collection in 2013. Therefore, other than the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates that there are no additional costs for generating, maintaining and providing the information.

    Statutory Authority:

    Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, P.L. 93-275, codified at 15 U.S.C. 772(b).

    Issued in Washington, DC, July 2, 2015. Nanda Srinivasan, Director, Survey Development and Statistics Integration, U.S. Energy Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16783 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9926-06-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Alaska AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Alaska's request to revise/modify its EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective July 9, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On January 20, 2010, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) submitted an application titled “Water Online Application System (OASys)” for revision/modification of its EPA-authorized authorized Part 123 program under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed ADEC's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision/modification set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Alaska's request to revise/modify its Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 122 is being published in the Federal Register.

    ADEC was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Collection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16252 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9930-36-Region 8] Proposed Settlement Agreement for Iron Springs Mining District Site, Uncompahgre National Forest, San Miguel County, Colorado AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; Request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), notice is hereby given of the proposed Administrative Settlement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) (collectively the “Agencies”), and Union Oil Company of California, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “the Settling Party”). The Settling Party will pay within 30 days after the effective date of this Proposed Agreement ($403,300) to the EPA, ($14,573) to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and ($357,677) to the USFS for past response costs. The covenants provided by the Agencies to the Settling Party are conditioned upon the satisfactory performance by Settling Party of its obligations under this Settlement Agreement. The payments made by Settling Party in accordance with this Settlement Agreement do not constitute an admission of any liability by Settling Party.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    The proposed agreement is available by appointment for public inspection at the EPA Superfund Record Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, during normal business hours. Appointments for review may be made by calling the EPA Superfund Records Center at (303) 312-7273. Comments and requests for a copy of the proposed agreement should be addressed to Michael Rudy, Enforcement Specialist, Environmental Protection Agency—Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-RC, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, and should reference the Iron Springs Mining District Site, the EPA Docket No. CERCLA-08-2015-0005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Rudy, Enforcement Specialist, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-ENF, at the above address, (303) 312-6332.

    Dated: June 16, 2015. Kelcey Land, Director, Technical Enforcement Program, Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16810 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OA-2006-0278; FRL-9926-69-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Procurements Under EPA Financial Assistance Agreements (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Procurement under EPA Financial Assistance Agreements (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2047.05, OMB Control No. 2090-0030) 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.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 10087) on February 25, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2006-0278 to (1) EPA 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, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    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:

    Teree Henderson, Office of Small Business Programs, mail code: 1230T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-2222; fax number: 202-566-0548; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: EPA currently requires an entity to be certified in order to be considered a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) or Women's Business Enterprise (WBE) under EPA's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program. To qualify as an MBE or WBE under EPA's programs, an entity must establish that it is owned and/or controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who are of good character and are citizens of the United States. The EPA DBE Program also includes contract administration requirements designed to prevent unfair practices that adversely affect DBEs.

    Form Numbers: 6100-1a, 6100-1b, 6100-1c, 6100-1d, 6100-1e, 6100-1f, 6100-1g, 6100-1h, 6100-1i, 6100-2, 6100-3, and 6100-4.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: All recipients of EPA financial assistance agreements, and entities receiving identified loans under a financial assistance agreement capitalizing a revolving loan fund.

    Respondent's Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit per 40 CFR part 33, subpart B and 40 CFR part 33, subpart E.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,865 (total).

    Frequency of Response: Certification: On occasion.

    Total Estimated Burden: 11,614 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total Estimated Cost: $362,712 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16751 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 15-627] Notice of Suspension and Commencement of Proposed Debarment Proceedings; Federal Lifeline Universal Service Support Mechanism AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) gives notice of Icon Telecom, Inc.'s (Icon or Company) suspension from the federal Lifeline universal service support mechanism (Lifeline program) and the commencement of debarment proceedings against the Company. Suspension immediately excludes Icon from activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program pending completion of the debarment process. Icon, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with the Company to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program, may contest this suspension or its scope by filing an opposition and any relevant documentation.

    DATES:

    Any opposition must be received within 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or July 9, 2015, whichever comes first. The Bureau will decide any opposition within 90 days of its receipt.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-A422, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-A422, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Celia Lewis may be contacted by telephone at (202) 418-7456 or email at [email protected] If Ms. Lewis is unavailable, you may contact Mr. Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at (202) 418-0796 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 0.111(a)(14). Icon's conviction for making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1002(a)(2), in connection with fraudulent claims against the Lifeline program, requires the Bureau to suspend the Company from participating in activities associated with the Lifeline program. Attached is the notice of suspension and initiation of debarment proceeding (Notice of Suspension), DA 15-627, which was mailed to Icon and released on May 26, 2015. The complete text of the Notice of Suspension is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

    Federal Communications Commission. Jeffrey J. Gee, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. May 26, 2015 DA 15-627 SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Wes Yui Chew, President, Icon Telecom, Inc., c/o Daniel G. Webber, Jr., Ryan Whaley Coldiron Shandy PLLC, 119 N. Robinson Avenue, Suite 900, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Re: Notice of suspension and initiation of debarment proceeding File No. EB-IHD-15-00019108

    Dear Mr. Chew: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has received notice of the conviction of Icon Telecom, Inc. (Icon or Company) for making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1002(a)(2), in connection with fraudulent claims against the federal Lifeline telephone program (Lifeline program).1 Pursuant to its rules, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) hereby suspends Icon from participating in activities associated with the Lifeline program.2 The Bureau is also commencing a proceeding to debar Icon from future participation in the Lifeline program.3

    1 Any further reference in this letter to “your conviction” refers to your guilty plea and subsequent sentencing in United States v. Icon Telecom, Criminal Docket No. 5:14-cr-00170-D, Plea Agreement (W.D. Okla. filed June 12, 2014) (Plea Agreement). See also Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket No. 03-109, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656 (2012) (Lifeline Reform Order).

    2 47 CFR 54.8.

    3Id.; 47 CFR 0.111 (delegating to the Bureau authority to resolve universal service suspension and debarment proceedings). In 2007, the Commission extended the debarment rules to apply to all federal universal service support mechanisms, including Lifeline. See Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, & Oversight, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16372, 16410-12 (2007) (Program Management Order) (renumbering section 54.521 of the universal service debarment rules as section 54.8 and amending subsections (a)(1), (a)(5), (c), (d), (e)(2)(i), (e)(3), (e)(4), and (g)).

    I. Notice of Suspension

    Any corporation that has “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the [Lifeline program]” may be prohibited from receiving the benefits associated with that program.4 The Lifeline program is a government program that provides support to eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that in turn offer discounts on telephone service for eligible low-income consumers.5 An ETC may receive reimbursement in connection with the Lifeline program only if it certifies as part of its reimbursement request that it is in compliance with the Lifeline rules.6

    4Program Management Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 16387, para. 32. The Commission's debarment rules define a “person” as “[a]ny individual, group of individuals, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government or legal entity, however organized.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(6).

    5See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6662-67, paras. 11-18; see also 47 CFR 54.400-54.422.

    6See 47 CFR 54.407(d).

    Icon participated in the Lifeline program from July 2011 until September 2013.7 On June 12, 2014, Icon pled guilty to knowingly making a false statement to the Universal Service Administrative Company 8 through its submission of 58 fabricated customer recertification forms, which included fictitious signatures, in response to an audit request.9

    7United States v. Icon Telecom, Criminal Docket No. 5:14-cr-00170-D, Information at 4 (W.D. Okla. filed June 3, 2014) (Information).

    8 The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation designated by the Commission as the administrator of the Lifeline program. See About USAC, http://www.usac.org/about/.

    9Information at 8; Plea Agreement at 2; see also United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma, Press Release, Icon Telecom and Its Owner Plead Guilty And Agree To Forfeit More Than $27 Million In Connection With Federal Wireless Telephone Subsidy Program, June 12, 2014, available at http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdok/pr/icon-telecom-and-its-owner-plead-guilty-and-agree-forfeit-more-27-million-connection.

    Pursuant to section 54.8(b) of the Commission's rules,10 Icon's conviction requires the Bureau to suspend it from participating in any activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program, including receiving funds or discounted services through the Lifeline program, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the Lifeline program.11 Icon's suspension becomes effective upon either its receipt of this letter or publication of the suspension in the Federal Register, whichever comes first.12

    10 47 CFR 54.8(a)(4); see Program Management Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 16387, para. 32.

    11 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1), (d).

    12Id. § 54.8(e)(1).

    In accordance with the Commission's suspension and debarment rules, Icon may contest this suspension or its scope by filing arguments, with any relevant documents, within thirty (30) calendar days of its receipt of this letter or publication of the suspension in the Federal Register, whichever comes first.13 Such requests, however, will not ordinarily be granted.14 The Bureau may reverse or limit the scope of a suspension only upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances.15 The Bureau will decide any request to reverse or modify a suspension within ninety (90) calendar days of its receipt of such request.16

    13Id. § 54.8(e)(4).

    14Id.

    15Id. § 54.8(f).

    16Id. §§ 54.8(e)(5), (f).

    II. Initiation of Debarment Proceedings

    In addition to Icon's immediate suspension from the Lifeline program, its conviction is cause for debarment as defined in section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules.17 Therefore, pursuant to section 54.8(b) of the Commission's rules, Icon's conviction requires the Bureau to commence debarment proceedings against it.18

    17 “Causes for suspension and debarment are conviction of or civil judgment for attempt or commission of criminal fraud, theft, embezzlement, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, receiving stolen property, making false claims, obstruction of justice and other fraud or criminal offense arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism, the high-cost support mechanism, the rural healthcare support mechanism, and the low-income support mechanism.” Id. § 54.8(c). Associated activities “include the receipt of funds or discounted services through [the federal universal service] support mechanisms, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding [the federal universal service] support mechanisms.” Id. § 54.8(a)(1).

    18Id. § 54.8(b).

    As with the suspension process, Icon may contest the proposed debarment or its scope by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this letter or its publication in the Federal Register, whichever comes first.19 The Bureau, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, will notify Icon of its decision to debar within ninety (90) calendar days of receiving any information it may have filed.20 If the Bureau decides to debar the Company, its decision will become effective upon either Icon's receipt of a debarment notice or publication of the decision in the Federal Register, whichever comes first.21

    19Id. § 54.8(e)(3).

    20Id. § 54.8(e)(5).

    21Id. The Commission may reverse a debarment, or may limit the scope or period of debarment, upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances, following the filing of a petition by you or an interested party or upon motion by the Commission. Id. § 54.8(f).

    If and when Icon's debarment becomes effective, it will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program for three years from the date of debarment.22 The Bureau may set a longer debarment period or extend an existing debarment period if necessary to protect the public interest.23

    22Id. § 54.8(d), (g).

    23Id. § 54.8(g).

    Please direct any response, if sent by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554 and to the attention of Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-A422, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 with a copy to Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C237, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. All messenger or hand delivery filings must be submitted without envelopes.24 If sent by commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Express Mail and Priority Mail), the response must be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743. If sent by USPS First Class, Express Mail, or Priority Mail, the response should be addressed to Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 4-A422, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 4-C237, Washington, DC 20554. You shall also transmit a copy of your response via email to Celia Lewis, [email protected], and Kalun Lee, [email protected]

    24See FCC Public Notice, DA 09-2529 for further filing instructions (rel. Dec. 3, 2009).

    If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lewis via U.S. postal mail, email, or by telephone at (202) 418-7456. If Ms. Lewis is unavailable, you may contact Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at (202) 418-0796 or at the email address noted above.

      Sincerely yours, Jeffrey J. Gee Chief Investigations and Hearings Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Johnnay Schrieber, Universal Service Administrative Company (via email); Rashann Duvall, Universal Service Administrative Company (via email); Chris M. Stevens, United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma (via email); Scott E. Williams, United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma (via email)
    [FR Doc. 2015-16777 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 15-669] Notice of Suspension and Commencement of Proposed Debarment Proceedings; Federal Lifeline Universal Service Support Mechanism AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) gives notice of Oscar Enrique Perez-Zumaeta's suspension from the federal Lifeline universal service support mechanism (Lifeline program) and the commencement of debarment proceedings against him. Suspension immediately excludes Mr. Perez-Zumaeta from activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program pending completion of the debarment process. Mr. Perez-Zumaeta, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with him to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program, may contest this suspension or its scope by filing an opposition and any relevant documentation.

    DATES:

    Any opposition must be received within 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or July 9, 2015, whichever comes first. The Bureau will decide any opposition within 90 days of its receipt.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-A422, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-A422, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Celia Lewis may be contacted by telephone at (202) 418-7456 or email at [email protected] If Ms. Lewis is unavailable, you may contact Mr. Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at (202) 418-0796 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 0.111(a)(14). Mr. Perez-Zumaeta's conviction for money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1957(a) and 18 U.S.C. 2, in connection with fraudulent claims against the Lifeline program, requires the Bureau to suspend him from participating in activities associated with the Lifeline program. Attached is the notice of suspension and initiation of debarment proceeding (Notice of Suspension), DA 15-669, which was mailed to Mr. Perez-Zumaeta and released on June 8, 2015. The complete text of the Notice of Suspension is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

    Federal Communications Commission. Jeffrey J. Gee, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. June 08, 2015 DA 15-669 SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Oscar Enrique Perez-Zumaeta, c/o William P. Earley, Federal Public Defender-OKC, 215 Dean A McGee Ave., Suite 109, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Re: Notice of suspension and initiation of debarment proceeding, File No. EB-IHD-15-00019209

    Dear Mr. Perez-Zumaeta: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has received notice of your conviction for money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1957(a) and 18 U.S.C. 2, in connection with fraudulent claims against the federal Lifeline universal service support mechanism (Lifeline program).1 Pursuant to its rules, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) hereby suspends you from participating in activities associated with the Lifeline program.2 The Bureau is also commencing a proceeding to debar you from future participation in the Lifeline program.3

    1 Any further reference in this letter to “your conviction” refers to your guilty plea and subsequent sentencing in United States v. Perez-Zumaeta, Criminal Docket No. 5:14-cr-00165-D-1, Plea Agreement (W.D. Okla. filed Nov. 07, 2014) (Plea Agreement). See also Lifeline & Link Up Reform & Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket No. 03-109, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656 (2012) (Lifeline Reform Order).

    2 47 CFR 54.8.

    3Id.; 47 CFR 0.111 (delegating to the Bureau authority to resolve universal service suspension and debarment proceedings). In 2007, the Commission extended the debarment rules to apply to all federal universal service support mechanisms, including Lifeline. See Comprehensive Review of the Universal Serv. Fund Mgmt., Admin., & Oversight, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16372, 16410-12 (2007) (Program Management Order) (renumbering section 54.521 of the universal service debarment rules as section 54.8 and amending subsections (a)(1), (a)(5), (c), (d), (e)(2)(i), (e)(3), (e)(4), and (g)).

    Any person who has “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the [Lifeline program]” may be prohibited from receiving the benefits associated with that program.4 The Lifeline program is a government program that provides support to eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that in turn offer discounts on telephone service for eligible low-income consumers.5 An ETC may receive reimbursement in connection with the Lifeline program only if it certifies as part of its reimbursement request that it is in compliance with the Lifeline rules.6

    4Program Management Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 16387, para. 32. The Commission's debarment rules define a “person” as “[a]ny individual, group of individuals, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government or legal entity, however organized.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(6).

    5See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6662-67, paras. 11-18; see also 47 CFR 54.400-54.422.

    6See 47 CFR 54.407(d).

    You owned and managed PSPS Sales LLC (PSPS), a California entity that recruited low-income individuals to apply for Lifeline telephone service through Icon Telecom, Inc. (Icon).7 On June 12, 2014, Icon pled guilty to knowingly making a false statement to the Universal Service Administrative Company in connection with fraudulent claims against the Lifeline program.8 According to court records, you were charged with directing PSPS workers to enroll fictitious customers and falsify Lifeline recertification forms for use in Icon's fraudulent scheme.9 On November 7, 2014, you pled guilty to one count of money laundering for depositing a $52,390.00 check from Icon into a PSPS bank account, despite knowing that more than $10,000.00 of those funds was the result of criminal fraud against the Commission.10

    7United States v. Perez-Zumaeta, Criminal Docket No. 5:14-cr-00165-D-1, Indictment at 1-2 (W.D. Okla. filed June 03, 2014) (Indictment).

    8United States v. Icon Telecom, Inc., Criminal Docket No. 5:14-cr-00170-D, Plea Agreement (W.D. Okla. filed June 12, 2014).

    9Indictment at 8-10.

    10Plea Agreement at 2; Indictment at 16-17; see also United States Attorney's Office, western District of oklahoma, Press Release, Final Defendant Sentenced to Serve 42 Months in Prison for Money Laundering in Connection with Federal Wireless Telephone Program Subsidies, Apr. 23, 2015, available at http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdok/pr/final-defendant-sentenced-serve-42-months-prison-money-laundering-connection-federal.

    Pursuant to section 54.8(b) of the Commission's rules,11 your conviction requires the Bureau to suspend you from participating in any activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program, including receiving funds or discounted services through the Lifeline program, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the Lifeline program.12 Your suspension becomes effective upon either your receipt of this letter or its publication in the Federal Register, whichever comes first.13

    11 47 CFR 54.8(a)(4); see Program Management Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 16387, para. 32.

    12 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1), (d).

    13Id. § 54.8(e)(1).

    In accordance with the Commission's suspension and debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or its scope by filing arguments, with any relevant documents, within thirty (30) calendar days of your receipt of this letter or its publication in the Federal Register, whichever comes first.14 Such requests, however, will not ordinarily be granted.15 The Bureau may reverse or limit the scope of a suspension only upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances.16 The Bureau will decide any request to reverse or modify a suspension within ninety (90) calendar days of its receipt of such request.17

    14Id. § 54.8(e)(4).

    15Id.

    16Id. § 54.8(f).

    17Id. §§ 54.8(e)(5), (f).

    I. Initiation of Debarment Proceedings

    In addition to your immediate suspension from the Lifeline program, your conviction is cause for debarment as defined in section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules.18 Therefore, pursuant to section 54.8(b) of the Commission's rules, your conviction requires the Bureau to commence debarment proceedings against you.19

    18 “Causes for suspension and debarment are conviction of or civil judgment for attempt or commission of criminal fraud, theft, embezzlement, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, receiving stolen property, making false claims, obstruction of justice and other fraud or criminal offense arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism, the high-cost support mechanism, the rural health care support mechanism, and the low-income support mechanism.” 47 CFR 54.8(c). Associated activities “include the receipt of funds or discounted services through [the federal universal service] support mechanisms, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding [the federal universal service] support mechanisms.” Id. § 54.8(a)(1).

    19Id. § 54.8(b).

    As with the suspension process, you may contest the proposed debarment or its scope by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this letter or its publication in the Federal Register, whichever comes first.20 The Bureau, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, will notify you of its decision to debar within ninety (90) calendar days of receiving any information you may have filed.21 If the Bureau decides to debar you, its decision will become effective upon either your receipt of a debarment notice or publication of the decision in the Federal Register, whichever comes first.22

    20Id. § 54.8(e)(3).

    21Id. § 54.8(e)(5).

    22Id. The Commission may reverse a debarment, or may limit the scope or period of debarment, upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances, following the filing of a petition by you or an interested party or upon motion by the Commission. Id. § 54.8(f).

    If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the Lifeline program for three years from the date of debarment.23 The Bureau may set a longer debarment period or extend an existing debarment period if necessary to protect the public interest.24

    23Id. § 54.8(d), (g).

    24Id. § 54.8(g).

    Please direct any response, if sent by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554 and to the attention of Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-A422, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 with a copy to Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C237, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. All messenger or hand delivery filings must be submitted without envelopes.25 If sent by commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Express Mail and Priority Mail), the response must be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743. If sent by USPS First Class, Express Mail, or Priority Mail, the response should be addressed to Celia Lewis, Paralegal Specialist, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 4-A422, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 4-C237, Washington, DC 20554. You shall also transmit a copy of your response via email to Celia Lewis, [email protected], and Kalun Lee, [email protected]

    25See FCC Public Notice, DA 09-2529 for further filing instructions (rel. Dec. 3, 2009).

    If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lewis via U.S. postal mail, email, or by telephone at (202) 418-7456. If Ms. Lewis is unavailable, you may contact Kalun Lee, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at (202) 418-0796 or at the email address noted above.

      Sincerely yours, Jeffrey J. Gee Chief Investigations and Hearings Division Enforcement Bureau cc: Johnnay Schrieber, Universal Service Administrative Company (via email); Rashann Duvall, Universal Service Administrative Company (via email); Chris M. Stevens, United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma (via email); Scott E. Williams, United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma (via email)
    [FR Doc. 2015-16778 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. and Thursday, July 16, 2015 at the conclusion of the open meeting.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    Internal personnel rules and internal rules and practices.

    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shelley E. Garr, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16917 Filed 7-7-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    Federal Labor Relations Authority.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) publishes the names of the persons selected to serve on its SES Performance Review Board (PRB). This notice supersedes all previous notices of the PRB membership.

    DATES:

    Upon publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments about this final rule can be emailed to [email protected] or sent to the Case Intake and Publication Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 1400 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20424. All written comments will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Case Intake and Publication Office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gina Grippando, Counsel for Regulatory and Public Affairs, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, DC 20424, (202) 218-7776.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more PRBs. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the final rating authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

    The persons named below have been selected to serve on the FLRA's PRB.

    William R. Tobey, Chief Counsel; H. Joseph Schimansky, Executive Director, Federal Service Impasses Panel; James E. Petrucci, Director, Dallas Regional Office; Peter A. Sutton, Deputy General Counsel; Sarah Whittle Spooner, Executive Director.

    Dated: July 1, 2015. Sarah Whittle Spooner, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16771 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve 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 number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by FR Y-15, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

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

    Email: >[email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW.), Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

    The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the extension for three years, with revision, of the following report:

    Report title: The Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report.

    Agency form number: FR Y-15.

    OMB control number: 7100-0352.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Reporters: U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs) and savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) with $50 billion or more of total consolidated assets and any U.S.-based organizations designated as global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) that do not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: One-time implementation: Savings and loan holding companies—1,000 hours; ongoing—54,536 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: One-time implementation: Savings and loan holding companies—1,000 hours; ongoing—401 hours.

    Number of respondents: 34.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory and is authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act (sections 163, 165, and 604), the International Banking Act, the Bank Holding Company Act, and the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1462, 1467, and 3106).

    Abstract: The FR Y-15 report collects systemic risk data from U.S. BHCs and SLHCs with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and any U.S.-based organization identified as a global systemically important bank (G-SIB) 1 based on data from the previous calendar year that does not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs. The Federal Reserve uses the FR Y-15 data primarily to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the systemic risk profile of the institutions which are subject to enhanced prudential standards under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA).2

    1 See 2014 update of list of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs), available at www.financialstabilityboard.org/wp-content/uploads/r_141106b.pdf.

    2 12 U.S.C. 5365.

    Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes the following revisions to the FR Y-15, which would be effective December 31, 2015:

    Schedule A—Size Indicator

    In September 2014, the Federal Reserve, together with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, revised the definition of “total leverage exposure” used to calculate a BHC's supplementary leverage ratio.3 To reflect the revised leverage ratio standard and accompanying disclosure table, the Federal Reserve proposes to collect 10 new items: Posted cash collateral used to offset the negative mark-to-fair value of derivative contracts (item 1(c)), cash variation margin included as an on-balance sheet receivable (item 1(e)), exempted central counterparty legs of client-cleared transactions included in on-balance sheet assets (item 1(f)), effective notional amount offsets and potential future exposure (PFE) adjustments for sold credit protection (item 1(g)), total derivative exposures (item 1(h)), securities financing transaction (SFT) indemnification and other agent-related exposures (item 2(c)), gross value of offsetting cash payables (item 2(d)), total SFT exposures (item 2(e)), other on-balance sheet assets (item 3(a)), and the credit exposure equivalent of other off-balance sheet items (item 4(e)). To maintain consistency with the exposures definition used in the international G-SIB methodology, the Federal Reserve proposes to also collect total exposures prior to regulatory deductions (item 5).

    3 See 79 FR 57725 (September 26, 2014).

    The Federal Reserve proposes to remove nine line items that are not used in the calculation. Four of these are provided by respondents [cash collateral netted against the derivative exposures in item 1(c)(1) (item 1(c)(2)); credit derivatives sold net of related credit protection bought, adjusted for maturity (item 2(b)(3)); unconditionally cancellable credit card commitments (item 2(c)(1)); and other unconditionally cancellable commitments (item 2(c)(2))], two are automatically retrieved from the FR Y-9C (FR Y-9C; OMB No. 7100-0128) [total assets (item 1(a)) and net value of SFTs (item 1(b)(1)], and three are automatically calculated on behalf of the respondent [total on-balance sheet items (item 1(d)), total off-balance sheet items (item 2(g)), and total exposures (item 4)].

    The Federal Reserve proposes to adjust the position and names of the remaining items to conform to the revised presentation of the data. This includes moving three of the remaining items which are not required for the exposures calculation to a new memoranda section.

    Consistent with the supplementary leverage ratio adopted in September 2014, the Federal Reserve proposes to collect average values over the reporting period.4 For on-balance sheet items, the Federal Reserve proposes collecting averages using daily data. For off-balance sheet items, the Federal Reserve proposes collecting averages using monthly data. This would affect the definitions for all items in Schedule A.

    4 See 79 FR 57726 (September 26, 2014).

    Schedule B—Interconnectedness Indicators

    The intra-financial system assets (IFSA) indicator captures the amount of funds deposited with and lent to other financial institutions (item 1), while intra-financial system liabilities (IFSL) only captures deposits. In accordance with the international standard that will be adopted starting with the end-2015 collection,5 the Federal Reserve proposes to correct this asymmetry by adding a new item, borrowings obtained from other financial institutions (item 8), to the IFSL total.

    5 See Appendix 6 of the Instructions for the end-2014 G-SIB assessment exercise, January 2015, available at www.bis.org/bcbs/gsib/instr_end14_gsib.pdf.

    Under the current definitions, certificates of deposit are included in both the IFSL and securities outstanding indicators. To eliminate this double counting, the Federal Reserve proposes to remove certificates of deposit from deposits due to depository institutions (item 7(a)) and deposits due to non-depository institutions (item 7(b)). This change is also scheduled to be adopted in the international standard starting with the end-2015 collection.6

    6Ibid.

    To capture a more holistic measure of securities holdings, the Federal Reserve proposes to update the definition of holdings of securities issued by other financial institutions (item 3) to include the historical cost of equity securities without readily determinable fair values (see FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-F, item 4). To mirror the instructions used in the international G-SIB methodology, the Federal Reserve also proposes to update the definitions for net positive current exposure of SFTs with unaffiliated financial institutions (item 4) and net negative current exposure of SFTs with unaffiliated financial institutions (item 10).

    IFSA includes the unused portion of committed lines extended to other financial institutions (item 2). The indicator does not, however, include financial and performance standby letters of credit, which may represent an important source of intra-financial connectivity. To capture this value without affecting the IFSA calculation, the Federal Reserve proposes to collect standby letters of credit extended to other financial institutions as a memorandum item (item M1).

    Schedule C—Substitutability Indicators

    Starting with the end-2015 assessment, the international G-SIB methodology will no longer use a fixed set of exchange rates in converting the payments totals to the reporting currency.7 In accordance with this change, the Federal Reserve proposes allowing FR Y-15 respondents to construct their own exchange rates using a consistent series of exchange rate quotations. This is the method already employed for payments data involving currencies that are outside the scope of the international assessment.

    7Ibid.

    Furthermore, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) has identified three additional currencies that may be important in measuring the overall substitutability of a firm: Mexican pesos, New Zealand dollars, and Russian rubles. The Federal Reserve proposes capturing payments made in these currencies over the last four quarters as memoranda items. For readability, the Federal Reserve also recommends moving all currencies not listed above (from item 1(m) to item M4) and unsecured settlement/clearing lines provided (from Schedule F, item 11 to item M5).

    Schedule D—Complexity Indicators

    Two of the items in Schedule D rely on the definitions for level 1 and level 2 liquid assets. In finalizing the previous revisions to the FR Y-15, the Federal Reserve stated that, “after the U.S. rule implementing the LCR is finalized, the Federal Reserve will consider aligning the definitions of level 1 and level 2 assets used in the two items of the FR Y-15 with the definitions in the U.S. rule.” 8 Now that the rule implementing the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) has been finalized, the Federal Reserve proposes adopting the level 1, level 2A, and level 2B liquid asset definitions used in the U.S. rule for the purpose of reporting trading and available-for-sale (AFS) securities that meet the definition of level 1 assets (item 7) and trading and AFS securities that meet the definition of level 2 assets with haircuts (item 8).9 While this revision aligns level 1 and level 2 liquid assets with the definition of high-quality liquid assets in the U.S. LCR rule, this could, in turn, result in a more stringent measure of the trading and AFS securities indicator relative to the international standard.

    8 See 78 FR 77130 (December 20, 2013).

    9 See 79 FR 61440 (October, 10, 2014).

    To enhance readability, the Federal Reserve also proposes to change held-to-maturity securities (item M1) to a memoranda item.

    Schedule E—Cross-Jurisdictional Activity Indicators

    The Federal Reserve proposes no changes to this schedule.

    Schedule F—Ancillary Indicators

    The Federal Reserve proposes adopting a more logical ordering of the revenue-related items (items 3, 4, and 5). As peak equity market capitalization (item 6) is no longer being captured in the international collection, the Federal Reserve proposes removing the item from the FR Y-15. To help prevent potential misinterpretations, the Federal Reserve proposes to revise the instructions for the gross value of cash provided and gross fair value of securities provided in SFTs (renumbered item 6) and the gross value of cash received and gross fair value of securities received in SFTs (renumbered item 7). The Federal Reserve proposes to move unsecured settlement/clearing lines provided (item 11) and held-to-maturity securities (item 12) to other schedules.

    Schedule G—Short-Term Wholesale Funding Indicator

    As explained in a recent notice of proposed rulemaking regarding implementation of a capital requirement for G-SIBs,10 the financial crisis revealed dangers that can emerge as a result of a firm's reliance on short-term wholesale funding. During periods of stress, this reliance can leave firms vulnerable to runs that undermine financial stability. When short-term creditors lose confidence in a firm or believe other short-term creditors may lose confidence in that firm, those creditors have a strong incentive to withdraw funding quickly before withdrawals by other creditors drain the firm of its liquid assets. To meet its obligations, the borrowing firm may be required to rapidly sell less liquid assets, which it may be able to do only at fire sale prices that deplete the seller's capital and drive down asset prices across the market. In a post-default scenario, fire sale externalities could result if the defaulted firm's creditors seize and rapidly liquidate assets the defaulted firm has posted as collateral. Financial distress can spread among firms as a result of counterparty relationships or because of perceived similarities among firms, forcing firms to rapidly liquidate assets in a manner that places the financial system as a whole under significant strain.

    10 See 79 FR 75477 (December 18, 2014).

    Consistent with the view that short-term wholesale funding is a critical component of a firm's systemic footprint, the Federal Reserve proposes adding a new schedule (Schedule G) that captures a firm's level of short-term wholesale funding. The new schedule would be reported starting with the end-June 2016 as-of date 11 and would capture funding secured by level 1 liquid assets (item 1(a)), funding secured by level 2A liquid assets (item 2(a)), unsecured wholesale funding obtained outside of the financial sector (item 2(b)), retail brokered deposits and sweeps (item 2(c)), covered asset exchanges from level 1 to level 2A liquid assets (item 2(d)), short positions involving a level 1 or level 2A liquid asset (item 2(e)), total second tier short-term wholesale funding (item 2(f)), funding secured by level 2B liquid assets (item 3(a)), other covered asset exchanges and short positions (item 3(b)), total third tier short-term wholesale funding (item 3(c)), unsecured wholesale funding obtained within the financial sector (item 4(a)), all other components of short-term wholesale funding (item 4(b)), total other short-term wholesale funding (item 4(c)), and total short-term wholesale funding, by maturity, after applying the associated weighting (item 5). Each of these items would be divided into four maturity buckets: Funding with a remaining maturity of 30 days or less (along with funding with no maturity date), funding with a remaining maturity of 31 to 90 days, funding with a remaining maturity of 91 to 180 days, and, funding with a remaining maturity of 181 to 365 days. Finally, the new schedule would also capture total short-term wholesale funding (item 6) calculated as the sum of the subcomponents in item 5.

    11 The effective date for banking organizations to report Schedule G may be delayed pending the implementation of the requirement for such organizations to report data on the FR 2052a.

    The recent proposal to implement a capital requirement for G-SIBs included short-term wholesale funding as a systemic risk indicator for the purposes of calculating a firm's G-SIB surcharge.12 The Federal Reserve is currently in the process of reviewing public comments that have been received regarding this proposal. Should a short-term wholesale funding metric ultimately be adopted for the purposes of calculating a G-SIB surcharge, the Federal Reserve intends to update the FR Y-15, where needed, to reflect the final rule.

    12 See 79 FR 75477 (December 18, 2014).

    Changes to the Reporting Panel

    While the original FR Y-15 proposal included SLHCs as respondents, the Federal Reserve decided to provide an exemption and “publish a separate proposal for comment . . . after the regulatory capital rules for SLHCs are finalized.” 13 Now that these capital requirements are in place, the Federal Reserve proposes to add covered SLHCs (i.e., those which are not substantially engaged in insurance or commercial activities) to the FR Y-15 reporting panel.

    13 See 77 FR 76485 (December 28, 2012).

    Reporting Frequency

    To improve the Federal Reserve's ability to monitor the systemic risk profile of domestic banking organizations throughout the year, the Federal Reserve proposes to switch from annual to quarterly reporting starting March 31, 2016. Currently, the Federal Reserve assesses the overall systemic importance of a firm using a single yearly observation. This snapshot may not adequately represent the true systemic footprint of the firm throughout the year. Moreover, should a firm's systemic footprint change significantly during the year (e.g., due to a fundamental change in business strategy), this move would not be fully assessed until the next year-end. More frequent reporting would allow the Federal Reserve to better monitor the systemic footprint of individual firms as well as the collective systemic footprint of the largest banking organizations.

    The increased frequency would simultaneously provide the market with additional data on the overall systemic footprint of an institution, allowing market participants to better project the potential future capital requirements for U.S. G-SIBs. The current international G-SIB standard involves a relative methodology, where the values of all of the firms are needed in order to calculate the scores. Thus, firms only have complete information about their surcharge once a year. This makes it difficult for firms to see the benefits of incremental improvements in their overall footprint throughout the year. By collecting the required data more frequently, firms would have additional information about their own systemic footprint vis-à-vis other respondents, and would be better positioned to predict individual assessment scores under the BCBS methodology.14

    14 See Global systemically important banks: Updated assessment methodology and the higher loss absorbency requirement, July 2013, available at www.bis.org/publ/bcbs255.htm.

    One consequence of moving to quarterly reporting is that the annual flow variables (i.e., payments and underwriting activity) would need to be reported over the previous four quarters. Furthermore, the values captured in Schedule A (Total exposures) would represent quarterly averages.

    Glossary of Terms

    Many items are unique to the FR Y-15 (e.g., payments and assets under custody). As such, there are certain terms that may have a different meaning in the context of the FR Y-15 or otherwise may not be found in other regulatory reports. To help ensure uniform interpretation of the instructions, the Federal Reserve proposes to introduce a new glossary of terms that would contain definitions relevant to the completion of the FR Y-15 report.

    Memoranda Items

    To improve the readability of the report, the Federal Reserve proposes relabeling certain items which are not included in the indicator calculations as memoranda items. This would allow related metrics to be grouped together on the same schedule.

    Instructional Clarifications

    The Federal Reserve proposes to incorporate instructional clarifications in response to feedback and questions received from banking organizations over the last two reporting periods. The Federal Reserve also proposes to integrate relevant definitional adjustments and clarifications that have been incorporated into the instructions for the international G-SIB assessment.15

    15 See Instructions for the end-2014 G-SIB assessment exercise, January 2015, available at www.bis.org/bcbs/gsib/instr_end14_gsib.pdf.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 6, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16794 Filed 7-8-15; 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 August 3, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Lang, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521:

    1. Cape Bancorp, Inc., Cape May Court House, New Jersey; to become a bank holding company in connection with the reorganization of Cape Bank, Cape May Court House, New Jersey, converting from a state chartered mutual savings bank into a state chartered stock savings bank.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Olney Bancshares of Texas, Inc., Olney, Texas; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Throckmorton Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of The First National Bank of Throckmorton, both in Throckmorton, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 6, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16792 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 24, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Larry W. Nelson, Lake Mary, Florida, as Personal Representative of the Jeno F. Paulucci Estate, Sanford, Florida; to retain voting shares of Republic Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Republic Bank, Inc., both in Duluth, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 6, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16793 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration on Aging Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Annual Reporting Requirements for the Older American Act Title VI Grant Program AGENCY:

    Administration on Aging, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration on Aging (AoA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information by fax to (202) 395-5806 or by email to [email protected], Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cecelia Aldridge at (202) 357-3422 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C 3507, AoA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    AoA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: Annual submission of the Program Performance Reports are due 90 days after the end of the budget period and final project period. The current form and instructions are posted on the AoA Web site at http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/Grants/Reporting_Requirements\insex.aspx.

    Respondents: Federally Recognized Tribes, Tribal and Native Hawaiian Organizations receiving grants under Title VI, Part A, Grants for Native Americans; Title VI, Part B, Native Hawaiian Program and Title VI, Part C, Native American Caregiver Support Program. Estimated Number of Responses: 266. Total Estimated Burden Hours: 731.5.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16755 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-15MZ] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-5960 or send an email to [email protected] Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Project Title—Digital Media and Tobacco Outcomes Survey—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requests a one-year OMB approval to conduct a web-based survey of smokers in the United States. This survey will be fielded for purposes of providing CDC with new, timely, and relevant information regarding the efficacy of the digital advertising component of the 2015 National Tobacco Prevention and Control Public Education Campaign (The Campaign). Specifically, CDC will evaluate associations between confirmed exposures to The Campaign's digital and social media advertising and self-reported knowledge, attitudes, beliefs about tobacco use, and smoking-related information-seeking behavior.

    This information collection will consist of an online survey of demographically similar comparison groups of Internet users who were exposed or not exposed to campaign advertising through digital and social media during the planned March-July 2015 campaign. Information will be collected about smokers' exposure to campaign digital advertisements and self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs related to smoking, and smoking-related information seeking. The survey will also measure behaviors related to smoking cessation and intentions to quit smoking. These data will be used to examine the statistical relationships between exposure to the digital campaign and changes in outcome variables of interest. This information collection fills current gaps in CDC's available data for evaluating the digital advertising components of The Campaign which, to date, have been limited to measures of ad reach and do not address digital campaign impacts on smoking-related knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs, intentions, and behaviors related to smoking cessation.

    Data will be collected using the comScore Internet panel, a market research company that unobtrusively collects web behavior data on 1+ million U.S. Internet users to measure patterns in consumer behaviors online. As part of their participation, comScore panelists have previously agreed to download software on their computers that enables comScore to passively track their web behavior, including Web sites visited, searches they conduct, purchases they make, and ads that are delivered on sites visited, regardless of whether the ads are clicked or not. These data are then aggregated and weighted to provide estimates of consumer behaviors online. The panel is a convenience sample with panelists largely recruited via nonprobability-based sampling methods (e.g., online ads, partner Web sites). However, a subsample is recruited via random-digit-dialing to calibrate post-stratification weights that comScore uses to generate weighted demographic distributions that are similar to the U.S. Internet population. While our proposed analyses will also utilize such weights, all results will be interpreted in light of the sample source and direct claims of national representation will not be made.

    Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 4,134.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • General Population of Internet Users Screening and Consent Questionnaire 50,000 1 2/60 Eligible participants, ages 18 and older in the U.S Digital Media and Tobacco Outcomes Questionnaire (Wave 1) 5,000 1 20/60 Digital Media and Tobacco Outcomes Questionnaire (Wave 2) 2,400 1 20/60 Total
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16772 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0313] Meetings With the Office of Orphan Products Development; Guidance for Industry, Researchers, Patient Groups, and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry, researchers, patient groups, and FDA staff entitled “Meetings with the Office of Orphan Products Development.” This guidance provides recommendations to industry, researchers, patient groups, and other stakeholders (collectively referred to as “stakeholders”) interested in requesting a meeting with FDA's Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD) on issues related to orphan drug designation requests, humanitarian use device (HUD) designation requests, rare pediatric disease designation requests, funding opportunities through the Orphan Products Grants Program and the Pediatric Device Consortia Grants Program, and orphan product patient-related topics of concern. This guidance document is intended to assist these groups with requesting, preparing, scheduling, conducting, and documenting meetings with OOPD. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated April 2014.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5295, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling OOPD at 301-796-8660. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James D. Bona, Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD), Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 32, Rm. 5204, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8673, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry, researchers, patient groups, and FDA staff entitled “Meetings with the Office of Orphan Products Development.” Each year, OOPD staff participates in meetings with stakeholders who seek guidance or clarification relating to orphan drug or HUD designation requests, OOPD grant programs, or other rare disease issues. These meetings can be “informal” or “formal” and help build a common understanding on FDA's thoughts on orphan products, which may include drugs, biological products, devices, or medical foods for a rare disease or condition. These meetings may represent critical points in the orphan product development process and may even have an impact on the eventual availability of products for patients with rare diseases and conditions. It is important that these meetings be scheduled within a reasonable time, conducted effectively, and documented where appropriate. This guidance is intended to provide consistent procedures to promote well-managed meetings between OOPD and stakeholders.

    Topics addressed in this guidance include: (1) Clarification of what constitutes an “informal” or “formal” meeting, (2) program areas within OOPD that may be affected by this draft guidance, (3) procedures for requesting and scheduling meetings with OOPD, (4) description of what constitutes a meeting package, and (5) procedures for the conduct and documentation of meetings with OOPD.

    In the Federal Register of April 9, 2014 (79 FR 19623), FDA issued, for public comment, “Draft Guidance for Industry, Researchers, Patient Groups, and Food and Drug Administration Staff on Meetings with the Office of Orphan Products Development.” The Agency issued this draft guidance to assist stakeholders with requesting, preparing, scheduling, conducting, and documenting meetings with OOPD. In particular, the draft guidance provided clarification on what constitutes an “informal” or “formal” meeting, program areas within OOPD that may be affected by the guidance, procedures for requesting and scheduling meetings with OOPD, description of what constitutes a meeting package, and procedures for the conduct and documentation of meetings.

    We received several comments on the draft guidance. Most comments appreciated the clarification and explanation provided by the draft guidance. Some comments made recommendations to improve clarity.

    FDA is issuing the draft guidance in final form with minor revisions to improve clarity. This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on meetings with OOPD. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in this guidance were approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0167, 0910-0332, and 0910-0787.

    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/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16773 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2100] Patricia Durr: Debarment Order AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) permanently debarring Patricia Durr from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Ms. Durr was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product. Ms. Durr was given notice of the proposed permanent debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Ms. Durr failed to request a hearing. Ms. Durr's failure to request a hearing constitutes a waiver of her right to a hearing concerning this action.

    DATES:

    This order is effective July 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenny Shade, Division of Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr. (ELEM-4144), Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-4640.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B)) requires debarment of an individual if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of any drug product under the FD&C Act.

    On April 2, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered judgment against Ms. Durr for one count of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead, in violation of sections 301(a) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 333(a)(2)).

    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: Ms. Durr was a sales representative for Gallant Pharma International Inc. (Gallant Pharma) between October 2010 and August 2013, and was responsible for selling injectable cosmetic drugs and devices, and intravenous chemotherapy drugs, to doctors and hospitals in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Some of the drugs Ms. Durr facilitated the sale of were misbranded within the meaning of the FD&C Act.

    Ms. Durr admitted that she sold drugs which were not approved by the FDA for use on patients in the United States. She further admitted that the drugs she sold on behalf of Gallant Pharma were misbranded in that they did not bear adequate directions for use and were not subject to an exemption from that requirement, and they were accompanied by non-FDA approved packaging and inserts.

    Between August 2012 and August 2013, Ms. Durr admitted to selling more than $699,000 in misbranded drugs and devices to doctors and medical practices in Massachusetts and Connecticut. She further admitted that the loss amount attributable to her personal sales, under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, was between $400,000 and $1,000,000.

    Between October 2010 and August 2013, Ms. Durr personally sold misbranded drugs to 33 distinct doctors and medical practices, and generated more than $2.6 million in illegal proceeds from these sales. She admitted that, as of August 2012, she became willfully blind to the illegality of Gallant Pharma's business. Nonetheless, she continued her sales activity with Gallant Pharma until her arrest in August 2013.

    As a result of her conviction, on March 9, 2015, FDA sent Ms. Durr a notice by certified mail proposing to permanently debar her from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on the finding, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, that Ms. Durr was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct related to the regulation of a drug product. FDA determined that Ms. Durr's felony conviction was related to the regulation of drug products because the conduct underlying her conviction undermined FDA's regulatory oversight over drug products marketed in the United States by intentionally introducing into interstate commerce drug products that did not bear adequate directions for use and were not subject to an exemption from that requirement, and which, among other things, were accompanied by non-FDA approved packaging and inserts. The proposal also offered Ms. Durr an opportunity to request a hearing, providing her 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. The proposal was received on March 24, 2015. Ms. Durr failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her opportunity for a hearing and has waived any contentions concerning her debarment (21 CFR part 12).

    II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Patricia Durr has been convicted of a felony under federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product. Section 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(2)(A)(ii)) requires that Ms. Durr's debarment be permanent.

    As a result of the foregoing findings, Patricia Durr is permanently debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see DATES) (see section 201(dd), 306(c)(1)(B), and 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(dd), 335a(c)(1)(B), and 335a(c)(2)(A)(ii)). Any person with an approved or pending drug product application who knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or otherwise uses the services of Patricia Durr, in any capacity during her debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Ms. Durr provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application during her period of debarment she will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(7))). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Patricia Durr during her period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(A))).

    Any application by Ms. Durr for special termination of debarment under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(4)) should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2100 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (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.

    Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Douglas Stearn, Director, Division of Compliance Policy, Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16665 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-2167] Heparin-Containing Medical Devices and Combination Products: Recommendations for Labeling and Safety Testing; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Heparin-Containing Medical Devices and Combination Products: Recommendations for Labeling and Safety Testing.” This draft guidance describes FDA's intent to address the safety concerns by clarifying new expectations for labeling with regard to the soon-to-be revised heparin United States Pharmacopeia (USP) monographs as well as outline safety testing recommendations. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

    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 October 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance document entitled “Heparin-Containing Medical Devices and Combination Products: Recommendations for Labeling and Safety Testing” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    Submit electronic comments on the 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. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Angela Krueger, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1666, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6380.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The USP 1 heparin monographs have recently undergone several revisions following serious and fatal events related to the use of heparin sodium products. Investigation of heparin product overdose errors identified the expression of drug strength in the labels as a major contributing factor in these errors. This draft guidance document is intended to address these safety concerns by clarifying new expectations for labeling with regard to the soon-to-be revised heparin USP monographs (USP36-NF31),2 as well as outline safety testing recommendations.

    1 USP is a scientific nonprofit organization that develops standards for the identity, strength, quality, and purity of drugs and drug ingredients marketed in the United States. These standards are published in USP's official compendia, “United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary.”

    2 USP monograph, USP PF 38 (3) and (5) Interim Revision Announcement, with proposed effective revision date of May 1, 2013. See also “FDA Drug Safety Communication: Important Change to Heparin Container Labels to Clearly State the Total Drug Strength” at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm330695.htm.

    In addition, the outbreak of serious and often fatal events due to heparin contamination with over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate in 2008 led the USP to include in its monograph additional testing of heparin source material to ensure its quality and purity. This draft guidance also outlines use of conformance to the monograph in premarket submissions, specifically testing and documentation requirements and recommendations contained in the current USP monograph, and the guidance document “Heparin for Drug and Medical Device Use: Monitoring Crude Heparin for Quality” (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM291390.pdf).3

    3 The Agency updates guidances periodically. To make sure you have the most recent version of this guidance, check the CDER guidance page at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on labeling and safety testing requirements for heparin-containing medical devices and combination products. 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 statute and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Device and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Heparin-Containing Medical Devices and Combination Products: Recommendations for Labeling and Safety Testing” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1817 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to currently approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 211 (Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139. The collections of information in FDA's medical devices regulations in 21 CFR parts 801 (Labeling); 803 (Medical Device Reporting); 807, subpart E (Premarket Notification Procedures); 812 (Investigational Device Exemptions); 814, subparts A through E (Premarket Approval of Medical Devices); 814, subpart H (Humanitarian Use Devices); and 820 (Quality System Regulation) have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0485, 0910-0437, 0910-0120, 0910-0078, 0910-0231, 0910-0332, and 0910-0073 respectively.

    V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16775 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Acute Ischemic Stroke Medical Devices Trials Workshop; Public Workshop; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Acute Ischemic Stroke Medical Device Trials Workshop”. Acute ischemic stroke medical devices are intended to remove blood clots from the cerebral neurovasculature by mechanical, laser, ultrasound, or a combination of technologies. The purpose of this workshop is to obtain public input and feedback on scientific, clinical, and regulatory considerations associated with acute ischemic stroke medical devices. Ideas generated during this workshop may facilitate further development of guidance regarding the content of premarket submissions for acute ischemic stroke emerging technologies and help to speed development and approval of future submissions.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will be held on October 6, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be received by September 25, 2015, at 4 p.m. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on how to register for the public workshop. Submit either electronic or written comments by November 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public workshop will be held at the Bethesda Pooks Hill Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Rd., Bethesda, MD 20814. Please visit the following Web site for parking and security information: http://www.marriott.com/hotels/maps/travel/wasbt-bethesda-marriott/.

    Submit electronic comments 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. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hilda Scharen, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 66, Rm. 3625, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6815, [email protected]; or Jamie Waterhouse, Project Manager, Neurointerventional and Neurosurgical Devices Branch, Division of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3063, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Acute ischemic stroke medical devices are intended to remove blood clots from the cerebral neurovasculature. This may be achieved through a variety of mechanisms, such as mechanical, laser, ultrasound, or a combination of technologies. Acute ischemic stroke medical devices can present both important safety and effectiveness questions as well as study design and data analysis challenges.

    II. Purpose and Scope of the Public Workshop

    The workshop seeks to involve industry and academia in addressing scientific, clinical, and regulatory considerations associated with acute ischemic stroke medical devices. By bringing together relevant stakeholders, which include scientists, patient advocates, clinicians, researchers, industry representatives, and regulators, to this workshop, we hope to facilitate the improvement of this rapidly evolving product area.

    This workshop is aimed to address scientific, clinical, and regulatory considerations associated with acute ischemic stroke medical devices, including but not limited to, the following topic areas:

    • Considerations for clinical study trial designs, patient populations, and patient selection methods, and

    • Considerations for clinical study endpoints, e.g., clinically relevant outcome measures and related statistical analyses.

    III. Attendance and Registration

    Registration is free and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online by September 25, 2015, at 4 p.m. Early registration is recommended because facilities are limited and, therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permits, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 12 p.m.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, email: [email protected] or phone: 301-796-5661 no later than September 25, 2015.

    To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this meeting/public workshop from the posted events list.) Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, email, and telephone number. Those without Internet access should contact Susan Monahan to register. Registrants will receive confirmation after they have been accepted. You will be notified if you are on a waiting list.

    IV. Comments

    In order to permit the widest possible opportunity to obtain public comment, FDA is soliciting either electronic or written comments on all aspects of the public workshop topics. The deadline for submitting comments related to this public workshop is November 3, 2015.

    Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, 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. In addition, when responding to specific questions as outlined in section II of this document, please identify the question you are addressing. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    V. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may also be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). A transcript will be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857. A link to the transcripts will be available approximately 45 days after the public workshop on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list).

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16774 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 594-4306.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information Collection Request Title: Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (Home Visiting) Program, Competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement OMB No. 0915-0351—Extension.

    Abstract: The Home Visiting Program, administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in close partnership with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), supports voluntary, evidence-based home visiting services during pregnancy and to parents with young children up to kindergarten entry. The 50 states, District of Columbia, and 5 territories and eligible nonprofit organizations are eligible for Home Visiting Competitive Funding.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The purpose of this announcement is to solicit Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) applications for the Home Visiting Competitive Grant program. Competitive Grants provide funds to eligible entities that are states and certain territories that continue to make significant progress toward implementing a high-quality home visiting program as part of a comprehensive, high-quality early childhood system and are ready and able to take effective programs to scale to address unmet need. This information collection is needed for eligible entities to apply for competitive funding opportunities under the MIECHV. As noted above, this program is authorized under the Social Security Act, Title V, Section 511 (42 U.S.C. 701), as amended by Section 2951 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148). A portion of funding under this program is awarded to participating states and eligible jurisdictions 1 by formula. However, an additional portion of funds is awarded competitively.

    1 The 50 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, District of Columbia, and Guam.

    The information collected will be used to collect applicant information regarding proposed project plans sufficient to inform peer review and subsequent grant award and monitoring. Peer reviewers will be selected from among experts in the relevant fields to assess and score applicant proposals. On the basis of reviewer scores, applications will be ranked, and the highest scoring applications will be funded according to availability of funds. Applications approved for funding are entered into HRSA's Electronic Handbook (EHB).

    Subsequent to award, the approved plans set forth in the applications in the EHB will be monitored by Federal Project Officers to ensure implementation according to these plans, as submitted in this data collection instrument. Failure to collect this information would result in either a failure to make awards to eligible entities as required by law, or would necessitate award of all funds by formula, which is inconsistent with established program policy and implementation, as competitive awards have been made a part of this program's administration.

    Likely Respondents: Applicants to FY16 Home Visiting Competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Summary of progress
  • on the following activities
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Introduction 47 1 47 10 470 Needs Assessment 47 1 47 14 658 Methodology 47 1 47 15 705 Work Plan 47 1 47 15 705 Resolution of Challenges 47 1 47 14 658 Evaluation and Technical Support 47 1 47 48 2256 Organizational Information 47 1 47 10 470 Additional Attachments 47 1 47 13 611 Total 47 8 376 139 6533
    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16735 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [Docket No. USCBP-2015-0019] Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    Committee Management; notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will meet on July 29, 2015, in Rosemont, IL. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will meet on Wednesday, July 29, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. CDT. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.

    Pre-Registration: Meeting participants may attend either in person or via webinar after pre-registering using a method indicated below:

    —For members of the public who plan to attend the meeting in person, please register either online at https://apps.cbp.gov/te_reg/index.asp?w=45; by email to [email protected]; or by fax to (202) 325-4290 by 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 24, 2015. You must register prior to the meeting in order to attend the meeting in person. —For members of the public who plan to participate via webinar, please register online at https://apps.cbp.gov/te_reg/index.asp?w=45 by 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 24, 2015. Feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.

    Members of the public who are pre-registered and later require cancellation, please do so in advance of the meeting by accessing one (1) of the following links: https://apps.cbp.gov/te_reg/cancel.asp?w=45 to cancel an in person registration, or https://apps.cbp.gov/te_reg/cancel.asp?w=45 to cancel a webinar registration.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Crown Plaza Chicago O'Hare, in the O'Hare Ballroom #1, 5440 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018. There will be signage posted directing visitors to the location of the O'Hare Ballroom #1.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at (202) 344-1661 as soon as possible.

    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the “Agenda” section below.

    Comments must be submitted in writing no later than July 17, 2015, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2015-0019, and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 325-4290.

    Mail: Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Do not submit personal information to this docket.

    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket Number USCBP-2015-0019. To submit a comment, see the link on the Regulations.gov Web site for “How do I submit a comment?” located on the right hand side of the main site page.

    There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on July 29, 2015. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP Web page, http://www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeholder-engagement/coac, at the time of the meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) provides advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions within Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury.

    Agenda

    The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will hear from the following subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed on those topics:

    1. The One U.S. Government Subcommittee will discuss the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), Single Window working group recommendations and provide input on Trade Readiness and Partner Government Agencies' readiness for the upcoming November 1, 2015 ACE implementation of Single Window.

    2. The Exports Subcommittee will address policy and a strategic approach regarding exports. The Option 4 and Air Manifest working groups will provide recommendations.

    3. The Trade Enforcement and Revenue Collection Subcommittee will discuss the establishment of the 14th Term Antidumping and Countervailing Duty and Intellectual Property Rights working groups and provide recommendations.

    4. The Trade Modernization Subcommittee will discuss operational uniformity of Centers of Excellence and Expertise (CEE) with a goal of developing recommendations for the creation of service levels for various Center activities. The subcommittee will report plans for engaging CBP on international trade agreements, simplification of CBP processes, the role of various international trade entities and the development of private and public sector trade expertise.

    5. The Trusted Trader Subcommittee will start work once the Trusted Trader pilot has advanced to the implementation phase for testing CBP and Partner Government Agency trade benefits. The subcommittee will explore certifying trusted products through the supply chain.

    6. The Global Supply Chain Subcommittee will discuss the feasibility, benefits and risks of using Electronic Cargo Security Devices. The subcommittee will report on long term development of recommendations regarding Customs and Border Protection's development of automation and regulations governing the commodities being moved by pipelines. Further discussion will involve the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program as it pertains to the ocean mode of transportation, results of various pre-inspection pilots at land ports of entry and the Air Cargo Advance Screening.

    Meeting materials will be available at: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeholder-engagement/coac/coac-public-meetings.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Maria Luisa Boyce, Senior Advisor for Private Sector Engagement, Office of Trade Relations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16814 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2015-N127; FXES11120800000-156-FF08EVEN00] Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Endangered Smith's Blue Butterfly for Repair of Five Bridges, Point Sur State Historic Park, Monterey County, California AGENCY:

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) have received an application from the Monterey District of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR, applicant) for a 10-year incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The proposed permit would authorize take of the federally endangered Smith's blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi) incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the repair and reconstruction of five existing timber bridges located along the access roads to the Point Sur Light Station and Lighthouse at the Point Sur State Historic Park (PSSHP).

    The Service's proposed action is the issuance of a permit to the CDPR for a low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP) for incidental take of Smith's blue butterfly. We are requesting comments on the applicant's permit application and on our preliminary determination that the proposed HCP qualifies as a low-effect HCP, eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. The basis for this determination is discussed in the Environmental Action Statement (EAS) and the associated low-effect screening form, which are available for public review, along with the draft HCP.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may download a copy of the HCP, draft Environmental Action Statement, Low-Effect Screening Form, and related documents on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura, or you may request documents by U.S. mail or phone (see below). Please address written comments to Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003, (805) 644-1766. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to (805) 644-3958.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lena Chang, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address or by calling (805) 644-1766.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Smith's blue butterfly was listed as endangered by the Service on June 1, 1976. Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the Act to include the following activities: “[T]o harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532); however, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental Take” is defined by the Act as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are, respectively, in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22. Issuance of an incidental take permit also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species.

    However, take of listed plants is not prohibited under the Act unless such take would violate State law. As such, take of plants cannot be authorized under an incidental take permit. Plant species may be included on a permit in recognition of the conservation benefits provided them under a habitat conservation plan. All species included in the incidental take permit would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)). In addition to meeting other criteria, actions undertaken through implementation of the HCP must not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed plant or animal species.

    The Point Sur Lighthouse and Light Station are located on the Big Sur Coast in Monterey County, California at the Point Sur State Historic Park (PSSHP), located approximately 135 miles south of San Francisco and 23 miles south of the City of Monterey via California State Highway 1. This lighthouse has been in continuous operation since 1889 and is accessible by a paved service road that leads to the top of Moro Rock at Point Sur and crosses five timber bridges in need of maintenance and repair. The PSSHP consists of four parcels managed by the CDPR. Collectively, these four parcels measure approximately 72 acres.

    Surveys for both the larval and adult life stages of the Smith blue butterfly have been performed at PSSHP. Despite an intensive search effort, no life stages were observed; however, weather conditions may have hindered the surveys. Smith's blue butterfly life stages have been observed within dispersal distance of PSSHP and habitat at PSSHP is present; therefore, the Smith's blue butterfly is assumed present at the site.

    The proposed HCP and associated incidental take permit would authorize take of the Smith's blue butterfly. This take would be incidental to the CDPR's proposed replacement and repair of the five bridges, installation of permanent erosion control mats, and storm drain improvements, as well as future routine maintenance activities for the access road and its associated ditches. It would also cover revegetation activities that would occur at the bridge repair sites and other locations adjacent to the service road as well as at the dunes mitigation site located east and northeast of the base of Moro Rock. Impacts to Smith's blue butterfly from project-related activities will be primarily limited to small work areas associated with repairs to the five bridges and erosion control measures. Additional impacts would occur due to storm water improvements and periodic routine road and ditch maintenance. The total area of impact on Smith's blue butterfly habitat would be approximately 10,196 square feet (0.2341 acre).

    The CDPR proposes to implement general and specific conservation measures designed to avoid or minimize take of Smith's blue butterfly. To mitigate for unavoidable impacts, the CDPR proposes to restore 3.6 acres of northern foredunes at the dunes mitigation site near the base of Moro Rock. Management goals include removal and control of invasive vegetation, erosion control; restoration of the northern foredune habitat including revegetation of Smith's blue butterfly seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium) habitat at a 3:1 ratio; and revegetation of other dune plants endemic to the dunes at PSSHP.

    Two alternatives to the proposed action are considered in the HCP. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not occur and an incidental take permit would not be issued by the Service. Two of the access bridges to the Point Sur Lighthouse would remain closed to all vehicular traffic. The conditions of the remaining bridges would continue to deteriorate, and existing erosion and storm water issues would not be corrected. Conservation measures described in the HCP would not be implemented and the restoration of the 3.6-acre dune mitigation site would not occur; therefore, the No Action Alternative is considered to have less conservation value to the covered species than the proposed project and accompanying HCP. Under the Redesigned Project Alternative, the areas of impact would be reduced at the five impact areas located along the access roads, which would likely result in reduced take of Smith's blue butterfly; however, smaller work areas would not allow the CDPR to properly repair the five timber bridges and correct the erosion and storm water issues.

    We are requesting comments on our preliminary determination that the CDPR's proposed project will have minor or negligible effects on the Smith's blue butterfly and that the plan qualifies as a low-effect HCP as defined by our Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (Service 1996). We base our determinations on three criteria: (1) Implementation of the proposed project as described in the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and/or candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the HCP would result in minor negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) HCP impacts, considered together with those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulatively significant effects. In our analysis of these criteria, we have made a preliminary determination that the approval of the HCP and issuance of an incidental take permit qualify for categorical exclusions under the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as provided by the Department of Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 2 and 516 DM 8); however, based upon our review of public comments that we receive in response to this notice, this preliminary determination may be revised.

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the permit application, including the plan and comments we receive, to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would comply with section 7 of the Act by conducting intra-Service section 7 consultation for the plan. We will use the result of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the permit. If the requirements are met, we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the Smith's blue butterfly. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than 30 days after the date of this notice.

    Public Review

    We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and the NEPA public involvement regulations (40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1500.2(d), and 1506.6). We are requesting comments on our determination that the applicant's proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the Smith's blue butterfly and that the plan qualifies as a “low-effect” HCP as defined by our 1996 Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook.

    Public Comments

    If you wish to comment on the permit applications, plans, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in ADDRESSES.

    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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16765 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R5-R-2015-N049; BAC-4311-K9] James River National Wildlife Refuge, Prince George County, VA; Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Finding of No Significant Impact for Environmental Assessment AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for James River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), located in Prince George County, Virginia. The CCP will guide refuge management for the next 15 years.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP and FONSI by any of the following methods. You may request a hard copy or a CD-ROM.

    Agency Web site: Download a copy of the document at http://www.fws.gov/refuge/James_River/what_we_do/conservation.html.

    Email: Send requests to [email protected] Please include “James River CCP” in the subject line of your email.

    U.S. Mail: Andy Hofmann, Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1030, Warsaw, VA 22572.

    Fax: Attention: Andy Hofmann, 804-333-3396.

    In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call Andy Hofmann, Refuge Manager, at 804-333-1470, extension 112, during regular business hours. For more information on locations for viewing documents, see “Public Availability of Documents” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andy Hofmann, Refuge Manager, at 804-333-1470, extension 112 (phone) or [email protected] (email) (please put “James River NWR” in the subject line).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for James River NWR. We started this process through a notice in the Federal Register on January 11, 2012 (77 FR 1716). We released a draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA) to the public and requested comments in a notice in the Federal Register on October 22, 2014 (79 FR 63161).

    We have selected alternative B for implementation, as it is described in the final CCP for James River NWR. We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the final CCP in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. We completed an analysis of impacts on the human environment in the draft CCP and EA. We made minor changes and clarifications to the final CCP, where appropriate, to address public comments we received on the draft CCP and EA. A summary of the public comments, and our responses to them, is included as Appendix F in the final CCP.

    The 4,324-acre James River NWR lies in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and is located along the James River in Prince George County, Virginia, approximately 8 miles southeast of the city of Hopewell, and 30 miles southeast of Richmond. The refuge was established in 1991 under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1534) to protect nationally significant nesting and roosting habitat for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).

    Background

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.

    Selected Alternative

    Alternative B combines the actions we believe would best achieve the refuge's purposes, vision, and goals, and respond to public issues. The basis of our decision is detailed in the FONSI (Appendix G in the final CCP). Under alternative B, we would emphasize the management of specific refuge habitats to support priority species whose habitat needs would benefit other species of conservation concern that are found in the area. We would promote the transition of 2,651 acres of former pine plantation toward mature pine savanna for resident and breeding cavity-dwelling and ground-nesting species, including the brown-headed nuthatch, Chuck-will's-widow, red-headed woodpecker, and yellow-billed cuckoo. We would also emphasize protecting and promoting bald eagle nesting habitat, and protecting the integrity of the refuge's other habitats for native species, including migrating waterfowl, waterbirds, the federally endangered Atlantic sturgeon, and federally threatened sensitive joint-vetch. We would also expand our conservation, research, monitoring, and management partnerships to help restore and conserve the refuge.

    We would enhance our cultural resource protection to increase knowledge and appreciation for the refuge's rich cultural history and heritage, as well as expand our visitor services programs to improve opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. Visitor service improvements would include expanding the on-refuge opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation of natural and cultural resources in partnership with others. We would also pursue Service administrative requirements to expand public deer hunting, open the refuge to spring and fall turkey hunting, open the refuge to limited waterfowl hunting by youth, promote youth involvement in all hunting opportunities, and open the refuge to fishing at two designated locations. Further details on our selected alternative and management actions can be found in the CCP.

    Public Availability of Documents

    In addition to sources listed under ADDRESSES, you can view the final CCP at the Prince George Library, 6605 Courts Drive, Prince George, VA 23875.

    Dated: June 11, 2015. Deborah Rocque, Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16764 Filed 7-08-15; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLOR957000-L14400000-BJ0000-15XL1109AF: HAG 15-0181] Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.

    Willamette Meridian Oregon T. 27 S., R. 12 W., accepted June 3, 2015 T. 34 S., R. 7 W., accepted June 16, 2015 T. 33 S., R. 7 W., accepted June 18, 2015 T. 35 S., R. 2 E., accepted June 18, 2015
    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. 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.

    Mary J.M. Hartel, Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Oregon/Washington.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16767 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-15-020] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    July 16, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-534-538 and 731-TA-1274-1278. (Preliminary) (Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from China, India, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on July 20, 2015; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on July 27, 2015.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 7, 2015. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16909 Filed 7-7-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-15-019] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    July 14, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-522 and 731-TA-1258 (Final) (Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on July 27, 2015.

    5. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-1059 (Second Review) (Hand Trucks from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission on July 30, 2015.

    6. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 6, 2015. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16908 Filed 7-7-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Oil Pollution Act

    On July 2, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in a lawsuit entitled United States v. the Estate of Richard B. Herzog, Deceased, through Tim E. Herzog and Wesleah D. Blair as Co-executors of the Estate of Richard B. Herzog, Deceased, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-162.

    The proposed Consent Decree will resolve claims alleged under the Oil Pollution Act by the United States against the Estate of Richard B. Herzog through Tim E. Herzog and Wesleah D. Blair, as Co-executors of the Estate of Richard B. Herzog, for recovery of removal costs relating to discharges and substantial threat of discharges of oil from an abandoned oil production facility located within approximately 750 acres of land in Foster Township, McKean County, Pennsylvania which is colloquially known as the Johnston Farm leasehold (the “Facility”). Under the proposed Consent Decree, the Defendants will pay a total of $954,400 to the United States. The proposed Consent Decree is based on Defendants' limited ability to pay, as determined by a qualified financial analyst.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. the Estate of Richard B. Herzog, Deceased, through Tim E. Herzog and Wesleah D. Blair, as Co-executors of the Estate of Richard B. Herzog, Deceased, D.J. Reference No. 90-5-1-1-09646. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the proposed consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $29.5 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $9.00.

    Robert Brook, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment & Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16787 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 30 CFR part 44, govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.

    DATES:

    All comments on the petitions must be received by the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:

    1. Electronic Mail: [email protected] Include the docket number of the petition in the subject line of the message.

    2. Facsimile: 202-693-9441.

    3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452, Attention: Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. Persons delivering documents are required to check in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor. Individuals may inspect copies of the petitions and comments during normal business hours at the address listed above.

    MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice), [email protected] (Email), or 202-693-9441 (Facsimile). [These are not toll-free numbers.]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:

    1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

    2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

    In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.

    II. Petitions for Modification

    Docket Number: M-2015-002-M.

    Petitioner: Solvay Chemicals, Inc., P.O. Box 1167, 400 County Road 85, Green River, Wyoming 82935.

    Mine: Solvay Chemicals, Inc., MSHA I.D. No. 48-01295, located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming.

    Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.4760(a) (Shaft mines).

    Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard due to the potential negative impact that would adversely affect the safety of persons in the mine as a result of changes to the mine ventilation system. The petitioner states that:

    1. The proposed modification would allow relief from providing at least one of the following means in the event of fire, smoke or toxic gases as stated in 30 CFR 57.4760(a):

    (a) Solvay Chemicals, Inc. is categorized as a Category III mine in which non-combustible ore is extracted.

    (b) The mine liberates a concentration of methane that is explosive, or is capable of forming explosive mixtures with air, or has the potential to do so, based on the history of the mine or the geological area in which the mine is located.

    2. A Category III mine is subjected to 30 CFR 57.22214(a), which requires that any changes in ventilation which affect the main air current or any split thereof and which adversely affect the safety of persons in the mine must be made when the mine is idle.

    3. The installation of control doors or the reversal of mechanical ventilation would affect the main air currents and splits thus adversely impacting the ventilation system's ability to render and dilute concentrations of toxic gases or methane gas. Additionally, the installation of control doors or the reversal of mechanical ventilation can only be achieved by shutting down the mines main exhaust fans. Due to the expanse of the mine, evacuation of all personnel underground to the surface in ten minutes or less is not an alternative means of compliance with the standard.

    4. The best solution is to remove the miners in a safe manner prior to making any ventilation changes, that include closure or opening of control doors or mechanical ventilation reversal.

    5. When a fire is detected the protocol within the Emergency Response Plan will be followed to include evacuating the mine in a safe and effective manner prior to making any ventilation changes.

    6. The mine maintains two designated separate escapeways which provides miners with means of evacuating the mine; reducing the likelihood of miners having to travel through smoke or toxic gasses.

    The petitioner asserts that compliance with the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners at the Solvay Chemicals Mine.

    Docket Number: M-2015-003-M.

    Petitioner: Tata Chemicals (Soda Ash) Partners, P.O. Box 551, Green River, Wyoming 82935.

    Mine: Tata Chemicals Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 48-00155, located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming.

    Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.4760(a) (Shaft mines).

    Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard because compliance with the 30 CFR 57.4760(a) via installation and use of control doors at mine intake shafts will likely result in a dangerous and impermissible change in underground ventilation, thereby diminishing the safety of miners working underground. Additionally, compliance with 30 CFR 57.4760(a) via installation and use of control doors would conflict with petitioner's ability to comply with another mandatory safety standard for Category III mines, 30 CFR 57.22214.

    Petitioner is requesting relief from compliance with 30 CFR 57.4760(a) due to the potential diminution of safety to miners from the changes to the mine ventilation system that would likely result from installing and using control doors in the event of an underground fire. The petitioner states that:

    1. On March 18 and 19, 2015, MSHA issued Citation Numbers 8830553, 8830554, and 8830555 at Tata Chemicals intake shafts #6, #2, and #3 alleging that Tata failed to provide control doors in compliance with 30 CFR 57.4760(a). 30 CFR 57.4760(a) provides three alternative methods that shaft mines must follow to control the spread of fire, smoke, and toxic gases underground in the event of a fire: (1) Installation of control doors, (2) reversal of mechanical ventilation, or (3) implementation of effective evacuation procedures. MSHA concedes in all three citations that reversal of the mine's mechanical ventilation system is not a feasible means of compliance with 30 CFR 57.4760(a), as fan reversal would push methane over nonpermissible equipment.

    2. Although petitioner has an emergency evacuation plan, there is no feasible means of ensuring evacuation of miners working underground within ten minutes, as the regulation requires, due to the vast size of the petitioner's mine. Thus, MSHA concluded, that the petitioner must install control doors at its intake shafts in order to comply with 30 CFR 57.4760(a).

    3. For the following reasons, petitioner disagrees with MSHA's conclusion, contends that there is no safe way of complying with the cited standard, and requests a variance from its application at the mine.

    4. Petitioner conducted an independent analysis of the impacts that installation and use of a single or multiple intake air shaft ventilation control doors would have on the integrity of the mine's ventilation infrastructure and on the health and safety of miners working underground. The analysis concluded that:

    (a) Using doors to isolate #2, #3, or #6 intake shafts constitutes a major air change. Changes of this magnitude will detrimentally influence the mine ventilation airflow balance. It would result in several likely scenarios that could quickly introduce return air and methane into the intake airways where numerous ignition sources exist.

    (b) The fans are set to operate at the intersection of the fan and mine pressure-volume curves.

    (c) A major air change modifies the mine curve and a new operating point of the fan is established.

    (d) If the fans are not shut off before the air change, the operating point is likely to move toward or into this stall zone which will lead to damage and possible destruction of the fan and/or ventilation structures.

    (e) The closure of control doors at intake shafts in the event of a fire would affect the main air currents and splits, thereby adversely impacting the ability of the ventilation system to dilute and render harmless concentrations of toxic gases or methane gas and in turn, endangering the health and safety of miners working underground.

    5. The Tata mine is a Category III mine, a classification that applies to mines “in which noncombustible ore is extracted and which liberate a concentration of methane that is explosive, or is capable of forming explosive mixtures with air, or have the potential to do so based on the history of the mine or the geological area in which the mine is located. The concentration of methane in such mines is explosive or is capable of forming explosive mixtures if mixed with air,” 30 CFR 57.22003(a)(3). Tata must comply with the regulations applicable to Category III mines, including 30 CFR 57.22214(a), which mandates that changes in ventilation which affect the main air current or any split thereof and which adversely affect the safety of persons in the mine will only be made when the mine is idle. Petitioner states that it is not possible to comply with both 30 CFR 57.4760(a) and 57.22214(a) at the Tata mine because the closure of one or more control doors in the event of a fire would certainly affect the main air currents and splits in such a way as to endanger the safety of persons working underground. Under 30 CFR 57.22214(a), such a ventilation change can only be carried out when the mine is idled with no miners underground. Compliance with 30 CFR 57.4760(a) via closure of a control door would not only endanger miners but would also be in violation of 30 CFR 57.22214(a).

    6. 30 CFR 57.4760(a) does not take into account the complexities involved with suddenly restricting airflow in mines that have multiple shafts, multiple fan installations, and methane liberation. Petitioner noted that Part 75, which regulates underground coal mines, does not have any requirements that are equivalent to 30 CFR 57.4760 requirements for air control doors or alternative ventilation measures for the bottom, or near the bottom of coal mine intake shafts. The ventilation requirements applicable to Class III mines were specifically tailored to suit the conditions in a gassy trona mine like the Tata mine. Petitioner strongly contends that miners are already afforded adequate and equivalent protection via compliance with the fire prevention and control, and the ventilation requirements applicable to Class III mines. Mine rescue rules and basic ventilation flow principles dictate what changes in ventilation should be made in emergency situations, including a fire. Petitioner has a refuge and evacuation procedure set forth in the Mine's Emergency Response Plan. When a fire is detected underground, the mine's Emergency Response Plan is immediately implemented, and miners are trained on how to evacuate in a safe and swift manner depending on the location of the ignition. The mine maintains three designated separate escapeways which reduces the likelihood of miners having to travel through or past smoke or toxic gasses.

    The petitioner asserts that compliance with the existing standard results in a diminution of safety to the miners at the Tata Mine.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16752 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants; Correction Agency:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    Action:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 29, 2015, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) announced in the Federal Register the availability of grant funds for education and training programs to help identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions in and around mines. 80 FR 37017. The document included an incorrect date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Janice Oates at [email protected] or 202-693-9573 or Teresa Rivera at [email protected] or 202-693-9581.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of June 29, 2015, 80 FR 37017, on page 37021, in the first column, correct the “Submission Date, Times, and Addresses” in paragraph D to read:

    The closing date for applications will be August 29, 2015 (no later than 11:59 p.m. EDST). MSHA will award grants on or before September 30, 2015.

    Grant applications must be submitted electronically through the Grants.gov Web site. The Grants.gov site provides all the information about submitting an application electronically through the site as well as the hours of operation. Interested parties can locate the downloadable application package by the CFDA No. 17.603.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Patricia W. Silvey, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, Mine Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16739 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 052-00027 and 052-00028; NRC-2008-0441] Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Combined Licenses (NPF-93 and NPF-94), issued to South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) and South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) (the licensee), for construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3 located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.

    The proposed amendment departs from Tier 2* and associated Tier 2 information in the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (which includes the plant specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information) to revise the application of welding codes. An individual Federal Register notice was published on June 8, 2015, providing an opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene for a License Amendment Request (LAR) for the VCSNS combined licenses. The licensee has submitted a revision to the original LAR, dated May 26, 2015. This new revision increases the scope of the original LAR.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by August 10, 2015. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by August 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0441. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Denise McGovern, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-000; telephone: 301-415-0681; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0441.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The revised application for amendment, dated June 29, 2015, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15181A079.

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

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94, issued to SCE&G and Santee Cooper for operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.

    The proposed amendment would revise the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 and involved Tier 2* material incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), by revising the requirement to utilize American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1-1992, Structural Welding Code—Steel, when meeting the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994 requirements. The changes involve the replacement of AWS D1.1-1992 with AWS D1.1-2000 and additional supplemental provisions consistent with provisions in AWS D1.1-2010 to provide criteria for AISC N690 activities related to the design, qualification, fabrication, and inspection of welds for nuclear island structures and the seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building.

    Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.

    The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29. The design functions of the seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building are to provide integrity for non-seismic items located in the proximity of safety-related items, the failure of which during a safe shutdown earthquake could result in loss of function of safety-related items.

    The use of AWS D1.1-2000 and the supplemental provisions provide criteria for the design, qualification, fabrication, and inspection of welds for nuclear island structures and seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building. These structures continue to meet the applicable portions of ACI 349, the remaining applicable portions of AISC N690 not related to requirements for welding, including the supplemental requirements described in UFSAR Subsections 3.8.4.4.1 and 3.8.4.5, and the supplemental requirements identified in the UFSAR Subsection 3.8.3 for structural modules. The use of AWS D1.1-2000 and the supplemental provisions does not have an adverse impact on the response of the nuclear island structures, or seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building to safe shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions. The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the change described create any new accident precursors.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change includes the use of AWS D1.1-2000 and supplemental provisions to provide criteria for the design, qualification, fabrication, and inspection of welds for nuclear island structures and the seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building. The proposed change provides a consistent set of requirements for welding of structures required to be designed to the requirements of ACI 349 and AISC N690. The change to the details does not change the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The change to the welding criteria does not result in a new failure mechanism for the pertinent structures or new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the structures is not adversely affected by the proposed change.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The AWS codes are consensus standards written, revised, and approved by industry experts experienced in welding and weld design. The proposed change adds AWS D1.1-2000 to the list of applicable codes and standards in the UFSAR and adds supplemental provisions consistent with AWS D1.1-2010. The 2000 edition includes criteria that consider directionality in the weld, which allows for an increase factor on structural fillet weld strength relative to the angle of load direction. Supplemental provisions are added to the provisions in AWS D1.1-2000 for the application of directionality for linear fillet weld groups concentrically loaded in-plane to the axis of the weld that include elements oriented both longitudinally and transversely to the direction of applied load to address deformation of the welds. The change also specifies extension of the application of directionality provisions to linear and concentrically loaded rectangular and circular fillet weld groups loaded out-of-plane to the axis of the weld to supplement the conditions specified in AWS D1.1. These changes are supported by tests that provide the justification for criteria that consider the directionality. These changes can be similarly applied to welds in the AP1000 to continue to provide the necessary safety margin.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a No Significant Hazards Consideration.

    The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    III. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this Federal Register notice, any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene specifying the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing with respect to the license amendment request. Requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the NRC's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The hearing request or petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The hearing request or petition must also include the specific contentions that the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

    For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The hearing request or petition must also include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and documents. The hearing request or petition must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application for amendment that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute. If the requestor/petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the requestor/petitioner must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor's/petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who does not satisfy these requirements for at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.

    Hearing requests or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's “Guidance for Electronic Submission,” which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.

    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated May 26, 2015.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.

    NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of July 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Paul Kallan, Acting Branch Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16797 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0160] NuScale Power, LLC, Design-Specific Review Standard and Safety Review Matrix; Correction AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Design-specific review standard; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the Federal Register (FR) on June 30, 2015, soliciting public comment on the Design-Specific Review Standard (DSRS) and Safety Review Matrix for the NuScale Power, LLC, design (NuScale DSRS Scope and Safety Review Matrix). This action is necessary to correct the table listing the NuScale-specific DSRS sections that the NRC is soliciting comment on because Section 14.3.8 was inadvertently omitted.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective July 9, 2015. Submit comments by August 31, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0160 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0160. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The complete NuScale DSRS Scope and Safety Review Matrix is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15156B063.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jenny Gallo, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7367; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the FR on June 30, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-16034, on page 37314, Section 14.3.8, “Radiation Protection—Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria,” ADAMS Accession No. ML15127A385, is added to the table listing the NuScale-specific DSRS sections that the NRC is soliciting comment on.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of July 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Leslie S. Terry, Acting Branch Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16753 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 052-00025 and 052-00026; NRC-2008-0252] Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Combined Licenses (NPF-91 and NPF-92), issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG POWER SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia (together “the licensees”), for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.

    The proposed amendment departs from Tier 2* and associated Tier 2 information in the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (which includes the plant specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information) to revise the application of welding codes. An initial Federal Register notice was published on June 9, 2015, providing an opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene for a License Amendment Request (LAR) for the VEGP combined licenses. The licensee has submitted a revision to the original LAR, dated May 26, 2015. This new revision increases the scope of the original LAR.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by August 10, 2015. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0252. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0252.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The application for amendment, dated June 29, 2015, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15181A078.

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

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG POWER SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.

    The proposed amendment departs from Tier 2* and associated Tier 2 information in the VEGP Units 3 and 4 UFSAR (which includes the plant specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information) to revise the application of American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Steel Safety Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities, to allow use of American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1-2000, Structural Welding Code—Steel, in lieu of the AWS D1.1-1992 edition identified in AISC N690-1994.

    Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.

    The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29. The design functions of the seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building are to provide integrity for non-seismic items located in the proximity of safety-related items, the failure of which during a safe shutdown earthquake could result in loss of function of safety-related items.

    The use of AWS D1.1-2000 and the supplemental provisions provide criteria for the design, qualification, fabrication, and inspection of welds for nuclear island structures and seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building. These structures continue to meet the applicable portions of ACI 349, the remaining applicable portions of AISC N690 not related to requirements for welding, including the supplemental requirements described in UFSAR Subsections 3.8.4.4.1 and 3.8.4.5, and the supplemental requirements identified in the UFSAR Subsection 3.8.3 for structural modules. The use of AWS D1.1-2000 does not have an adverse impact on the response of the nuclear island structures, or seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building to safe shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions. The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the change described create any new accident precursors.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change includes the use of AWS D1.1-2000 and supplemental provisions to provide criteria for the design, qualification, fabrication, and inspection of welds for nuclear island structures and the seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building. The proposed change provides a consistent set of requirements for welding of structures required to be designed to the requirements of ACI 349 and AISC N690. The change to the details does not change the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The change to the welding criteria does not result in a new failure mechanism for the pertinent structures or new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the structures is not adversely affected by the proposed change.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The AWS codes are consensus standards written, revised, and approved by industry experts experienced in welding and weld design. The proposed change adds AWS D1.1-2000 to the list of applicable codes and standards in the UFSAR and adds supplemental provisions consistent with AWS D1.1-2010. The 2000 edition includes criteria that consider directionality in the weld, which allows for an increase factor on structural fillet weld strength relative to the angle of load direction. Supplemental provisions are added to the provisions in AWS D1.1-2000 for the application of directionality for linear fillet weld groups concentrically loaded in-plane to the axis of the weld that include elements oriented both longitudinally and transversely to the direction of applied load to address deformation of the welds. The change also specifies extension of the application of directionality provisions to linear and concentrically loaded rectangular and circular fillet weld groups loaded out-of-plane to the axis of the weld to supplement the conditions specified in AWS D1.1. These changes are supported by tests that provide the justification for criteria that consider the directionality. These changes can be similarly applied to welds in the AP1000 to continue to provide the necessary safety margin.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a No Significant Hazards Consideration.

    The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this Federal Register notice, any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene specifying the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing with respect to the license amendment request. Requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the NRC's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The hearing request or petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The hearing request or petition must also include the specific contentions that the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

    For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The hearing request or petition must also include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and documents. The hearing request or petition must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application for amendment that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute. If the requestor/petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the requestor/petitioner must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor's/petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who does not satisfy these requirements for at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.

    Hearing requests or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    III. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's “Guidance for Electronic Submission,” which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.

    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated May 26, 2015.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.

    NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of July 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Paul Kallan, Acting Branch Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16796 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. CP2012-22; Order No. 2562] New Postal Product AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an Amendment to the existing Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 3 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: July 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Notice of Commission Action III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On June 26, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 3 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.1 In support of its Notice, the Postal Service includes a redacted copy of the Amendment.

    1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Amendment to Parcel Select and Parcel Return Service Contract 3, with Portions Filed Under Seal, June 26, 2015 (Notice).

    On June 30, 2015, Chairman's Information Request No. 1 was issued.2 The Postal Service responded to CHIR No. 1 on July 1, 2015, and filed the unredacted amendment under seal.3 The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal. Notice at 1.

    2 Chairman's Information Request No. 1, June 30, 2015 (CHIR No. 1).

    3 Response of United States Postal Service to Chairman's Information Request No. 1, July 1, 2015.

    The Amendment describes the assignment and delegation rights under the contract and the package label indicia that will be valid in the event of the assignment, delegation, or transfer of the contract.

    The Postal Service intends for the Amendment to become effective one business day after the date that the Commission completes its review of the Notice. Id. The Postal Service asserts that the Amendment will not impair the ability of the contract to comply with 39 U.S.C. 3633. Id.

    II. Notice of Filings

    The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than July 10, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

    The Commission appoints Lyudmila Bzhilyanskaya to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.

    III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2012-22 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lyudmila Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

    3. Comments are due no later than July 10, 2015.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16759 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75358; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-45] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Discontinue Certain Fees July 2, 2015.

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on June 30, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the “Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to discontinue certain fees. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective July 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this filing is to discontinue certain fees as described below. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective July 1, 2015.

    The Exchange proposes to discontinue fees for certain Manual transactions in options overlying IWM (the iShares Russell 2000 ETF).4 In April 2015, the Exchange implemented special pricing for IWM to encourage increased Manual trading in the product and to offset losses of Manual transactions associated with options in the iShares Russell Index (RUT), which is exclusively trading on another venue.5 The Exchange does not believe that the special pricing in IWM has achieved its intended objective of attracting additional volume.

    4 The Commission notes that as described further below, the special pricing for Manual transactions in options overlying IWM is being discontinued, which will result in Manual transactions in all symbols being subject to the same pricing.

    5See Exchange Act Release No. 74693 (April 9, 2015) 80 FR 20278 (April 15, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-26). Specifically, the Exchange offered volume discounts for manual transactions in IWM to Broker-Dealers, Firms, NYSE Amex Options Market Makers, non-NYSE Amex Options Market Makers and Professional Customers. As is the case today, Customers are not charged for manual transactions in IWM.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,6 in general, and furthers the objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,7 in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable and equitable because the discontinuance of the special pricing for Manual transactions in IWM will result in Manual transactions in all symbols being subject to the same pricing. The Exchange further believes the proposed rule change is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it treats similarly situated market participants in the same manner.

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,8 the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) 9 of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 10 thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B) 11 of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-45 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-45. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-45, and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.12

    12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16731 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75355; File No. SR-NSX-2015-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints July 2, 2015.

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act” or “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on June 23, 2015, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NSX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change, as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposed rule change as “non-controversial” pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints, to conform the requirements of the rule to those contained in the rules of other self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”). The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 4.3 to eliminate a requirement that complaints and actions with respect thereto be forwarded promptly to the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nsx.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Currently, Rule 4.3(a) requires that each Exchange Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holder 5 keep and preserve a file of all written customer complaints 6 and action taken by the ETP Holder with respect to such complaints, for a period of not less than five years, the first two of which must be in a readily accessible place. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule to reduce the retention period for records of customer complaints and ETP Holder actions with respect thereto from five years to four years, the first two of which must be in a readily accessible place.

    5 Rule 1.5E.(1) defines ETP as the Equity Trading Permit issued by the Exchange for effecting approved securities transactions on the Exchange's trading facilities.

    6 Current Rule 4.3(c) defines a “complaint” as “any written statement of a customer or any person acting on behalf of a customer alleging a grievance involving the activities of an ETP Holder or persons acting under the control of the ETP Holder in connection with (1) the solicitation or execution of any transaction conducted or contemplated to be conducted through the facilities of the Exchange or (2) the disposition of securities or funds of that customer which activities are related to such a transaction.”

    The Exchange's proposed rule change will align the retention period prescribed in Exchange Rule 4.3(a) with the retention periods for customer complaint information prescribed in the rules of other SROs. For example, FINRA Rule 4513 requires that FINRA members keep and preserve a record of customer complaints and any action taken by the FINRA member with respect to such complaints for a period of not less than four years.7 Other national securities exchanges that previously had a five-year retention period for customer complaint information have amended their rules to reduce the record retention period for this information from five years to four years.8 The Exchange believes that amending Rule 4.3 to align its recordkeeping provisions with those contained in the rules of other SROs will promote consistency and uniformity, enhance regulatory efficiencies, and reduce the compliance burden on ETP Holders that would result from the application of different retention periods for customer complaints and any actions with respect thereto.

    7 FINRA Rule 4513 requires that “[e]ach [FINRA] member shall keep and preserve in each office of supervisory jurisdiction either a separate file of all written customer complaints that relate to that office (including complaints that relate to activities supervised from that office) and action taken by the member, if any, or a separate record of such complaints and a clear reference to the files in that office containing the correspondence connected with such complaints. Rather than keep and preserve the customer complaint records required under this Rule at the office of supervisory jurisdiction, the member may choose to make them promptly available at that office, upon request of FINRA.”

    8See, e.g., BATS Exchange, Inc. and BATS Y-Exchange Inc. Rule 4.3; See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74656 (April 6, 2015), 80 FR 19381 (April 10, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-25) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74703 (April 10, 2015), 80 FR 20520 (April 16, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-20) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints).

    The Exchange is proposing to further amend Rule 4.3 by deleting paragraph (b), which provides that, upon an ETP Holder's receipt of a complaint, a copy shall be forwarded promptly to the Exchange and a report of the action taken by the ETP Holder on the complaint shall also be forwarded to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that this requirement to report upon receipt of a customer complaint and upon any action with respect thereto is not present in the rules of other SROs.9 The Exchange believes that maintaining a separate and distinct reporting requirement for customer complaints and actions in response thereto would be contrary to the considerations of uniformity and consistency that the Exchange is seeking to advance in proposing the amendments to Rule 4.3.

    9See FINRA Rule 4513, BATS Exchange, Inc. and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. Rule 4.3. See also EDGA Exchange, Inc. and EDGX Exchange Inc. Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints.

    The Exchange notes that there are already mechanisms in place in the securities industry that provide for the prompt reporting of complaints, settlements and other matters that present issues of potential regulatory concern (e.g., written complaints alleging fraud or misappropriation of customer funds or securities, and settlements in excess of certain monetary amounts).10 The Exchange believes that maintaining a separate and distinct reporting requirement in its rules for customer complaints and actions in response thereto imposes an unnecessary regulatory and compliance burden on ETP Holders. Moreover, ETP Holders are obligated to furnish complaint information to the Exchange upon request and the proposed rule change does not in any way alter or impact that Exchange's ability to access that information.11

    10See, e.g., FINRA Rule 4530, Reporting Requirements.

    11 Specifically, Rule 4.2, Furnishing of Records, provides, in relevant part, that “[e]very ETP Holder shall furnish to the Exchange, upon request and in a time and manner required by the Exchange . . . any records, files or financial information pertaining to transactions executed on or through the Exchange . . . [and] the [E]xchange shall be allowed access, at any time, to the books and records of the ETP Holder in order to obtain or verify information related to transactions executed on or through the Exchange or activities relating to the Exchange.”

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) 12 of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) 13 that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Aligning the requirements of Rule 4.3 with the rules of other SROs will provide a further harmonization of securities industry rules applicable to ETP Holders. This will result in greater uniformity, enhanced regulatory efficiency, and a reduced potential for inconsistent regulatory approaches with regard to customer complaint recordkeeping and reporting.

    12 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b).

    13 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).

    Similarly, the Exchange's proposal to delete paragraph (b) of Rule 4.3, thereby eliminating the requirement that complaints and the ETP Holder's action with respect thereto be reported to the Exchange, is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it will remove a requirement that, if left in place, imposes an unnecessary regulatory and compliance burden and detracts from the goal of fostering cooperation and coordination in the regulation of ETP Holders. Deleting the separate and distinct reporting requirement will also provide consistency and avoid regulatory duplication, which will operate to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange further submits that removing the reporting requirement will alleviate a regulatory and compliance obligation and allow regulatory resources to be directed to matters with greater impact to the protection of investors.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule amendment will impose any burden on competition that is not reasonable or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issue in the U.S. securities markets or have any impact on competition in those markets because it is intended to provide for greater harmonization of Exchange rules with the rules of other SROs. The Exchange submits that the proposed amendment will promote regulatory efficiency and consistency while reducing the regulatory compliance burden on ETP Holders.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited or received comments on the proposed rule change from market participants or others.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 14 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.15

    14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NSX-2015-03 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2015-03. This file number should be included in the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2015-03 and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.16

    16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16728 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75354; File Nos. SR-BATS-2015-37; SR-BYX-2015-25; SR-EDGA-2015-19; SR-EDGX-2015-21] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; and EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to Liquidity Requirements for Securities Admitted to Unlisted Trading Privileges July 2, 2015. I. Introduction

    On May 5, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS”); BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”); EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”); and EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) (each, an “Exchange” and, collectively, the “Exchanges”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 proposed rule changes to amend each Exchange's Rule 11.2, “Securities Eligible for Trading,” to indicate that the Exchanges may determine not to designate for trading any security admitted to unlisted trading privileges that does not meet certain consolidated average daily trading volume thresholds. On May 15, 2015, the Exchanges each filed Amendment No. 1 to their respective proposals.4 The proposed rule changes, as amended, were published for comment in the in the Federal Register on May 22, 2015.5 The Commission received two comment letters regarding the proposals.6 This order approves the proposed rule changes, as amended.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    4 Each Amendment No. 1 amended and replaced its original proposal in its entirety.

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74987 (May 18, 2015), 80 FR 29769 (“BATS Notice”); 74988 (May 18, 2015), 80 FR 29781 (“BYX Notice”); 74986 (May 18, 2015), 80 FR 29772 (“EDGA Notice”); and 74985 (May 18, 2015), 80 FR 29778 (“EDGX Notice”).

    6See letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from John A. McCarthy, General Counsel, KCG Holdings, Inc. (“KCG”), dated June 12, 2015 (“KCG Letter”) available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-byx-2015-25/byx201525-1.pdf; and from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”), dated June 15, 2015 (“SIFMA Letter”) available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-bats-2015-37/bats201537-1.pdf.

    II. Description of the Proposals

    Each Exchange proposes to amend its rules by adding new paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to Rule 11.2.7 Proposed Rule 11.2(b) provides that an Exchange may determine not to designate for trading any security admitted to unlisted trading privileges on the Exchange when that security's consolidated average daily volume is equal to or less than 2,500 shares during the preceding 90 calendar days.8 An Exchange may begin trading a security that it had previously not designated for trading pursuant to proposed Rule 11.2(b) if the security's consolidated average daily trading volume exceeds 5,000 shares over any 90 calendar day period since the security was not designated for trading.9 An Exchange would be required to notify its members at least one trading day in advance of any securities it is making unavailable for trading pursuant to proposed Rule 11.2(b), and of any securities it is making available for trading pursuant to proposed Rule 11.2(c).10

    7 The existing provisions of Rule 11.2 will be included in proposed subparagraph (a).

    8See proposed Exchange Rule 11.2(b). Based on internal statistics, the Exchanges anticipate that approximately 700 securities would meet this criterion.

    9See proposed Exchange Rule 11.2(c).

    10See proposed Exchange Rule 11.2(d).

    Each Exchange would retain discretion over whether to determine not to quote and trade securities that meet the criteria in proposed Exchange Rules 11.2(b) and 11.2(c).11 In determining whether to exercise its discretion under proposed Exchange Rules 11.2(b) and 11.2(c), an Exchange would consider such factors as member and investor feedback, as well as whether other non-listing exchanges have decided to cease quoting and trading in the affected securities.12

    11See proposed Exchange Rule 11.2(c).

    12See BATS Notice, 80 FR at 29770; BYX Notice, 80 FR at 29782; EDGA Notice, 80 FR at 29773; and EDGX Notice, 80 FR at 29779.

    The Exchanges state that the proposals may facilitate an improvement in market quality for the affected securities, which could increase investor interest in trading these securities. In particular, the Exchanges believe that concentrating the quoted liquidity in the affected securities on the listing exchange will provide liquidity providers with an incentive to quote more competitively on the listing exchange, resulting in narrower bid-ask spreads and greater quoted depth of book. Specifically, the Exchanges believe that liquidity providers will have an incentive to quote more competitively because concentrating the quoted liquidity on the listing exchange would: (i) Reduce liquidity providers' risk of adverse selection when quoting in a fragmented market; (ii) provide greater certainty of execution on the one exchange at which liquidity providers are quoting; and (iii) enhance competition for order book priority at the national best bid or offer and throughout the depth of book. In addition, the Exchanges state that concentrating liquidity on the listing exchange could provide the listing exchange with flexibility to innovate with alternative market structures, such as variable tick sizes or periodic batch auctions, that currently are not possible under Regulation NMS when multiple exchanges are quoting and trading the securities. The Exchanges believe that such alternative market structures could further enhance the market quality of the affected securities.13

    13See BATS Notice, 80 FR at 29770-29771; BYX Notice, 80 FR at 29782-29783; EDGA Notice at 80 FR at 29773-29774; and EDGX Notice at 80 FR 29779-29780.

    III. Summary of Comments Received

    The Commission received two comment letters regarding the proposals, both of which supported the proposals.14 One commenter stated that the proposals were “a reasonable approach to addressing the persistent problem of trading illiquid securities in a fragmented market.” 15 Another commenter stated that the market quality of less liquid securities could be improved if their exchange trading presence was concentrated on the listing exchange.16 Both commenters expressed support for similar initiatives by other exchanges, with one commenter encouraging other exchanges to consider expanding the scope of less liquid securities that would be subject to a concentrated trading threshold.17

    14See note 6, supra. The KCG Letter was addressed to File No. SR-BYX-2015-25, and the SIFMA Letter was addressed to File No. SR-BATS-2015-37. Because the proposals are substantially similar, the Commission believes it is appropriate to consider the comments with respect to all of the proposals.

    15 KCG Letter at 1.

    16See SIFMA Letter at 1-2.

    17See SIFMA Letter at 2; KCG Letter at 3. While expressing support for the current proposals, one commenter indicated that it would oppose any proposal to establish concentrated exchange trading for actively traded stocks. The commenter also stated that the initiative to concentrate exchange trading must allow for the continuation of off-exchange trading of illiquid securities which, in the commenter's view, provides important supplementary benefits to exchange trading. See SIFMA Letter at 2.

    One commenter stated that by providing the primary listing exchange with exclusivity in the quoting and trading of thinly-traded securities, the proposals would allow the listing exchange to better innovate its market structure for these securities, which likely would lead to improved market quality for the securities.18 At the same time, the commenter stated that that the voluntary nature of the program should act as a check to assure that the listing exchange does not abuse its monopoly position.19 The commenter noted, further, that the proposals are an incremental market structure adjustment, unlike other recent initiatives that the commenter characterized as being larger in scope and potentially disruptive.20

    18See KCG Letter at 2.

    19See id.

    20See id.

    IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes, as amended, are consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.21 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes, as amended, are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,22 which requires that the rules of the exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    21 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    22 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(5).

    The Commission believes that the proposals will provide transparency by signaling each Exchange's general intention to voluntarily refrain from trading any security that does not meet the consolidated average daily trading volume threshold established in Rule 11.2(b), and to continue to refrain from trading such a security until the security satisfies the requirements of Rule 11.2(c). The proposals also make clear that the Exchanges will retain discretion to quote and trade the affected securities. 23 In determining whether to exercise this discretion, the Exchanges have represented that they will consider such factors as member and investor feedback, and whether other non-listing exchanges have decided to cease quoting and trading the affected securities.

    23See Rule 11.2(c).

    The Commission notes that each Exchange is required to notify its members at least one trading day in advance of any securities that it is making unavailable for trading pursuant to Rule 11.2(b), and of any securities it is making available for trading pursuant to Rule 11.2(c).24 The Commission notes, further, that the Exchanges believe that the proposals potentially could enhance the market quality of the affected securities, and that the commenters similarly supported the proposals as a step toward improving the market quality of less liquid securities.

    24See Exchange Rule 11.2(d).

    V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,25 that the proposed rule changes (File Nos. SR-BATS-2015-37; SR-BYX-2015-25; SR-EDGA-2015-19; and SR-EDGX-2015-21), as amended, are approved.

    25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.26

    26 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16727 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75356; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-020] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Expand FINRA's Alternative Trading System (“ATS”) Transparency Initiative To Publish OTC Equity Volume Executed Outside ATSs July 2, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on June 23, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to expand FINRA's alternative trading system (“ATS”) transparency initiative to publish the remaining equity volume executed over-the-counter (“OTC”) by FINRA members, including, among other trading activity, non-ATS electronic trading systems and internalized trades.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Under FINRA rules, each member that operates an ATS is required to report its weekly volume, by security, to FINRA and also must use a unique market participant identifier (“MPID”) for reporting order and trade information to FINRA. As part of these requirements, FINRA makes the reported volume and trade count information for equity securities publicly available on its Web site.3 Pursuant to the proposed rule change, FINRA is proposing to amend Rules 6110 and 6610 to expand this transparency initiative by publishing the remaining OTC equity (or “non-ATS”) volume by member firm and security.

    3 FINRA currently does not publish ATS volume information regarding fixed income securities.

    FINRA is proposing to derive a firm's non-ATS volume information directly from OTC trades reported to FINRA's equity trade reporting facilities.4 As such, members would not have any new or additional reporting requirements as a result of the proposed rule change. FINRA would base a firm's non-ATS volume on trades reported for dissemination purposes (or “tape reports”) on which the firm is identified as the member with the trade reporting obligation.5 A firm's published trading volume information would not include trades for which the firm is the reported contra party,6 nor would it include trades that are reported for regulatory or clearing purposes only (or “non-tape reports”).

    4 FINRA's equity trade reporting facilities (collectively referred to herein as the “FINRA Facilities”) are the Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”) and the Trade Reporting Facilities (“TRF”), to which members report OTC transactions in NMS stocks, as defined in SEC Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS; and the OTC Reporting Facility (“ORF”), to which members report transactions in “OTC Equity Securities,” as defined in FINRA Rule 6420 (i.e., non-NMS stocks such as OTC Bulletin Board and OTC Market securities), as well as transactions in Restricted Equity Securities, as defined in FINRA Rule 6420, effected pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A.

    5 Under FINRA rules, in a trade between a member and non-member or customer, the member has the obligation to report the trade, and in a trade between two members, the “executing party,” defined as the member that receives an order for handling or execution or is presented an order against its quote, does not subsequently re-route the order, and executes the transaction, has the obligation to report the trade. See Rules 6282(b), 6380A(b), 6380B(b) and 6622(b).

    6 FINRA is proposing to include only volume from the executing party perspective because otherwise, published OTC volume would be overstated (i.e., publishing volume from both the executing party and contra party perspectives would double count that executed volume).

    FINRA is proposing to publish on the FINRA Web site weekly volume information (number of trades and shares) by firm and security, with limited de minimis exceptions noted below, on a two-week or four-week delayed basis in accordance with the time frames specified for ATS volume publication.7 Specifically, volume information would be published on a two-week delayed basis for NMS stocks in Tier 1 under the NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (also referred to as the “Limit Up/Limit Down Plan”) 8 and a four-week delayed basis for all other NMS stocks and OTC Equity Securities.9

    7See Rule 4552.

    8 Tier 1 NMS stocks include those NMS stocks in the S&P 500 Index or the Russell 1000 Index and certain ETPs. See NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility. FINRA will make changes to the Tier 1 NMS stocks in accordance with the Indices. Changes to the S&P 500 are made on an as needed basis and are not subject to an annual or semi-annual reconstitution. S&P typically does not add new issues until they have been seasoned for six to twelve months. Russell 1000 rebalancing typically takes place in June.

    9 FINRA notes that non-ATS volume data will be displayed in the same format in which ATS volume data is displayed today, i.e., aggregate volume for each firm across all NMS stocks (Tier 1 and all other NMS stocks) and OTC equity securities; aggregate volume for each security across all firms; and volume for each security by each firm (except with respect to the de minimis volume discussed below).

    Based on feedback FINRA has received from firms, FINRA is also proposing to publish aggregate volume totals across all NMS stocks and aggregate volume totals across all OTC Equity Securities for each calendar month. FINRA proposes to publish monthly aggregate totals on a one month delayed basis, e.g., totals for the month of April would be published on or around June 1.

    FINRA is proposing to publish non-ATS volume information at the firm level and not on an MPID-by-MPID basis. FINRA believes that this is appropriate because outside of the ATS context, not all firms have a separate MPID for each unique trading center at the firm, and as such, publishing volume information at the MPID level may not provide meaningful or consistent information to the marketplace. For members that use more than one MPID for their non-ATS trading,10 FINRA proposes to aggregate and publish the non-ATS trading volume for all non-ATS MPIDs belonging to the firm under a single “parent” identifier or firm name.11 FINRA notes that a firm's ATS volume will continue to be published separately under the unique MPID(s) for each ATS operated by the firm.

    10 For example, a firm may use separate MPIDs for its proprietary and agency desks.

    11 FINRA is able to identify all MPIDs belonging to a given firm based on currently available information, and as such, members will not have a new reporting obligation as a result of this proposal.

    FINRA does not believe that publishing volume information for each firm that executed only a small number of trades or shares in any given period would provide meaningful information to the marketplace. Accordingly, as described in more detail below, FINRA is proposing to combine volume from all members that do not meet a specified minimum threshold and publish such “de minimis” volume information for those members on an aggregated basis. For example, if five firms each execute 10 trades in the reporting period in a security, their 50 trades would be aggregated and published as a single line item; the firms and their volume information would not be identified separately. For a firm with more than one non-ATS MPID, the total volume across all of its non-ATS MPIDs would be combined for purposes of determining whether the de minimis threshold has been met.

    FINRA is proposing to establish a de minimis threshold of fewer than on average 200 non-ATS transactions per day executed by the firm across all securities or in a specific security during the one-week reporting period. This proposed threshold is based on the level of trading activity used by the SEC to identify “small market makers” for purposes of exemptive relief from the rule requiring market centers that trade NMS securities to make publicly available electronic reports that include uniform statistical measures of execution quality (SEC Rule 605 of Regulation NMS).12 In developing its proposal, FINRA reviewed volume statistics for firms across all securities for a one-week period (June 23-29, 2014). This review indicated that without applying any threshold, approximately 300 individual firms would have volume attributed by name. Looking at market participants with on average 200 or more trades per day across all securities, approximately 62 firms would have volume attributed by name and would account for 98.99 percent of all trading volume.

    12 Specifically, the SEC exempted any market center that reported fewer than 200 transactions per trading day on average over the preceding six-month period in securities that are covered by the rule. See letter from Annette L. Nazareth, Director, Division, to Richard Romano, Chair, and Carl P. Sherr, Co-Chair, NASD Small Firms Advisory Board, dated June 22, 2001.

    Thus, if a firm averages fewer than 200 non-ATS transactions per day across all securities during the reporting period, FINRA would aggregate the firm's volume with that of similarly situated firms. Additionally, because the published volume data would be broken down by security, if a firm averages fewer than 200 non-ATS transactions per day in a given security during the reporting period, FINRA would aggregate the firm's volume in that security with that of similarly situated firms, even if the firm averages more than 200 non-ATS transactions per day across all securities during the reporting period. FINRA notes that all of the OTC volume would be published, but for members that meet the de minimis threshold, their volume would not be attributed by name.

    The proposed rule change will provide additional transparency into a significant portion of the OTC market.13 Accordingly, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will enable the public to better understand a firm's equity trading activity off exchanges by reviewing the proposed non-ATS volume together with the current ATS volume reports. In this regard, FINRA notes that during the rulemaking process on the ATS transparency initiative, some commenters recommended broadening the proposal to include trade information for other OTC execution venues.

    13 For example, for the period from March 16 through April 10, 2015, approximately 59 percent of the share volume of OTC trades in NMS stocks was executed outside an ATS.

    FINRA considered whether dividing published volume information into more granular categories, such as by trading capacity (i.e., principal versus agency or riskless principal) or by participant type (e.g., market maker), would be feasible or provide additional meaningful or reliable information to market participants. Segregating the data, e.g., by trading desk, would entail potentially significant development work by firms to sufficiently identify the activity for FINRA (e.g., volume attributable to a market making desk) and may not be consistent across firms, while also leading to some concerns about information leakage. Thus, FINRA is not proposing at this time to publish the non-ATS volume data at more granular levels than by firm and security.

    In developing its approach, FINRA staff solicited industry input prior to presenting the proposal to FINRA's Board of Governors in September 2014. In addition to discussing the proposal with a number of FINRA's industry advisory committees, FINRA staff also informally consulted a number of firms, including large and mid-size firms with a variety of business models, as well as two buy-side firms. The committees and all but one of the consulted firms were generally supportive of the proposal. Some of the consulted firms noted that the published volume information would provide market participants with a better sense of flow in a given market segment and would most likely be used for purposes of market share or other longer-term quantitative market analysis. However, because publication of the data necessarily would be delayed, the consulted firms believe that it would likely not be a valuable tool for such purposes as analyzing execution quality or making day-to-day order routing and trading decisions.

    Several of the consulted firms and committee members expressed some concern about the potential for information leakage. The consulted firms agreed on the importance of delaying publication of non-ATS volume information, noting that the closer to real-time the information is published, the greater the risks that would result from disclosing a market participant's trading activity. One of the consulted firms was concerned about publication of non-ATS volume information at the market participant and security level, even on a delayed basis, asserting that other market participants would be able to download data associated with the firm's trading activity, re-engineer it to discern patterns of historical trading and identify similar patterns in future trading that could be used to their advantage (and to the firm's disadvantage). Even the firms that were generally supportive of the proposal to publish non-ATS volume information indicated that they would have concerns if the information were published at a more granular level.14

    14 For example, with respect to publishing data according to trading capacity, several of the consulted firms expressed concern that a market participant's large position holdings could be discerned from the data (e.g., accumulations of proprietary positions in advance of ETF creations or secondary offerings). Similarly, the consulted firms did not believe that there would be value in getting more granular information, e.g., according to desk or department, noting that since the data would be historical and not real-time, it would not change behavior in terms of accessing liquidity. One firm commented that more granular information would not be reliable or consistent across firms, because not every firm has the same business model or desk structure. In addition, several of the firms indicated that they would be less supportive of a proposal that requires them to comply with a new reporting regime or undertake development work to be able to identify, e.g., volume attributable to a market making desk.

    FINRA believes it has taken appropriate steps to address firms' concerns by delaying publication and limiting the granularity of the published information to firm and security. The proposed rule change is similar to the approach currently taken with respect to ATS volume information, and firms have not come to FINRA with any complaints regarding information leakage since FINRA began publishing ATS volume information. However, following implementation of the proposed rule change, FINRA will consider whether modifications are appropriate, e.g., to the scope of published information or the delay between trading activity and publication, based on feedback it may receive from interested parties, including firms and users of the data.

    One of the consulted firms also indicated that FINRA should not charge for the data, noting that the potential value is diminished if it is another cost center for the industry. FINRA notes that it has determined not to charge a fee for the data that would be published pursuant to the proposed rule change and will make non-ATS OTC volume information available to the public for free in a downloadable format.

    In addition to the oral feedback discussed above, FINRA solicited written comments on the proposal in Regulatory Notice 14-48 (November 2014), which are summarized below.

    FINRA proposes that the effective date of the proposed rule change will be no later than 180 days after Commission approval. Thus, FINRA anticipates that it will begin publication of data in accordance with the proposed rule change in the fourth quarter of 2015 or first quarter of 2016 and will announce the specific date in a Regulatory Notice.

    2. Statutory Basis

    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,15 which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will provide additional transparency into a significant portion of the OTC market and that the increased transparency will enable market participants and investors to better understand a firm's trading volume and market share in the equity market.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to analyze the regulatory need for the proposed rule change, its potential economic impacts, including anticipated costs and benefits, and the alternatives FINRA considered in assessing how to best meet its regulatory objectives.

    Regulatory Need

    FINRA's current rules require each member that operates an ATS to report its weekly trade volume information to FINRA. As part of these requirements, FINRA makes the information for equity securities available to the public, thereby providing market participants and investors useful information about trading activity in the ATS segment of the OTC equity market. The proposed rule change will expand this transparency initiative by publishing the remaining OTC equity volume reported to FINRA. The increased transparency will enable the market to better understand a firm's trading volume, its market share in the equity market and the amount of OTC trading in each equity security.

    Anticipated Benefits

    The proposed rule change would expand the benefits of FINRA's ATS transparency initiative by providing additional transparency to the remaining equity volume executed in the non-ATS segment of the OTC equity market. The trading activity in this non-ATS segment represents a significant portion of the overall equity trading in the OTC market.16 The increased transparency would enable market participants and investors to better understand the overall equity trading in the OTC market as well as the amount of OTC trading in individual equity securities. Furthermore, the expansion of transparency would help the marketplace better understand a firm's overall OTC trading of equities, thereby enhancing their understanding of executing firms' trading volume and market shares in the equity market.

    16See, e.g., Laura Tuttle, “OTC Trading: Description of Non-ATS OTC Trading in National Market System Stocks” (March 2014). Tuttle reports that the non-ATS segment of the OTC market in NMS stocks is larger than the ATS segment.

    Anticipated Costs

    The proposed rule change would not impose any additional reporting requirements on firms since FINRA will directly derive the non-ATS volume data from OTC trades reported to FINRA's equity trade reporting facilities. As a result, the proposed rule would have minimal impact on firms from a systems development and reporting perspective.

    Other Economic Impacts

    In developing this proposal, FINRA considered whether a firm's trading strategy could be discerned from the published data. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change mitigates such information leakage concerns by delaying the publication of trading volumes and by limiting the granularity of the published information. The proposed rule change is a well-calibrated effort to reduce information leakage concerns and to provide market participants access to meaningful information on non-ATS trading activity. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will not impose differential risks of information leakage on firms. Moreover, by expanding transparency to all OTC equity trading by FINRA members, the proposed rule change would bridge gaps in information published across ATS versus non-ATS segments of the OTC equity market, thereby reducing any competitive distortions that may be associated with such information gaps.

    Alternatives

    In considering how to best meet its regulatory objectives, FINRA considered several alternatives to particular features of this proposed rule change. For example, FINRA considered whether publishing volume information at a more granular level (e.g. by trading capacity or by participant type) would provide additional useful information to market participants, and the costs associated with such an alternative. FINRA believes that segregating the data, e.g., by trading desk, would entail significant development work by firms, without commensurate benefit to market participants. In addition, as discussed in more detail above, several commenters raised concerns about information leakage with publishing more granular data. Accordingly, FINRA has determined not to publish data at a more granular level than by firm and security.

    FINRA also considered publishing non-ATS volume information at the MPID level, as opposed to the firm level. FINRA believes that publishing information at the firm level is more appropriate because not all firms have a separate MPID for each unique trading center at the firm. Accordingly, publishing volume information at the firm level would likely provide more consistent information to the marketplace.

    In developing this proposal, FINRA also considered alternative approaches related to publishing volume information for firms with minimal non-ATS trading activity. As discussed in more detail above, FINRA does not believe that publishing volume information separately for each firm with minimal trading would provide meaningful information to the marketplace. Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to combine volume from all members with trading activity below a de minimis threshold of on average 200 transactions per day. FINRA considered several alternative de minimis thresholds and solicited comment on these alternatives in Regulatory Notice 14-48. FINRA believes that the proposed de minimis threshold is reasonable as it would account for the vast majority 17 of the total non-ATS trading volume and is also consistent with the level of trading activity used by the SEC to identify “small market makers” for SEC Rule 605 of Regulation NMS.

    17 As discussed above, based on its review of recent trading volume statistics, FINRA estimates that the proposed de minimis threshold would account for approximately 99% of the overall non-ATS trading volume, and as a result the vast majority of the trading volume would be attributed by firm name under the proposed rule change.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in Regulatory Notice 14-48 (November 2014). Three comments were received in response to the Regulatory Notice. 18 A copy of the Regulatory Notice is attached as Exhibit 2a.19 Copies of the comment letters received in response to the Regulatory Notice are attached as Exhibit 2c. The comments are summarized below.

    18See Letter from Stéphane Tyč, Co-founder, Quincy Data, LLC to Marcia E. Asquith, Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated January 9, 2015 (“QD Letter”); letter from John Ramsay, Chief Market Policy and Regulatory Officer, IEX Services LLC to Marcia E. Asquith, Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated February 12, 2015 (“IEX Letter”); and letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, to Marcia E. Asquith, Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated February 20, 2015 (“SIFMA Letter”).

    19 The Commission notes that the Exhibits referred to herein, as well as the comment letters cited in the footnotes, are attached to the filing itself and not to this Notice.

    All three commenters generally supported the proposal. One commenter specifically noted that the data can be used by market participants, regulators and academics to better understand and track trends in OTC trading generally, and can also help investors better evaluate the routing and execution practices of individual firms.20 This commenter agreed with the proposal to publish non-ATS volume information at the firm (rather than MPID) level, while another commenter disagreed with this aspect of the proposal, stating that the trade publication should identify the matching engine with a unique identifier.21 FINRA agrees that publication at the MPID level makes sense in the context of ATS executions; however, as noted above, outside of the ATS context, not all firms have a separate MPID for each unique trading center at the firm, and as such, publishing volume information at the MPID level may not provide meaningful or consistent information to the marketplace.

    20See IEX Letter.

    21See QD Letter.

    One commenter agreed with the proposal to aggregate volume information for firms with a de minimis amount of OTC volume, noting that it is a reasonable way to assure that the published information will be meaningful and free of the “noise” that could otherwise arise from a broader publication measure.22 On the other hand, another commenter disagreed with the proposal to aggregate data for firms with a de minimis amount of trading, noting that they believe in simple rules with no exceptions.23 However, this commenter did not discuss the potential value of publishing unaggregated volume information for firms with only a small number of trades. As discussed above, FINRA does not believe that publishing volume information below the proposed de minimis threshold would provide meaningful information to the marketplace.

    22See IEX Letter.

    23See QD Letter.

    One commenter suggested using an alternate notional volume measure as part of the de minimis threshold so that firms doing relatively few trades but in large notional volume are included.24 FINRA believes that the potential costs and additional resources, including technology infrastructure, that would be required to implement a second de minimis threshold measure would outweigh any potential benefit. In addition, FINRA is concerned that utilizing two different threshold measures may be confusing to consumers of the data, and believes that a single threshold measure, based on number of trades, would be the simplest and easiest to understand. However, as noted above, following implementation of the proposed rule change, FINRA will consider whether modifications are appropriate, including whether changes to the de minimis threshold would be appropriate, based on feedback it may receive from interested parties.

    24See IEX Letter.

    Another commenter expressed concern that the proposed two-week publication timeframe for Tier 1 NMS stocks may result in unintended information leakage, and in particular disclosure of large institutional trades, which could enable reverse engineering of those trades if published within two weeks of execution.25 To address the information leakage concerns, this commenter recommended aggregation on a monthly, not weekly basis, and publishing on a four-week delayed basis. Another commenter stated that a delay of one month is sufficient to enable broker-dealers to manage their risk, but also recommended that FINRA consider the shortest publication time that provides enough time to manage the risk of a position, which could differ by security class (e.g., two weeks for liquid equities and six months for illiquid bonds).26 This commenter further noted that it supports the publication of complete and fully granular data, without specifying the level of granularity or how to mitigate the attendant risk of information leakage.27

    25See SIFMA Letter.

    26See QD Letter. FINRA notes that the proposed rule change applies only to OTC equity volume; information for fixed income securities would not be published as part of this proposal.

    27See QD Letter.

    As discussed above, FINRA considered the potential for information leakage in developing its proposal and believes that it has taken adequate steps to mitigate that potential by, among other things, proposing to publish non-ATS volume information on the same delayed basis that is used for ATS volume data, as well as at the firm, rather than MPID, level and not further segregating volume information by trading capacity or trading desk.

    One commenter opposes FINRA charging for non-ATS volume information.28 As noted above, FINRA has determined not to charge for the non-ATS volume information that would be published pursuant to the proposed rule change.

    28See SIFMA Letter.

    Finally, several comments submitted on Regulatory Notice 14-48 are not germane to the proposal. One commenter urged FINRA to eliminate the current requirement for ATSs to report volume information to FINRA.29 FINRA notes that elimination of the ATS volume reporting requirement will be addressed in a separate proposed rule change by FINRA. Another commenter proposed an alternative to the consolidated audit trail,30 which is not germane to the proposed rule change and does not warrant a specific response.

    29See SIFMA Letter.

    30See QD Letter.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-FINRA-2015-020 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-020. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-020 and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.31

    31 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16729 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75353; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-30] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Price List To Revise: (i) The Non-Tier Adding Credit; (ii) Certain Fees for Executions at the Close; (iii) Credits Applicable to Designated Market Makers; (iv) Credits Applicable to Supplemental Liquidity Providers; and (v) Pricing Related to the Retail Liquidity Program Under Rule 107C as it Relates to Designated Market Maker Transactions, and To Make Non-Substantive Changes to the Price List July 2, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on June 26, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its price list to revise: (i) The non-tier adding credit; (ii) certain fees for executions at the close; (iii) credits applicable to designated market makers; (iv) credits applicable to supplemental liquidity providers; and (v) pricing related to the retail liquidity program under rule 107c as it relates to designated market maker transactions, and to make non-substantive changes to the price list. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to revise (i) the Non-Tier Adding Credit; (ii) certain fees for executions at the close; (iii) credits applicable to Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”); (iv) credits applicable to Supplemental Liquidity Providers (“SLPs”); and (v) pricing related to the Retail Liquidity Program under Rule 107C as it relates to DMM transactions, and to make non-substantive changes to the Price List. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective July 1, 2015.

    Member Organization Non-Tier Adding Credit

    Member organizations are currently eligible for the Non-Tier Adding Credit for all orders in securities priced $1.00 or more, other than Midpoint Passive Liquidity (“MPL”) 4 and Non-Display Reserve orders, that add liquidity to the NYSE unless a higher credit applies. The applicable rate for the Non-Tier Adding Credit is $0.0015 per share. The Exchange proposes to lower this credit to $0.0014 per share. The credits applicable to MPL orders and Non-Display Reserve orders would be unchanged.

    4 An MPL Order is an undisplayed limit order that automatically executes at the mid-point of the best protected bid (“PBB”) or best protected offer (“PBO”), as such terms are defined in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57) (together, “PBBO”). See Rule 13. See also 17 CFR 242.600(b)(57).

    Executions at the Close

    The Exchange currently charges member organizations $0.00095 per share for market-at-the-close (“MOC”) and limit-at-the-close (“LOC”) orders, unless a member organization meets specified thresholds set forth in the Price List for MOC and LOC activity. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee by $0.00005 to $0.0010 per share and to identify this pricing tier in the Price List as Non-Tier MOC/LOC.

    The Exchange currently charges $0.00065 per share for all MOC and LOC orders from any member organization executing (i) an ADV of MOC and LOC activity on the Exchange in the month of at least 0.375% of consolidated ADV (“CADV”) in NYSE-listed securities during the billing month (“NYSE CADV”); or (ii) an ADV of MOC and LOC activity on the Exchange in that month of at least 0.30% of NYSE CADV plus an ADV of total close activity (i.e., MOC and LOC and other executions at the close) on the Exchange in that month of at least 0.475% of NYSE CADV. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $0.00070 per share and to identify this pricing tier in the Price List as MOC/LOC Tier 2.

    The Exchange does not propose to change the fee of $0.0006 per share applicable to MOC and LOC orders from any member organization executing an ADV of MOC and LOC activity on the NYSE in that month of at least 0.575% of NYSE CADV. The Exchange proposes to identify this tier in the Price List as MOC/LOC Tier 1.

    DMMs

    DMMs are currently eligible for a per share credit of $0.0025 when adding liquidity in shares of each More Active Security 5 if the More Active Security has a stock price of $1.00 or more and the DMM quotes at the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”) in the applicable security at least 10% of the time in the applicable month (“More Active Securities Quoting Requirement”). The Exchange proposes to raise this credit to $0.0027 per share.

    5 A “More Active Security” is a security with an average daily consolidated volume in the previous month equal to or greater than one million shares. See Price List.

    DMMs are currently eligible for a per share credit when adding liquidity in shares of each More Active Security if (a) the More Active Security has a stock price of $1.00 or more, (b) the DMM meets the More Active Securities Quoting Requirement, (c) the DMM Quoted Size for an applicable month is at least 15% of the NYSE Quoted Size (defined in the Price List as the “More Active Securities Quoted Size Ratio Requirement”), and (d) the DMM's providing liquidity meets certain thresholds, as follows:

    • $0.0029 per share if the DMM's providing liquidity is 15% or less of the NYSE's total intraday adding liquidity in each such security for that month; 6 or

    6 The NYSE total intraday adding liquidity is totaled monthly and includes all NYSE adding liquidity, excluding NYSE open and NYSE close volume, by all NYSE participants, including SLPs, customers, Floor brokers and DMMs. See Price List.

    • $0.0032 per share if the DMM's providing liquidity is more than 15% of the NYSE's total intraday adding liquidity in each such security for that month.

    The “NYSE Quoted Size” is calculated by multiplying the average number of shares quoted on the NYSE at the NBBO by the percentage of time the NYSE had a quote posted at the NBBO. The “DMM Quoted Size” is calculated by multiplying the average number of shares of the applicable security quoted at the NBBO by the DMM by the percentage of time during which the DMM quoted at the NBBO.

    The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to these credits:

    The Exchange proposes to raise the $0.0029 per share credit to $0.0031 per share when the DMM has a DMM Quoted Size for an applicable month that is at least 10% of the NYSE Quoted Size, reduced from the current requirement of 15% of the NYSE Quoted Size. In addition, the requirement that a DMM provide liquidity of 15% or less of the NYSE's total intraday adding liquidity to receive this credit would no longer apply.

    The Exchange proposes to raise the $0.0032 per share credit when adding liquidity to $0.0034 per share. The requirements for this credit would remain unchanged, including the requirement to provide liquidity of more than 15% of the NYSE's total intraday adding liquidity in each such security for that month.

    The Exchange proposes to delete the defined term, “More Active Securities Quoted Size Ratio Requirement,” as currently set forth in the Price List, as part of the changes to these credits.

    In any month in which a DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 20% of the time in a security with a Security CADV 7 of less than 1,000,000 shares per month (“Less Active Securities”), such DMM receives all of the market data quote revenue (the “Quoting Share”) received by the Exchange from the Consolidated Tape Association under the Revenue Allocation Formula of Regulation NMS (regardless of whether the stock price exceeds $1.00). If the DMM quotes at the NBBO in a Less Active Security 8 at least 15% of the time, but quotes less than 20% of the time in an applicable month, the DMM receives 50% of the Quoting Share.

    7 “Security CADV” is defined in the Price List as the average daily consolidated volume of a security.

    8 “Less Active Securities” are defined in the Price List as securities that have a Security CADV of less than 1,000,000 shares per month in the previous month.

    The Exchange proposes to raise the threshold for the Security CADV of securities with respect to which DMMs would receive the Quoting Share from less than 1,000,000 shares to less than 1,500,000 shares in the previous month. A DMM would receive 50% of the Quoting Share if it quotes at the NBBO in a security that has a Security CADV of less than 1,500,000 shares in the previous month at least 15% of the time, but less than 20% of the time in an applicable month.

    SLPs

    SLPs are eligible for certain credits when adding liquidity to the Exchange. The amount of the credit is currently determined by the “tier” for which the SLP qualifies, which is based on the SLP's level of quoting and the ADV of liquidity added by the SLP in assigned securities.

    Currently, SLP Tier 3 provides that when adding liquidity to the NYSE in securities with a share price of $1.00 or more, an SLP is eligible for a credit of $0.0023 per share traded if the SLP (1) meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in assigned securities pursuant to Rule 107B and (2) adds liquidity for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate 9 of an ADV 10 of more than 0.20% of NYSE CADV,11 or with respect to an SLP that is also a DMM and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(a),12 more than 0.15% of NYSE CADV. The SLP Tier 3 credit in the case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders is $0.0008. For less active SLP securities (i.e., securities with an ADV in the previous month of 500,000 share or less per month (“Less Active SLP Securities”)), under SLP Tier 3, the SLP is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0028; $0.0013 if a Non-Displayed Reserve Order.

    9 Under Rule 107B, an SLP can be either a proprietary trading unit of a member organization (“SLP-Prop”) or a registered market maker at the Exchange (“SLMM”). For purposes of the 10% average or more quoting requirement in assigned securities pursuant to Rule 107B, quotes of an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member organization are not aggregated. However, for purposes of adding liquidity for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate, shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member organization are included.

    10 The defined term, “ADV,” used here as defined in footnote 2 to the Price List.

    11 NYSE CADV is defined in the Price List as the consolidated average daily volume of NYSE-listed securities.

    12 Rule 107B(i)(2)(A) prohibits a DMM from acting as a SLP in the same securities in which it is a DMM.

    Similarly, SLP Tier 2 provides that an SLP adding liquidity in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0026 if the SLP: (1) Meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B; and (2) adds liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.45% of NYSE CADV, or with respect to an SLP that is also a DMM and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(a), more than 0.40% of NYSE CADV.13 The SLP Tier 2 credit in the case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders is $0.0011. For Less Active SLP Securities, under SLP Tier 2, the SLP is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0031; [$]0.0016 if a Non-Displayed Reserve Order.

    13 In determining whether an SLP meets the requirement to add liquidity in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.35% or 0.30% depending on whether the SLP is also a DMM, the SLP may include shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member organization.

    SLP Tier 1 provides that an SLP adding liquidity in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0029 if the SLP: (1) Meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B; and (2) adds liquidity for all for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.90% of NYSE CADV, or with respect to an SLP that is also a DMM and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(a), more than 0.85% of NYSE CADV. The SLP Tier 1 credit in the case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders is $0.0014. For Less Active SLP Securities, the SLP is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0034; $0.0019 if a Non-Displayed Reserve Order.

    Finally, the SLP Non-Tier provides that an SLP adding liquidity in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more that does not qualify for the credits described above is eligible for the applicable rate for the base SLP tier, which would be the rate that applies to the non-SLP activity of the member organization, i.e., the non-Tier Adding Credit, Tier 3 Adding Credit, Tier 2 Adding Credit or Tier 1 Adding Credit (“SLP Non-Tier”). In the case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders, there is no credit under the SLP Non-Tier.

    For SLP Tier 3, SLP Tier 2, and SLP Tier 1, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the higher credits that currently apply to Less Active Securities. Accordingly, regardless of the ADV of a security, SLPs would receive a per share credit of $0.0023, $0.0026, and $0.0029 for SLP Tier 3, SLP Tier 2, and SLP Tier 1, respectively and $.0008, $0.0011, and $0.0014 for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders for SLP Tier 3, SLP Tier 2, and SLP Tier 1, respectively.

    In addition, for SLP Tier 1 and SLP Tier 2, the Exchange proposes to lower the ADV percentage requirement for credits for SLPs that are also DMMs and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A). The ADV percentage requirement for SLPs that are also DMMs and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A) for SLP Tier 1 and SLP Tier 2 would decrease from 0.85% to 0.65% and 0.40% to [0.30%], respectively. The Exchange does not propose to change the ADV percentage requirement for SLP Tier 3, nor does the Exchange propose any changes to the SLP Non-Tier.

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to raise the per share credits for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders for SLP Tier 3, from $0.0008 to $0.0009, for SLP Tier 2, from $0.0011 to $0.0012, and for SLP Tier 1, from $0.0014 to $0.0015.

    Retail Liquidity Program

    The Retail Liquidity Program is a pilot program that is designed to attract additional retail order flow to the Exchange for NYSE-listed securities while also providing the potential for price improvement to such order flow.14 Retail order flow is submitted through the Retail Liquidity Program as a distinct order type called a “Retail Order,” which is defined in Rule 107C(a)(3) as an agency order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization (“RMO”), provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.15 In addition to RMOs, Retail Liquidity Providers (“RLPs”) were created as an additional class of market participant under the Retail Liquidity Program. RLPs are required to provide potential price improvement for Retail Orders in the form of “RPIs,” which are non-displayed interest that is better than the PBBO.16 Member organizations other than RLPs are also permitted, but not required, to submit RPIs.

    14See Rule 107C. See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67347 (July 3, 2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55) (establishing the Retail Liquidity Program pilot) and 74454 (March 6, 2015), 80 FR 13054 (March 12, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-10) (extending the pilot period to September 30, 2015).

    15 RMO is defined in Rule 107C(a)(2) as a member organization (or a division thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange under Rule 107C to submit Retail Orders.

    16 RLP is defined in Rule 107C(a)(1) as a member organization that is approved by the Exchange to act as such and that is required to submit RPIs in accordance with Rule 107C. RPI is defined in Rule 107C(a)(4) and consists of non-displayed interest in NYSE-listed securities that is priced better than the PBBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such.

    RLP executions of RPIs against Retail Orders are currently provided with a credit of $0.0003 per share if the RLP satisfies the applicable percentage requirement of Rule 107C. RPIs of an RLP that does not satisfy the applicable percentage requirement of Rule 107C are subject to a fee of $0.0003 per share.

    A fee of $0.0003 per share also currently applies to non-RLP member organization executions of RPIs against Retail Orders, unless the non-RLP member organization executes an ADV during the month of at least 500,000 shares of RPIs, in which case a credit of $0.0003 per share applies.

    For executions of Retail Orders if executed against RPIs or MPL Orders, RMOs are not currently charged or provided with a credit (i.e., they are free).17

    17 Retail Orders are otherwise charged according to standard fees applicable to non-Retail Orders if executed against the Book.

    The Exchange proposes a credit of $0.0020 per share for executions of an RPI by a DMM that is not an RLP against a Retail Order. The Exchange also proposes to exclude DMMs from the other rates applicable to non-RLP Member organizations in connection with the executions of RPIs against Retail Orders.

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the Price List. Effective June 1, 2015, the Exchange eliminated the credit of $0.0010 per share for executions of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders for market participants, other than SLPs, that provide liquidity.18 The Exchange proposes to add a line item to the Price List for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders, and to add a comma to the description of the Non-Tier Adding Credit, to make it clear in the Price List that there is no charge with respect to executions of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders for market participants, other than SLPs, that provide liquidity.

    18See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75139 (June 10, 2015), 80 FR 34475 (June 16, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-28).

    The above proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members and member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,19 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,20 in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.

    19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    Member Organization Non-Tier Adding Credit

    The Exchange believes that the change to the Member Organization Non-Tier Adding Credit for executions of orders in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is intended to incentivize member organizations to submit additional amounts of liquidity to the Exchange to be eligible to receive the higher credits available from the Tier 1 Adding Credit, the Tier 2 Adding Credit and the Tier 3 Adding Credit. The Exchange believes that the proposed lower credit for the Member Organization Non-Tier Adding Credit is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all member organizations.

    Executions at the Close

    The Exchange believes that increasing the MOC/LOC Non-Tier fee to $0.0010 is reasonable because this rate would be lower than the non-tier rate, Tier F, for market-on-close and limit-on-close orders on the NASDAQ Stock Market (“NASDAQ”), of $0.0015 per executed share.21 Similarly, the Exchange believes that increasing the MOC/LOC Tier 2 fee to $0.0007 per share is reasonable because it would be lower than the lowest fee for market-on-close and limit-on-close orders on NASDAQ, of $0.0008 per executed share. The Exchange notes that it is not changing the fee of $0.0006 for MOC/LOC Tier 1. The Exchange believes that maintaining the lowest fee for the highest liquidity requirements would incentivize member organizations to send in more closing auction volume to the primary market, thereby deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool and supporting the quality of price discovery. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge lower fees to member organizations that make significant contributions to market quality by providing higher volumes of liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated member organizations would be subject to the same fee structure.

    21See NASDAQ Rule 7018(d).

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to add defined terms to the Price List for the MOC/LOC fee tiers is reasonable because the change would make the Price List clearer and easier to understand.

    DMMs

    The Exchange believes that the proposed higher credits would increase the incentive to DMMs to provide additional liquidity on the Exchange to meet the quoting and quoted size requirements for the higher credits. Moreover, the requirement is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all DMM firms.

    The Exchange believes that the $0.0031 rebate for DMMs when adding liquidity with orders, other than MPL orders, in a More Active Security if the More Active Security has a stock price of $1.00 or more and the DMM meets the More Active Securities Quoting Requirement and has a DMM Quoted Size for an applicable month that is at least 10% of the NYSE Quoted Size is reasonable because the requirement for DMM Quoted Size would be reduced from 15% to 10% of the NYSE Quote Size, the DMM would still need to meet the More Active Securities Quoting Requirement of 10%, and the requirement for providing liquidity of 15% or less of the NYSE's total intraday adding in liquidity in each such security would no longer apply. The Exchange believes that maintaining the requirement for DMM Quoted Size at 15% of the NYSE Quote Size for the $0.0034 credit is reasonable as the credit for meeting that requirement would be higher than the $0.0031 credit for meeting the lower requirement of at least 10% of NYSE Quoted Size. Moreover, the requirements are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply equally to all DMMs.

    The Exchange believes that expanding the number of securities that can make a DMM eligible to receive the market data quote revenue is reasonable as it would encourage greater quoting in an expanded universe of less actives securities where there may be fewer liquidity providers. Moreover, the requirement is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all DMMs.

    SLPs

    The Exchange believes that removing the higher credits for SLPs that apply to providing liquidity in Less Active Securities is reasonable and would not impose a burden on competition because the credits would be removed in their entirety and generally have not encouraged liquidity on the Exchange, as intended.

    The Exchange believes that lowering the ADV percentage requirements for the SLP Tier 1 and SLP Tier 2 credits for SLPs that are also DMMs and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A) is reasonable because lowering the requirements would increase the incentives to add liquidity and more closely compares to the requirements for SLP Tier 3. Moreover, the requirement is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all SLPs.

    The Exchange believes that increasing the credits for SLPs for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders for SLP Tier 3, SLP Tier 2 and SLP Tier 1 is reasonable because the added incentive created by the availability of the higher credit is reasonably related to an SLP's liquidity obligations on the Exchange and the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. The proposed changes also are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated SLPs would be eligible to qualify for the rates by satisfying the related thresholds, where applicable.

    Retail Liquidity Program

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the rates under the Retail Liquidity Program is reasonable. The Exchange originally introduced the existing rates approximately three years ago.22 At that time, the Exchange stated that, because the Retail Liquidity Program was a pilot program, the Exchange anticipated that it would periodically review applicable pricing to seek to ensure that it contributes to the goal of the Retail Liquidity Program, which is designed to attract additional retail order flow to the Exchange for NYSE-listed securities while also providing the potential for price improvement to such order flow. The proposed new rate is a result of this review.

    22See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67529 (July 27, 2012), 77 FR 46137 (August 2, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-30).

    The proposed new rate would be set at a level that would reasonably incentivize DMMs to contribute to RPI liquidity being available for interaction with Retail Orders which would encourage more Retail Orders being submitted to the Exchange. Together, this would increase the pool of robust liquidity available on the Exchange, thereby contributing to the quality of the Exchange's market and to the Exchange's status as a premier destination for liquidity and order execution. The Exchange believes that, because Retail Orders are likely to reflect long-term investment intentions, they promote price discovery and dampen volatility. Accordingly, the presence of Retail Orders on the Exchange has the potential to benefit all market participants. In addition, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to allocate higher or additional credits to DMMs compared to other market participants because the higher credit is reasonably related to a DMM's affirmative obligations on the Exchange.23 The Exchange also believes the proposed credit is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all DMMs.

    23 Under Rule 104(a), DMMs registered in one or more securities traded on the Exchange have obligations with respect to the quality of the markets in securities to which they are assigned, such as engaging in a course of dealings for their own account to provide a continuous two-sided quote with reasonable size, maintaining fair and orderly markets and facilitating openings, reopenings, and the close of trading in assigned securities.

    The Exchange believes that the non-substantive clarifying changes to the Price List are reasonable because they are designed to provide greater transparency with regard to how the Exchange assesses fees and provides rebates. The Exchange notes that the proposed non-substantive clarifying changes are not designed to amend any fee or rebate, nor to change how the Exchange assesses fees or calculates credits. In particular, the proposed changes are reasonable and equitable because they do not modify the fees or credits applicable to Non-Displayed Reserve Orders for market participants, other than SLPs, that provide liquidity.

    The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.

    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,24 the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would contribute to the Exchange's market quality by promoting price discovery and ultimately increased competition. For the same reasons, the proposed change also would not impose any burden on competition among market participants. Pricing for executions at the opening would remain at the same relatively low levels and would continue to reflect the benefit that market participants receive through the ability to have their orders interact with other liquidity at the opening.

    24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 25 of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 26 thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange.

    25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    26 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 27 of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    27 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2015-30 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-30. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-30 and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.28

    28 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16726 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75357; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2015-53] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule To Discontinue Certain Fees July 2, 2015.

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on June 30, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to discontinue certain fees. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective July 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this filing is to discontinue certain fees as described below. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective July 1, 2015.

    The Exchange proposes to discontinue fees for certain Manual transactions in options overlying IWM (the iShares Russell 2000 ETF).4 In April 2015, the Exchange implemented special pricing for IWM to encourage increased Manual trading in the product and to offset losses of Manual transactions associated with options in the iShares Russell Index (RUT), which is exclusively trading on another venue.5 The Exchange does not believe that the special pricing in IWM has achieved its intended objective of attracting additional volume.

    4 The Commission notes that as described further below, the special pricing for Manual transactions in options overlying IWM is being discontinued, which will result in Manual transactions in all symbols being subject to the same pricing.

    5See Exchange Act Release No. 74694 (April 9, 2015) 80 FR 20273 (April 15, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-28). Specifically, the Exchange offered volume discounts for manual transactions in IWM to NYSE Arca Market Makers, Firms and Broker Dealers. As is the case today, Customers (including Professional Customers) are not charged for manual transactions in IWM. There is currently no Lead Market Maker in IWM and, therefore, no LMM will be impacted by this proposed fee change.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,6 in general, and furthers the objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,7 in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable and equitable because the discontinuance of the special pricing for Manual transactions in IWM will result in Manual transactions in all symbols being subject to the same pricing. The Exchange further believes the proposed rule change is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it treats similarly situated market participants in the same manner.

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,8 the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) 9 of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 10 thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B) 11 of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-53 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-53. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-53, and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.12

    12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16730 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IC-31704; File No. 812-14460] Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., et al.; Notice of Application and Temporary Order July 6, 2015. AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”).

    Summary of Application:

    Applicants have received a temporary order (“Temporary Order”) exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act, with respect to an injunction entered against Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. (“Macquarie Capital”) on April 1, 2015 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“District Court”), until the Commission takes final action on an application for a permanent order (the “Permanent Order,” and with the Temporary Order, the “Orders”). Applicants also have applied for a Permanent Order.

    Applicants:

    Macquarie Capital, Delaware Management Business Trust (“DMBT”), on behalf of its series, Delaware Management Company (“DMC”) and Delaware Investments Fund Advisers (“DIFA”), Four Corners Capital Management, LLC (“FCCM”), Macquarie Capital Investment Management LLC (“MCIM”), Macquarie Funds Management Hong Kong Limited (“MFMHK”), and Delaware Distributors, L.P. (“Delaware Distributors”) (collectively, the “Applicants”).

    Filing Dates:

    The application was filed on May 15, 2015 and amended on June 10, 2015.

    Hearing or Notification of Hearing:

    An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 31, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

    ADDRESSES:

    Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Macquarie Capital and MCIM: 125 West 55th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10019, DMBT, FCCM and Delaware Distributors: 2005 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and MFMHK: One International Finance Center, 1 Harbour View Street, Central, Hong Kong SAR.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert H. Shapiro, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-7758, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following is a temporary order and a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling (202) 551-8090.

    Applicants' Representations

    1. Macquarie Capital, a Delaware corporation, is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Macquarie Group Limited (“MGL”) and a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). MCIM, a Delaware limited liability company, is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of MGL and an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). DMC and DIFA are series of DMBT, which is a Delaware statutory trust and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of MGL. DMBT is an investment adviser registered under the Advisers Act. FCCM, a Delaware limited liability company, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a series of DMBT and an investment adviser registered under the Advisers Act. Delaware Distributors, a Delaware limited partnership, is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of MGL and a broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act. MFMHK is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of MGL and an investment adviser registered under the Advisers Act. DMC and DIFA, as series of DMBT, MCIM, FCCM, and MFMHK (collectively, the “Adviser Applicants”) each serve as investment adviser or investment sub-adviser to investment companies registered under the Act, or series of such companies (each, a “Fund”) 1 and Delaware Distributors provides principal underwriting services to certain Funds. The Adviser Applicants and Delaware Distributers are collectively referred to as the “Fund Servicing Applicants.”

    1 The term “Fund” refers to any registered investment company, including any registered unit investment trust (“UIT”) or registered face amount certificate company (“FACC”), as well as any business development company and employees' securities company.

    2. While no existing company of which Macquarie Capital is an affiliated person within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), other than the Fund Servicing Applicants, currently serves as an investment adviser or depositor of any Fund or principal underwriter (as defined in section 2(a)(29) of the Act) for any open-end registered investment company (“Open-End Fund”), registered UIT, or registered FACC (such activities, “Fund Services Activities”), Applicants request that any relief granted also apply to any existing company of which Macquarie Capital is an Affiliated Person and to any other company of which Macquarie Capital may become an Affiliated Person in the future (together with the Fund Servicing Applicants, the “Covered Persons”) 2 with respect to any activity contemplated by section 9(a) of the Act.

    2 Macquarie Capital is a party to the application, but does not and will not engage in Fund Services Activities, and is not a Covered Person.

    3. On March 27, 2015, the Commission filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in the District Court. According to the Complaint, Macquarie Capital was the lead underwriter on a 2010 secondary public stock offering by Puda Coal, Inc. (“Puda Coal”), which traded on the New York Stock Exchange at the time and purportedly owned a coal company in the People's Republic of China. According to the Complaint, in the offering documents, Puda Coal falsely claimed that it held a 90-percent ownership interest in the Chinese coal company. According to the Complaint, Macquarie Capital repeated those statements in its marketing materials for the offering despite obtaining a report showing that Puda Coal did not possess an ownership interest in the coal company. The Complaint alleges that two former Macquarie Capital employees were negligent by failing to act on due diligence information about the true ownership interest in the Chinese coal company and instead moving forward with the offering.3 The Complaint alleges that Macquarie Capital was negligent as an organization by underwriting and marketing the offering while in possession of this information.

    3 The Commission also charged former Macquarie Capital managing director Aaron Black and former Macquarie Capital investment banker William Fang for failing to exercise appropriate care in their due diligence review. Black and Fang each consented to the entry of court orders containing the same injunctions as the Court Order (as defined below).

    4. On April 1, 2015, the District Court entered an order (the “Court Order”) enjoining Macquarie Capital from violating sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Injunction”).4 The Court Order also requires Macquarie Capital to pay $12 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $3 million. Macquarie Capital consented to the entry of the Court Order without admitting or denying the allegations in the Complaint (other than those relating to the jurisdiction of the District Court and the jurisdiction of the Commission over the Conduct 5 ).

    4Securities and Exchange Commission v. Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 15-CV-02304 (S.D.N.Y. April 1, 2015) (Final Judgment as to Defendant Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc.).

    5 The alleged conduct giving rise to the Injunction is referred to herein as the “Conduct.”

    5. Applicants represent that escrow accounts have been established into which have been or will be deposited amounts equal to the advisory fees paid by the Funds to the Adviser Applicants for the period from April 1, 2015 through May 15, 2015.

    Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a person who has been enjoined from engaging in or continuing any conduct or practice in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, or in connection with activities as an underwriter, broker or dealer, from acting, among other things, as an investment adviser or depositor of any registered investment company or a principal underwriter for any Open-End Fund, UIT or FACC. Section 9(a)(3) of the Act makes the prohibition in section 9(a)(2) applicable to a company, any affiliated person of which has been disqualified under the provisions of section 9(a)(2). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include, among others, any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Applicants state that, taken together, sections 9(a)(2) and 9(a)(3) have the effect of precluding the Fund Servicing Applicants and Covered Persons from engaging in Fund Services Activities as a result of the Injunction entered against Macquarie Capital because Macquarie Capital is an Affiliated Person of each Fund Servicing Applicant and Covered Person.

    2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that, upon application, the Commission shall by order grant an exemption from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the Act, either unconditionally or on an appropriate temporary or other conditional basis, to any person if that person establishes that: (a) The prohibitions of section 9(a), as applied to the person, are unduly or disproportionately severe or (b) the conduct of the person has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption. Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking a Temporary Order and a Permanent Order exempting the Fund Servicing Applicants and other Covered Persons from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the Act. The Fund Servicing Applicants and other Covered Persons may, if the relief is granted, in the future act in any of the capacities contemplated by section 9(a) of the Act subject to the applicable terms and conditions of the Orders. On May 15, 2015, Applicants received a temporary conditional order from the Commission exempting the Covered Persons from section 9(a) of the Act with respect to the Injunction from May 15, 2015 until the Commission takes final action on an application for a Permanent Order or, if earlier, July 14, 2015.

    3. Applicants believe they meet the standards for exemption specified in section 9(c). Applicants state that the prohibitions of section 9(a) as applied to them would be unduly and disproportionately severe and that the conduct of Applicants has not been such as to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption from section 9(a).

    4. Applicants state that the alleged Conduct giving rise to the Injunction did not in any way involve any of the Fund Servicing Applicants acting in their capacity as investment adviser, sub-adviser or principal underwriter for the Funds. Applicants also state that the Conduct did not involve any Fund or Fund assets with respect to which Fund Servicing Applicants engaged in Fund Services Activities. In addition, Applicants state that none of the Funds to which Fund Servicing Applicants provide Fund Services Activities purchased, held, or hold securities issued in the 2010 Puda Coal stock offering.

    5. Applicants state that: (i) None of the current or former directors, officers or employees of the Fund Servicing Applicants had any involvement in the Conduct and (ii) the personnel who were involved in the Conduct have had no, and will not have any, involvement in providing Fund Services Activities and will not serve as an officer, director, or employee of any Covered Person providing Fund Services Activities. Applicants assert that because the personnel of the Fund Servicing Applicants did not have any involvement in the Conduct, shareholders of Funds that received investment advisory, depository and principal underwriting services from the Fund Servicing Applicants were not affected any differently than if those Funds had received services from any other non-affiliated investment adviser, depositor or principal underwriter.

    6. Applicants submit that section 9(a) should not operate to bar them from serving the Funds and their shareholders in the absence of improper practices relating to their Fund Services Activities. Applicants state that the section 9(a) disqualification could result in substantial costs to the Funds to which the Fund Servicing Applicants provide investment advisory services, and such Funds' operations would be disrupted, as they sought to engage new advisers or sub-advisers. Applicants assert that these effects would be unduly severe given the Fund Servicing Applicants' lack of involvement in the Conduct. Moreover, Applicants state that Macquarie Capital has taken remedial actions to address the Conduct, including reviewing its due diligence policies and procedures with the assistance of a number of different outside law firms, as outlined in the application. Thus, Applicants believe that granting the exemption from section 9(a), as requested, would be consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.

    7. Applicants state that the inability of the Fund Servicing Applicants to continue to provide investment advisory services to Funds would result in those Funds and their shareholders facing unduly and disproportionately severe hardships. Applicants assert that imposing the section 9(a) disqualifications upon the Adviser Applicants would deprive the shareholders of certain Funds of the advisory or sub-advisory services that they expected to receive when they decided to invest in the Funds. Applicants state that many shareholders have long-standing investments and relationships with the Funds. Applicants represent that each Adviser Applicant has developed a familiarity and expertise with a particular Fund's operations, and that replacing the Adviser Applicants with another adviser would result in inefficiencies and potential investment losses during a transition period. Applicants assert that disqualification from providing these services would disrupt investment strategies and could potentially result in large net redemptions of shares of the Funds, which in turn could both frustrate efforts to effectively manage the Funds' assets and increase the Funds' expense ratios to the detriment of non-redeeming shareholders. Applicants also note that any effort to find suitable replacement investment advisers and/or sub-advisers would necessarily take time, during which the Funds would lack advisory services, and that the cost to the Funds of obtaining shareholder approval for the new investment advisory or sub-advisory services would be substantial. Applicants further assert that the disqualification of Delaware Distributors would cause the Funds to expend time and resources to find and engage substitute principal underwriters, and that the substitute underwriters would not be able to replicate the selling network established by Delaware Distributors.

    8. Applicants also represent that the boards of directors or trustees (the “Boards”) of those Funds for which a Fund Servicing Applicant serves as the primary adviser or principal underwriter have been apprised of the consequences to the relevant Fund Servicing Applicants as a result of the issuance of the Injunction, and that such Boards have requested that the relevant Fund Servicing Applicants continue to provide services to their Funds. Applicants further state that for those Funds for which a Fund Servicing Applicant serves as a sub-adviser, Applicants have provided the primary investment advisers with written materials describing the Conduct, the Injunction, the disqualification under section 9(a) of the Act, and the process for obtaining exemptive relief under section 9(c) of the Act, and that none of the sub-advised Funds or their primary advisers has requested that the Fund Servicing Applicants cease providing sub-advisory services.

    9. Applicants state that, once a Permanent Order is issued, the Fund Servicing Applicants will, as soon as reasonably practicable, distribute additional written materials with updated information to the Boards of the Funds. The written materials will include an offer to meet in person with the Boards, including the directors who are not “interested persons” of such Funds as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act and their independent legal counsel as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act.

    10. Applicants represent that they have undertaken to develop procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of section 9(a) by Fund Servicing Applicants and their affiliated persons. Applicants state that as part of this process their legal and compliance groups have issued a firm-wide communication establishing a procedure whereby the legal and compliance personnel in each of MGL's business groups globally must identify and escalate potential cross-divisional and cross-jurisdictional impacts from a regulatory enforcement matter or litigation, including disqualifying events under applicable securities laws and regulations, to central legal and compliance management, which will further assess the event to determine, among other things, whether there exists any disqualification events under federal securities laws.

    11. Applicants represent that they will engage an independent consultant (“Independent Consultant”) to review and test the existing procedures relating to compliance with section 9(a) and to recommend appropriate enhancements to ensure that the procedures are reasonably designed to prevent violations of section 9(a) by Covered Persons. Applicants state that, as part of this process, the Independent Consultant specifically will consider enhancements to the procedures to provide for the escalation of information regarding potential disqualifying events under section 9(a) so that the information may be appropriately analyzed in a timely manner. Applicants further represent that, based on the recommendations of the Independent Consultant, Applicants will implement, within 60 days of the date of the Permanent Order, enhancements to the procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent violations of section 9(a) by Covered Persons. Applicants state that, in the case of Covered Persons that are registered investment advisers, such procedures will be part of their written policies and procedures adopted and implemented pursuant to rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act. In addition, Applicants state that, in the case of Delaware Distributors or any other Covered Person that serves as a principal underwriter to a registered investment company in the future, such procedures will be part of their Written Supervisory Procedures. Applicants represent that the Board of each Fund that has a Covered Person as its primary investment adviser and/or principal underwriter also will review the adequacy of these procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation at or before the next annual review of the policies and procedures of the relevant primary investment adviser and/or principal underwriter in accordance with rule 38a-1 under the Act. Applicants further represent that, for each sub-advised Fund, the Fund Servicing Applicants will transmit such procedures to each Fund's primary investment adviser for consideration by the relevant Board in accordance with rule 38a-1 under the Act.

    12. Applicants state that if the Fund Servicing Applicants were barred under section 9(a) of the Act from providing investment advisory services to the Funds, and were unable to obtain the requested exemption, the effect on their businesses and employees would be unduly and disproportionately severe because they have committed substantial capital and other resources to establishing an expertise in advising Funds. Applicants further state that prohibiting the Fund Servicing Applicants from engaging in Fund Services Activities would not only adversely affect their businesses, but would also adversely affect their employees who are involved in those activities. Applicants state that many of these employees working for the Fund Servicing Applicants could experience significant difficulties and/or delays in finding alternative fund-related employment.

    13. Applicants state that none of the Applicants has previously applied for an exemptive order under section 9(c) of the Act.

    Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granted by the Commission pursuant to the application will be subject to the following conditions:

    1. As a condition to the Temporary Order, Applicants will continue to hold in escrow amounts equal to all advisory fees paid by the Funds to the Adviser Applicants for the period from April 1, 2015 through May 15, 2015. Amounts paid into the escrow accounts will be disbursed to the relevant Funds and/or Adviser Applicants after the Commission has acted on the application for a Permanent Order and discussions with the relevant Funds.

    2. Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation of, or administrative proceedings involving or against, Covered Persons, including without limitation, the consideration by the Commission of a permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act requested pursuant to the application or the revocation or removal of any temporary exemptions granted under the Act in connection with the application.

    3. Each Applicant and Covered Person will adopt and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it will comply with any terms and conditions of the Orders within 60 days of the date of the Permanent Order.

    4. Macquarie Capital will comply with the Court Order.

    5. Applicants will provide written notification to the Chief Counsel of the Commission's Division of Investment Management with a copy to the Chief Counsel of the Commission's Division of Enforcement of a material violation of the terms and conditions of the Orders or Court Order within 30 days of discovery of the material violation.

    Temporary Order

    The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants have made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary exemption.

    Accordingly,

    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act, that the Fund Servicing Applicants and any other Covered Persons are granted a temporary exemption from the provisions of section 9(a) effective forthwith, solely with respect to the Injunction, subject to the representations and conditions in the application, until the date the Commission takes final action on their application for a Permanent Order.

    By the Commission.

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16812 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #14336 and #14337] Texas Disaster Number TX-00448 AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Amendment 3.

    SUMMARY:

    This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated 05/29/2015.

    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight Line Winds and Flooding.

    Incident Period: 05/04/2015 through 06/19/2015

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 07/01/2015.

    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/28/2015.

    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/29/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of TEXAS, dated 05/29/2015, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

    Primary Counties: Callahan, Dallas, Dickens, Eastland, Edwards, Frio, Hartley, Hidalgo, Hill, Leon, Nueces, Parker, Real, Trinity, Victoria

    All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16818 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #14361 and #14362] Arkansas Disaster #AR-00077 AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4226-DR), dated 06/26/2015.

    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-line Winds, and Flooding.

    Incident Period: 05/07/2015 through 06/15/2015.

    Effective Date: 06/26/2015.

    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/25/2015.

    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/28/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/26/2015, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

    Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Crawford, Garland, Howard, Jefferson, Little River, Miller, Perry, Sebastian, Sevier Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): Arkansas: Arkansas, Cleveland, Conway, Faulkner, Franklin, Grant, Hempstead, Hot Spring, Lafayette, Lincoln, Logan, Lonoke, Madison, Montgomery, Pike, Polk, Pulaski, Saline, Scott, Washington, Yell Louisiana: Bossier, Caddo Oklahoma: Adair, Le Flore, Mccurtain, Sequoyah Texas: Bowie, Cass

    The Interest Rates are:

    Percent For Physical Damage: Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 3.375 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 1.688 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 6.000 Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere 2.625 Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.625 For Economic Injury: Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.625

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14361B and for economic injury is 143620.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16816 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #14334 and #14335] Texas Disaster Number TX-00447 AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Amendment 5.

    SUMMARY:

    This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated 05/29/2015.

    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-Line Winds and Flooding.

    Incident Period: 05/04/2015 through 06/19/2015.

    Effective Date: 07/01/2015.

    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/28/2015.

    Eidl Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/29/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of TEXAS, dated 05/29/2015 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

    Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Bowie, Brazoria, Cherokee, Ellis, Harrison Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only): Texas: Angelina, Cass, Marion, Matagorda, Morris, Red River Arkansas: Little River, Miller Louisiana: Caddo Oklahoma: Mccurtain

    All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16819 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #14363 and #14364] Arkansas Disaster #AR-00078 AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4226-DR), dated 06/26/2015.

    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-line Winds, and Flooding.

    Incident Period: 05/07/2015 through 06/15/2015.

    Effective Date: 06/26/2015.

    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/25/2015.

    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/28/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/26/2015, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

    Primary Counties: 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; Yell.

    The Interest Rates are:

    Percent For Physical Damage: Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere 2.625 Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.625 For Economic Injury: Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.625

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14363B and for economic injury is 14364B.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16820 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Data Collection Available for Public Comments ACTION:

    60-day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submission to OMB, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice complies with that requirement.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send all comments to Craig Heilman, Director of Veterans Programs, Office of Veteran Business Development, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Congemi, Office of Veterans Business Development, [email protected], 202-205-6385, or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030, [email protected];

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Boots to Business is an entrepreneurial education initiative offered by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) as a career track within the Department of Defense's revised Training Assistance Program called Transition Goals, Plans, Success (Transition GPS). The curriculum provides valuable assistance to transitioning service members exploring self-employment opportunities by leading them through the key steps for evaluating business concepts and the foundational knowledge required for developing a business plan. Participants are also introduced to SBA resources available to help access startup capital and additional technical assistance.

    The Boots to Business Post Course surveys will be online, voluntary surveys that enable the Boots to Business program office to capture data related but not limited to the effectiveness of all Boots to Business courses, quality of the instructors and materials, and number of small businesses created as a result of participating in Boots to Business. Boots to Business will send an initial survey via email to all course participants immediately following course completion to gain insight on the quality of the program. Every 6 months following course completion, a follow up survey will be sent to all participants to measure participant outcomes as we link course effectiveness to the creation of veteran owned small businesses. Participants will be surveyed twice a year for 5 years following course completion to allow time for business creation.

    Solicitation of Public Comments:

    SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.

    Summary of Information Collection:

    Title: Boots to Business Post Course Surveys.

    Description of Respondents: Service members, veterans and spouses.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 26,000.

    Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 3,474 hours.

    Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16817 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9183] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Royal Hawaiian Featherwork: Nā Hulu Ali`i” Exhibition SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Royal Hawaiian Featherwork: Nā Hulu Ali`i,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the imported objects at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, de Young Museum, San Francisco, California, from on or about August 29, 2015, until on or about February 28, 2016, at The Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, from on or about March 19, 2016, until on or about May 23, 2016, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email: [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Kelly Keiderling, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16815 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9184] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Philippine Gold: Treasures of Forgotten Kingdoms” Exhibition SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Philippine Gold: Treasures of Forgotten Kingdoms,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Asia Society Museum, New York, New York, from on or about September 11, 2015, until on or about January 3, 2016, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email: [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Kelly Keiderling, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16852 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9185] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Treasures From the House of Alba: 500 Years of Art and Collecting” Exhibition SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Treasures from the House of Alba: 500 Years of Art and Collecting,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Meadows Museum, SMU, Dallas, Texas, from on or about September 11, 2015, until on or about January 3, 2016, at the Frist Center for the Visual Arts, Nashville, Tennessee, from on or about February 5, 2016, until on or about May 1, 2016, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email: [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Kelly Keiderling, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16795 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [Docket No. FD 35939] Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC and Permian Basin Railways—Continuance in Control Exemption—Illinois Company Rail Road, LLC

    Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC (IPH) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Permian Basin Railways (PBR), have filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Illinois Company Rail Road, LLC (ICRR) upon ICRR's becoming a Class III rail carrier.

    In a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption, ICRR seeks Board approval to lease from North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority (NCMRRA), a political subdivision and regional railroad authority, and Grenada Railway, LLC (GRYR), an existing Class III short line rail carrier, and to operate, an approximately 186.82-mile rail line, consisting of (1) the Grenada Branch Line, an approximately 175.4-mile rail line extending between MP 403.0 near Southaven, Miss., (GRYR MP 491.09) and MP 703.8 near Canton, Miss., (GRYR MP 616.49); and (2) the connecting Water Valley Branch Line, an approximately 11.42-mile line extending between MP 614.42 at Bruce Jct., Miss., and the Water Valley Junction connection with the Grenada Branch Line at MP 603.0 (the Line). Ill. Co. R.R.—Lease & Operation Exemption—N. Cent. Miss. Reg'l R.R. Auth., Docket No. FD 35940.

    The transaction may be consummated on or after July 23, 2015 (the effective date of the exemption).

    IPH is a short line holding company that currently owns rail carriers in California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Texas.

    IPH, PBH, and ICRR certify that: (1) The Line does not connect with any other railroads in the corporate family; (2) the transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the Line with any other railroads in the corporate family; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323. See 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).

    Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under §§ 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.

    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Stay petitions must be filed no later than July 16, 2015 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).

    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35939, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on John D. Heffner, Strasburger & Price, LLP, 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 717, Washington, DC 20036.

    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

    Decided: July 6, 2015.

    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.

    Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16799 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [Docket No. FD 35940] Illinois Company Rail Road, LLC—Lease and Operation Exemption—North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority and Grenada Railway, LLC

    Illinois Company Rail Road, LLC (ICRR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease and operate, pursuant to an agreement with the North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority (NCMRRA) and Grenada Railway, LLC (GRYR), an approximately 186.82-mile rail line in Mississippi (the Line).1 The Line consists of two segments: (1) The Grenada Branch Line, an approximately 175.4-mile rail line extending between MP 403.0 near Southaven, Miss., (GRYR MP 491.09) and MP 703.8 near Canton, Miss., (GRYR MP 616.49); and (2) the connecting Water Valley Branch Line, an approximately 11.42-mile line extending between MP 614.42 at Bruce Jct., Miss., and the Water Valley Junction connection with the Grenada Branch Line at MP 603.0. ICRR states that it will use GRYR's existing operating rights and interchange rights with Canadian National Railway Company (CN) to access CN's yards in Memphis, Tenn., and Canton, Miss.

    1 ICRR states that, pursuant to an agreement executed on June 23, 2015, NCMRRA will purchase all of GRYR's Membership Interests from its two owners. GRYR will maintain ownership of the underlying rights-of-way, track structure, operating and interchange rights, buildings and other structures, and other assets included in the sale to NCMRRA that are necessary for the provision of railroad service. Accordingly, NCMRRA and GRYR together have executed a 15-year lease and operation agreement with ICRR.

    In a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption, Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC (IPH), and its wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary, Permian Basin Railways (PBR), seek an exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of ICRR upon ICRR's becoming a Class III rail carrier. Iowa Pac. Holdings, LLC—Continuance in Control Exemption—Ill. Co. R.R., Docket No. FD 35939.

    The transaction may be consummated on or after July 23, 2015 (30 days after the verified notice was filed). ICCR states that it expects to consummate the transaction by August 7, 2015.

    ICRR certifies that the transaction's projected annual revenues will not exceed $5 million.

    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than July 16, 2015 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).

    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35940 must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on John D. Heffner, Strasburger & Price, LLP, 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 717, Washington, DC 20036.

    Board decisions and notices are available at our Web site at WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

    Decided: July 6, 2015.

    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.

    Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16800 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau [Docket No. TTB-2015-0001] Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request (No. 54) AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB); Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we invite comments on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice.

    DATES:

    We must receive your written comments on or before September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    As described below, you may send comments on the information collections listed in this document using the “Regulations.gov” online comment form for this document, or you may send written comments via U.S. mail or hand delivery. TTB no longer accepts public comments via email or fax.

    http://www.regulations.gov: Use the comment form for this document posted within Docket No. TTB-2015-0001 on “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal, to submit comments via the Internet;

    U.S. Mail: Michael Hoover, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.

    Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of Mail: Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.

    Please submit separate comments for each specific information collection listed in this document. You must reference the information collection's title, form or recordkeeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.

    You may view copies of this document, the information collections listed in it and any associated instructions, and all comments received in response to this document within Docket No. TTB-2015-0001 at http://www.regulations.gov. A link to that docket is posted on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/forms/comment-on-form.shtml. You may also obtain paper copies of this document, the information collections described in it and any associated instructions, and any comments received in response to this document by contacting Michael Hoover at the addresses or telephone number shown below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone 202-453-1039, ext. 135; or email [email protected] (please do not submit comments on this notice to this email address).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments

    The Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments.

    We invite comments on: (a) Whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection's burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the information collection's burden on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the requested information.

    Information Collections Open for Comment

    Currently, we are seeking comments on the following forms, recordkeeping requirements, or questionnaires:

    Title: Labeling and Advertising Requirements Under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.

    OMB Number: 1513-0087.

    TTB Form or Recordkeeping Requirement Number: None.

    Abstract: Under section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), TTB has issued regulations regarding the labeling and advertising of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. Under these regulations, bottlers and importers of alcohol beverages must provide certain mandatory information and adhere to certain performance standards for statements made on labels and in advertisements of alcohol beverages to ensure that consumers are not deceived or mislead about a product's identity and quality.

    Current Actions: TTB is submitting this collection as a revision. The information collection requirement remains unchanged. However, we are revising the burden estimate to reflect an increase in the number of respondents and the resulting burden hours resulting from an increase in the number of regulated industry members.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9,552.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9,552.

    Title: Beer for Exportation.

    OMB Number: 1513-0114.

    TTB Form Number: 5130.12.

    Abstract: Under 26 U.S.C. 5051, a Federal excise tax is imposed on beer removed from domestic breweries for consumption or sale. However, under 26 U.S.C. 5053, beer is exempt from this tax if it is exported in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury. Under these regulations, beer may be removed from a brewery for exportation without payment of the Federal excise tax normally due on removal. In order to ensure that exportation took place as claimed and that untaxpaid beer does not reach the domestic market, TTB requires certification of the exportation on form TTB F 5130.12.

    Current Actions: We are submitting this information collection for extension purposes only. The form, estimated number of respondents, and estimated number of burden hours remain unchanged.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 60.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,940.

    Title: Usual and Customary Business Records Relating to Wine, TTB REC 5120/1).

    OMB Number: 1513-0115.

    TTB Recordkeeping Requirement Number: 5120/1.

    Abstract: Under 26 U.S.C. 5367, 5369, 5370, and 5555, TTB regulations require wineries and taxpaid wine bottling houses to keep usual and customary business records, including purchase invoices, sales invoices, and internal records documenting the flow of materials and ingredients through fermenting, processing, packaging, storing and shipping operations. TTB routinely inspects these records to ensure the proper payment of Federal wine excise taxes by these businesses.

    Current Actions: TTB is submitting this collection as a revision. The information collection remains unchanged. However, we are revising the burden estimate to reflect an increase in the number of respondents due to an increase in the number of regulated industry members. We also are adjusting the reported burden hours to one hour since this information collection involves usual and customary business records which would be maintained by the regulated businesses even without the regulatory requirements to keep and make these records available for TTB inspection.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,925.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: One.

    Title: Bond for Drawback Under 26 U.S.C. 5131.

    OMB Number: 1513-0116.

    TTB Form Number: 5154.3.

    Abstract: The Internal Revenue Code, at 26 U.S.C. 5111-5114, authorizes “drawback” (similar to a refund) of all but $1.00 per gallon of the Federal excise tax already paid on distilled spirits, if the spirits are subsequently used in the manufacture of certain nonbeverage products such as medicines, food products, flavors, and perfumes. Persons making such products must file claims proving their eligibility for drawback. Claims may be filed on either a monthly or a quarterly basis, and 26 U.S.C. 5114(b) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to require persons filing monthly claims to file a bond. The purpose of these bonds is to protect the Government in the event that after a claim is paid, a manufacturer is found not to have been eligible for some or all of the amount drawback that was paid.

    Current Actions: We are submitting this information collection for extension purposes only. The form, estimated number of respondents, and estimated number of burden hours remain unchanged.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 52.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10.

    Dated: July 6, 2015. Angela M. Jeffries, Acting Director, Regulations and Rulings Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16791 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service Prompt Payment Interest Rate; Contract Disputes Act AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    For the period beginning July 1, 2015, and ending on December 31, 2015, the prompt payment interest rate is 2-3/8 per centum per annum.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments or inquiries may be mailed to: E-Commerce Division, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, 401 14th Street SW., Room 306F, Washington, DC 20227. Comments or inquiries may also be emailed to [email protected]

    DATES:

    Effective July 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas M. Burnum, E-Commerce Division, (202) 874-6430; or Thomas Kearns, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 874-7036.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    An agency that has acquired property or service from a business concern and has failed to pay for the complete delivery of property or service by the required payment date shall pay the business concern an interest penalty. 31 U.S.C. 3902(a). The Contract Disputes Act of 1978, Sec. 12, Public Law 95-563, 92 Stat. 2389, and the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3902(a), provide for the calculation of interest due on claims at the rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury.

    The Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to specify the rate by which the interest shall be computed for interest payments under section 12 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 and under the Prompt Payment Act. Under the Prompt Payment Act, if an interest penalty is owed to a business concern, the penalty shall be paid regardless of whether the business concern requested payment of such penalty. 31 U.S.C. 3902(c)(1). Agencies must pay the interest penalty calculated with the interest rate, which is in effect at the time the agency accrues the obligation to pay a late payment interest penalty. 31 U.S.C. 3902(a). “The interest penalty shall be paid for the period beginning on the day after the required payment date and ending on the date on which payment is made.” 31 U.S.C. 3902(b).

    Therefore, notice is given that the Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the rate of interest applicable for the period beginning July 1, 2015, and ending on December 31, 2015, is 2-3/8 per centum per annum.

    Dated: July 7, 2015. David A. Lebryk, Fiscal Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16906 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to Executive Order 13219, as Amended AGENCY:

    Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is removing the names of three individuals whose property and interests in property are being unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13304 of May 28, 2003.

    DATES:

    OFAC's actions described in this notice are effective July 9, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410 (not toll free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic and Facsimile Availability

    The list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (www.treasury.gov/ofac). Certain general information pertaining to OFAC's sanctions programs is also available via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: 202/622-0077.

    Notice of OFAC Actions

    On July 9, 2015, OFAC will unblock the property and interests in property of the following individuals pursuant to Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13304 of May 28, 2003.

    Individuals

    ADEMI, Rahim; DOB 30 Jan 1954; POB Karac, Serbia and Montenegro; ICTY indictee (individual) [BALKANS]

    LANDZO, Esad; DOB 07 Mar 1973; ICTY indictee (individual) [BALKANS]

    LJUBICIC, Pasko; DOB 15 Nov 1965; POB Nezirovic, Bosnia-Herzegovina; ICTY indictee (individual) [BALKANS]

    The removal of the individuals listed above from the SDN List is effective as of July 9, 2015. All property and interests in property of these persons that are in or hereafter come within the United States or the possession or control of a United States person are no longer blocked pursuant to E.O. 13219, as amended by E.O. 13304.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. John E. Smith, Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16776 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
    80 131 Thursday, July 9, 2015 Proposed Rules Part II Department of Energy 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 [Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027] RIN 1904-AD31 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and announcement of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial prerinse spray valves (CPSVs). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. The notice also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

    DATES:

    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2015. The standards meeting will start immediately following the test procedure meeting. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VII “Public Participation” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR before and after the public meeting, but no later than September 8, 2015. See section VII “Public Participation” for details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    Instructions: Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, and provide docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AD31. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed previously and by email to [email protected].

    No faxes will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (“Public Participation”).

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

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII, “Public Participation” for further information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email: [email protected]

    Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7935. Email: [email protected].

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers B. Impact on Manufacturers C. National Benefits and Costs II. Introduction A. Authority B. Background III. General Discussion A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage B. Test Procedure C. Technological Feasibility D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings 2. Significance of Savings E. Economic Justification 1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers 2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price 3. Energy Savings 4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need for National Energy Conservation 7. Other Factors F. Rebuttable Presumption IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Market Assessment 2. Efficiency Metrics 3. Product Classes 4. Technology Assessment 1. Backflow Preventers 2. Specially Designed Spray Patterns B. Screening Analysis 1. Addition of Flow Control Insert 2. Smaller Spray Hole Area 3. Aerators 4. Additional Valves 5. Changing Spray Hole Shape 6. Venturi Meter to Orifice Plate Nozzle Geometries C. Engineering Analysis 1. Engineering Approach 2. Product Classes 3. Baseline and Max-Tech Models 4. Manufacturing Cost Analysis D. Markups Analysis E. Energy and Water Use Analysis F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Product Cost 2. Installation Cost 3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption 4. Energy Prices 5. Water and Wastewater Prices 6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 7. Product Lifetime 8. Discount Rates 9. No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution 10. Payback Period Analysis 11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period G. Shipments H. National Impact Analysis 1. National Energy and Water Savings 2. Forecasted Efficiency in the No-Standards Case and Standards Cases 3. Net Present Value Analysis I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 3. Discussion of Comments 4. Manufacturer Interviews K. Emissions Analysis L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts 1. Social Cost of Carbon 2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions M. Utility Impact Analysis N. Employment Impact Analysis V. Analytical Results A. Trial Standard Levels B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 3. National Impact Analysis 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 7. Summary of National Economic Impacts 8. Other Factors C. Conclusion 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves 2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated 2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements 3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations 4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review VII. Public Participation A. Attendance at the Public Meeting B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For Distribution C. Conduct of the Public Meeting D. Submission of Comments E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.2 These products include commercial prerinse spray valves (CPSV), the subject of this document.3

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, part B was redesignated part A.

    2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015).

    3 Because Congress included commercial prerinse spray valves in part A of Title III of EPCA, the consumer product provisions of part A (not the industrial equipment provisions of part A-1) apply to commercial prerinse spray valves. However, because commercial prerinse spray valves are commonly considered to be commercial equipment, as a matter of administrative convenience and to minimize confusion among interested parties, DOE placed the requirements for commercial prerinse spray valves into subpart O of 10 CFR part 431. Part 431 contains DOE regulations for commercial and industrial equipment.

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. The proposed standards, which are described in terms of the maximum water flow rate (in gallons per minute, gpm) for each product class (defined by spray force in ounce-force, ozf), are shown in Table I.1. The proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date 3 years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking. For purposes of the analyses conducted in support of this NOPR, DOE used 2015 as the expected year of publication of any final standards and 2018 as the expected compliance year.4

    4 Because the anticipated compliance date is late in the year 2018, for analytical purposes, DOE conducted its analyses utilizing shipments associated with the 2019-2048 period. The analytical effect is equivalent to the use of a 2019 compliance year. In the MIA, 2019 is referred to as the “analysis compliance year.”

    Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves (Compliance Starting 2018) Product class Maximum water flow rate
  • (gpm)
  • 1. Light duty (≤5 ozf) 0.65 2. Standard duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) 0.97 3. Heavy duty (>8 ozf) 1.24
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed amended standards on consumers of commercial prerinse spray valves, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP).5 The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes. The PBP for all product classes is also less than the projected average CPSV lifetime of approximately 5 years.

    5 The average LCC savings are measured relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution, which depicts the CPSV market in the compliance year (see section IV.F.9). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline CPSV model (see section IV.C.1).

    Table I.2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Product class Average LCC savings
  • (2014$)
  • Simple payback period
  • (years)
  • 1. Light duty (≤5 ozf) 211 0.0 2. Standard duty (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) 472 0.0 3. Heavy duty (>8 ozf) 667 0.0

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this notice.

    B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2015 to 2048). Using a real discount rate of 6.9 percent,6 DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves is $9.1 million in 2014$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 21.6 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $2.0 million. Additionally, based on its analysis of available information, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment.

    6 The discount rate is an industry average discount rate, which was estimated using publically available industry financial data for companies that sell CPSVs in the U.S. Data sources are listed in section IV.J.1.

    C. National Benefits and Costs 7

    7 All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2014 dollars and are discounted to 2015, unless otherwise noted.

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant amount of energy and water. The lifetime savings for commercial prerinse spray valves purchased in the 30-year period (2019 to 2048) amount to 0.10 quadrillion Btu (quads) 8 and 120.18 billion gallons of water. This represents a savings of 9 percent relative to the energy use of this product in the no-new-standards case.9 This also represents a savings of 9 percent relative to the water use of this product in the no-new-standards case.

    8 A quad is equal to 1015 British thermal units (Btu).

    9 The no-new-standards case assumptions are described in section IV.F.9. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency standards, and it considers market forces and policies that may affect future demand for more efficient products.

    The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of the proposed standards for commercial prerinse spray valves ranges from $0.71 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $1.46 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for commercial prerinse spray valves purchased in 2019-2048.

    In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental benefits.10 The described energy savings would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 5.76 million metric tons (Mt) 11 of carbon dioxide (CO2), 46.94 thousand tons of methane (CH4), 2.43 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 13.22 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 0.04 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N2O), and 0.01 tons of mercury (Hg).12 The cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions through 2030 amounts to 1.83 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of about 251,719 homes.

    10 The emission reductions calculated here result from the energy savings only. The emission reductions from water savings are not calculated as part of this analysis.

    11 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.

    12 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO2014) reference case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2013.

    The value of the CO2 reduction is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent Federal interagency process.13 The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.L of this notice. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values, DOE estimates the present monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction is between $0.04 billion and $0.61 billion. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the NOX emissions reduction is between $1.80 and $18.48 million at a 7-percent discount rate and between $3.52 and $36.15 million at a 3-percent discount rate.14

    13Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government (May 2013; revised November 2013) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf).

    14 DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and SO2 emissions.

    Table I.3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from the proposed standards for commercial prerinse spray valves.

    Table I.3—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves * Category Present value
  • (million 2014$)
  • Discount rate
  • (%)
  • Benefits Operating Cost Savings 708 7 1,459 3 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.2/metric ton case) * * 44 5 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($41.1/metric ton case) * * 196 3 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($63.3/metric ton case) * * 309 2.5 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($121/metric ton case) * * 606 3 NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,723/ton) 10 7 20 3 Total Benefits † 914 7 1,675 3 Costs Manufacturer Conversion Costs  2 to 3 N/A Total Net Benefits Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value † 914 7 1,675 3 * This table presents the costs and benefits associated with commercial prerinse spray valves shipped in 2019−2048. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019−2048. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the proposed standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. * * The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$ per metric ton, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3 percent discount rate. † Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3 percent discount rate. Manufacturer Conversion Costs are not included in the Total Net Benefits calculations. ‡ The lower value of the range represents costs associated with the Sourced Components conversion cost scenario. The upper value represents costs associated with the Fabricated Components conversion cost scenario. Manufacturer conversion cost estimates are based on the engineering analysis and product teardowns conducted in 2014, and, therefore, have not been discounted. In the GRIM, these values are spread over the 3-year conversion period leading up to the compliance year.

    The benefits and costs of these proposed standards, for commercial prerinse spray valves sold in 2019-2048, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of: (1) The annualized national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy and water, minus increases in product purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV); and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.15

    15 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2015, the year used for discounting the NPV of total customer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2015. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the first year of the analysis period, which yields the same present value.

    Although combining the values of operating savings and CO2 emission reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, whereas the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of commercial prerinse spray valves shipped in 2019-2048. Because CO2 emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere,16 the SCC values in future years reflect future CO2-emissions impacts that continue beyond 2100.

    16 The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30-95 years. Jacobson, MZ, “Correction to `Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming,' ” J. Geophys. Res. 110. pp. D14105 (2005).

    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction (for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate, along with the average SCC series that has a value of $41.1 per metric ton in 2015), there are no increased product costs associated with the standards proposed in this rule, while the benefits are $69.90 million per year in reduced product operating costs, $10.94 million per year in CO2 reductions, and $1.00 million per year in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $81.85 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs as well as the average SCC series that has a value of $41.1 per metric ton in 2015, there are no increased product costs associated with the standards proposed in this rule, while the benefits are $81.32 million per year in reduced operating costs, $10.94 million in CO2 reductions, and $1.11 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $93.37 million per year.

    Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Discount rate
  • (%)
  • Million 2014$/year Primary
  • estimate *
  • Low net
  • benefits
  • estimate *
  • High net
  • benefits
  • estimate *
  • Benefits Consumer Operating Cost Savings 7 69.90 65.90 72.70 3 81.32 75.92 85.10 CO2 Reduction at $12.0/t * * 5 3.33 3.33 3.33 CO2 Reduction at $40.5/t * * 3 10.94 10.94 10.94 CO2 Reduction at $62.4/t * * 2.5 15.91 15.91 15.91 CO2 Reduction at $119/t * * 3 33.81 33.81 33.81 NOX Reduction at $2,723/ton 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 3 1.11 1.11 1.11 Total† 7 plus CO2 range 74 to 105 70 to 101 77 to 108 7 81.85 77.84 84.64 3 plus CO2 range 86 to 116 80 to 111 90 to 120 3 93.37 87.96 97.15 Costs Manufacturer Conversion Costs † 7 0.16 to 0.24 0.16 to 0.24 0.16 to 0.24 3 0.10 to 0.15 0.10 to 0.15 0.10 to 0.15 Total Net Benefits Total ‡ 7 plus CO2 range 74 to 105 70 to 101 77 to 108 7 81.85 77.84 84.64 3 plus CO2 range 86 to 116 80 to 111 90 to 120 3 93.37 87.96 97.15 * This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with commercial prerinse spray valves shipped in 2019-2048. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019-2048. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the proposed standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The primary, low benefits, and high benefits estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2014 reference case, low estimate, and high estimate, respectively. * * The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3 percent discount rate. † The lower value of the range represents costs associated with the Sourced Components conversion cost scenario. The upper value represents costs for the Fabricated Components scenario. ‡ Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with 3 percent discount rate. In the rows labeled “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. Manufacturer Conversion Costs are not included in the Net Benefits calculations.

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for the product classes covered by this proposal. See chapter 8 of the NOPR technical support document (TSD) for more discussion of the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. Based on DOE's analyses, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the nation (energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers).

    DOE also considered both more and less stringent energy efficiency levels (EL) as trial standard levels (TSL), and will continue to consider them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this notice that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of levels that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

    II. Introduction

    The following section discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for commercial prerinse spray valves.

    A. Authority

    Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. As part of this program, EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), DOE must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product. DOE is undertaking this rulemaking to meet this EPCA requirement.

    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Secretary or the Federal Trade Commission, as appropriate, may prescribe labeling requirements for commercial prerinse spray valves. (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5)(A)) Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedure for commercial prerinse spray valves currently appears at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart O. DOE recently proposed updates to its CPSV test procedure in a proposed rule issued for prepublication on June 05, 2015 (80 FR 35874).

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended standards for covered products. As indicated previously, any amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard for certain products, including commercial prerinse spray valves, if no test procedure has been established for the product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A))

    In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

    (3) The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;

    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) through (VII))

    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy and water savings the consumer will receive during the first year that the standard applies, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))

    Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered products that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group: (1) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (2) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6294(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE shall consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a) though (c)) California, however, has a statutory exemption to preemption for commercial prerinse spray valve standards adopted by the California Energy Commission before January 1, 2005. (42 U.S.C. 6297(c)(7)) As a result, while federal commercial prerinse spray valve standards, including any amended standards that may result from this rulemaking, apply in California, California's commercial prerinse spray valve standards also apply as they are exempt from preemption. DOE may also grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

    Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into the standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A) and (B)) DOE's current test procedures and standards for commercial prerinse spray valves do not address standby mode and off mode energy use, which are not applicable for this product. Similarly, in this rulemaking, DOE only addresses active mode energy consumption because commercial prerinse spray valves only consume energy and water in active mode.

    B. Background

    In a final rule published on October 18, 2005 (“2005 CPSV final rule”), DOE codified the current energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves that were prescribed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58 (August 8, 2005). 70 FR 60407, 60410. The 2005 CPSV final rule established that all commercial prerinse spray valves manufactured on or after January 1, 2006, must have a flow rate of not more than 1.6 gpm.

    DOE is conducting the current energy conservation standards rulemaking pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), which requires that within 6 years of issuing any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE shall publish either a notice of determination that amended standards are not needed or a NOPR proposing amended standards.

    DOE initiated the current rulemaking on September 11, 2014, by issuing an analytical Framework document, “Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves” (“2014 Framework document”), which described the procedural and analytical approaches DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. 79 FR 54213. DOE also announced a public meeting to discuss the proposed analytical framework for the rulemaking and invited written comments from the public. 79 FR 54213. The 2014 Framework document is available at: www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027-0001.

    The 2014 Framework document explained the issues, analyses, and process that DOE anticipated using to develop energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE held a public meeting on September 30, 2014, to solicit comments from interested parties regarding DOE's analytical approach. Comments received in response to DOE's proposed analytical approach have helped DOE identify and resolve issues relevant to energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, and have informed the analyses presented in this notice. DOE discusses and responds to the comments received in response to the 2014 Framework document in section IV.

    III. General Discussion A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    EPCA defines the term “commercial prerinse spray valve” as a “handheld device designed and marketed for use with commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment that sprays water on dishes, flatware, and other food service items for the purpose of removing food residue before cleaning the items.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(A) In the 2015 CPSV test procedure NOPR, DOE is proposing to modify the CPSV definition to redefine the scope of coverage, as authorized under 42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(B). For specific details on the proposed modifications to the CPSV definition, including how to submit comments see the test procedure NOPR (80 FR 35874).

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE considers such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Different energy conservation standards may apply to different product classes.

    Currently, all covered commercial prerinse spray valves are included in a single product class that is subject to a 1.6-gpm standard for maximum flow rate. 10 CFR 431.266. In the 2014 Framework document, DOE considered whether to retain a single product class for all commercial prerinse spray valves, or to establish separate product classes based on the statutory criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and comments from interested parties. See sections IV.A.2 and IV.C.2 for more discussion on the product classes addressed in this NOPR.

    B. Test Procedure

    EPCA established the current maximum flow rate for commercial prerinse spray valves and prescribed an industry test procedure, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard F2324-03, to measure the flow rate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd), 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14)) In a final rule published December 8, 2006, DOE incorporated by reference ASTM Standard F2324-03 under 10 CFR 431.263, and prescribed it as the uniform test method to measure the flow rate of commercial prerinse spray valves under 10 CFR 431.264. 71 FR 71340, 71374. In a final rule published October 23, 2013, DOE incorporated by reference ASTM Standard F2324-03 (2009) for testing commercial prerinse spray valves, which updated the 2003 version. 78 FR 62970, 62980.

    In 2013, ASTM amended Standard F2324-03 (2009) to replace the cleanability test with a spray force test, based on research conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) WaterSense® program.17

    17 EPA WaterSense program, WaterSense Specification for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Supporting Statement, Version 1.0 (Sept. 19, 2013) (Available at: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/partners/prsv_final.html).

    In the 2015 CPSV test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference the amended ASTM Standard F2324-13. Additionally, DOE proposed requiring spray force to be measured based on the procedure in ASTM Standard F2324-13. For commercial prerinse spray valves with multiple spray patterns, DOE proposed that both flow rate and spray force be measured for each possible spray pattern.

    C. Technological Feasibility

    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and working prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those options are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).

    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii) through (iv). Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of the screening analysis for commercial prerinse spray valves, particularly the technology options DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the TSLs in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR Technical Support Document (TSD).

    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered products, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for commercial prerinse spray valves, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

    D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings

    For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the commercial prerinse spray valves purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the expected year of compliance with any amended standards (2019-2048). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of commercial prerinse spray valves purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency standards, and it considers market forces and policies that may affect future demand for more efficient products.

    DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from amended standards. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy consumed by a product at the location where it is used. For electricity, DOE calculates national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate primary energy savings, DOE derived annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO2014).18

    18 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2040 (Available at: www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/).

    For electricity and natural gas and oil, DOE also calculates full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. As discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment, the FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). For FFC energy savings, DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products. For more information, see section IV.H.1 of this notice.

    2. Significance of Savings

    To adopt more stringent standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in “significant” energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term “significant” is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for the proposed standards (presented in section V.B.3.a of this notice) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

    E. Economic Justification

    EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

    1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

    In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as discussed in section IV.J. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include: (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.

    2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price

    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product compared to any increases in the price of the covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including water, energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC and PBP analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product water and energy consumption, water and sewer prices, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and consumer discount rates. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered product in the first year of compliance with amended standards.19

    19 Because the anticipated compliance date is late in the expected compliance year, 2018, for analytical purposes, DOE assumes that customers will purchase the CPSV equipment that meets the potential amended standards in 2019. In other words, the first year of the analysis period is 2019.

    The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a no-new-standards case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of amended standards. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience a LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this notice.

    3. Energy Savings

    EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H.1, DOE uses spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

    4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

    In determining whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE evaluates any lessening of the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this notice would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.

    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)). DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule.

    6. Need for National Energy Conservation

    DOE also considers the need for national energy conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity may also result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M.

    The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how standards may affect these emissions and reports the emissions impacts from each TSL it considered in section V.B.6. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs in section IV.L.

    7. Other Factors

    EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent that interested parties submit any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described in the previous sections, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”

    F. Rebuttable Presumption

    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the PBP for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.11 of this proposed rule.

    IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    DOE used several spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of the proposed standards. One of these spreadsheet tools calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential amended energy conservation standards. Another provides shipments forecasts and then calculates impacts of potential standards on national energy savings and net present value. The Department also assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through the use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) spreadsheet tool. The spreadsheets are available online at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100.

    Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts of amended standards for commercial prerinse spray valves on utilities and the environment. DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses.20 The NEMS model simulates the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook, a widely known baseline energy forecast for the United States. The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis, which makes minor modifications to the AEO version, is called NEMS-BT.21 NEMS-BT accounts for the interactions among the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole.

    20 For more information on NEMS, refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration documentation. A useful summary is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009) (October 2009) (Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html).

    21 EIA approves the use of the name “NEMS” to describe only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO assumptions, the name “NEMS-BT” refers to the model as used here. (BT stands for DOE's Building Technologies Office.)

    A. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the product concerned, including the purpose of the product, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the product. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this commercial prerinse spray valves rulemaking include: (1) Market assessment, (2) efficiency metrics, (3) product classes, and (4) technology assessment. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

    1. Market Assessment

    As part of the market assessment, DOE examined manufacturers, trade associations, and the quantities and types of products sold and offered for sale. DOE reviewed relevant literature to develop an understanding of the CPSV industry in the United States, including market research data, government databases, retail listings, and industry publications (e.g., manufacturer catalogs). Using this information, DOE assessed the overall state of the industry, CPSV manufacturing and market shares, shipments, general technical information on commercial prerinse spray valves, and industry trends.

    In the Framework document, DOE sought comments regarding the market for commercial prerinse spray valves, and in particular on product features, market shares, and trends. Additionally, DOE also sought comments on which organizations had a vested interest in commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE recognized Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI) and North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) in the Framework document as organizations that have an interest in commercial prerinse spray valves. In addition to these trade organizations, T&S Brass suggested including the National Restaurant Association (NRA) as an organization that has an interest in commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 30) 22 Additionally, the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAMPO) commented that it tests and certifies commercial prerinse spray valves to make sure they meet mandated levels. Hence, IAMPO is also a body that has an interest in commercial prerinse spray valves. (IAPMO, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 30) Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) recommended that DOE consider service companies, such as Ecolab, as a subtype in its list of retailers. It stated that such companies provide on-demand, on-site maintenance and other services to food service operators, and have the most influence over the selection of commercial prerinse spray valves at the restaurant site. (AWE, No. 8 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges and appreciates the information provided by these interested parties.

    22 A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to amend energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov) This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) submitted by T&S Brass; (2) appearing in the Public Meeting Transcript, which is document number 6 of the docket; and (3) appearing on page 30 of that document.

    Commenting on the commercial prerinse spray valve industry in general, T&S Brass stated that a small number of manufacturers control the majority of the market because commercial prerinse spray valves are a niche product. Two or three manufacturers have the majority of the market share. Most of the manufacturers in the industry are family-owned businesses. (T&S, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 58)

    DOE also held phone conversations with representatives from the EPA WaterSense® program regarding the market assessment.23 The representatives commented that the industry comprises a small number of CPSV manufacturers, most of which are private companies which do not readily provide market information.

    23 Information on the WaterSense program for commercial prerinse spray valves is available at www.epa.gov/WaterSense/products/prsv.html.

    DOE researched government databases for CPSV product listings, including DOE's Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS), the California Energy Commission (CEC) Appliance Database, and the WaterSense database. Based on this research, DOE concluded that the CPSV market includes 54 basic models from 13 different brands and 11 manufacturers. Chapter 3 provides more details on the CPSV market.

    2. Efficiency Metrics

    Currently, all covered commercial prerinse spray valves are included in a single product class that is subject to a 1.6 gpm standard for maximum flow rate. 10 CFR 431.266. As part of the 2014 Framework document, DOE considered adopting an alternative metric to replace the existing flow rate (gpm) metric. DOE examined alternative metrics that could achieve energy and water savings while also preserving product functionality. In the 2014 Framework document, DOE presented two alternate metrics. One alternative metric under consideration was a performance metric that takes into account both flow rate and spray force (measured in gpm divided by ozf). Another metric considered was gallons per plate washed, which was calculated using the flow rate and the cleanability time, which is defined in ASTM Standard F2324-2003, as the “effectiveness of the prerinse spray valve to remove soil from the plate before it is placed in a dishwashing machine.” DOE requested comments from interested parties on these suggested alternate metrics.

    A joint comment submitted by the Alliance to Save Energy, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (“Advocates”) supported the consideration of a metric that incorporates both flow rate and spray force because this may allow DOE to adopt an amended standard that ensures functionality, while improving water and energy efficiency of commercial prerinse spray valves. In addition, the Advocates pointed out that a widely used industry standard, ASTM Standard F2324-13, already incorporates spray force measurement, and so a metric accounting for both flow rate and spray force would not cause additional burden to manufacturers listing products to the industry standard. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 1) However, the Advocates also commented that product classes must be considered to distinguish between commercial prerinse spray valves and DOE could consider using spray force as one way to delineate separate product classes. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 2)

    A joint comment submitted by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison (CA IOUs) urged DOE to consider a metric or a product classification structure that addresses product performance in addition to water consumption. The CA IOUs stated that if a single metric does not capture both performance and water consumption, the standard should be structured to preserve the primary function of the product while addressing water efficiency. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 1)

    The CA IOUs also urged DOE to consider user satisfaction when considering the metric, as some field surveys have shown that users that are dissatisfied with efficient commercial prerinse spray valves will substitute them with those that likely increase overall water consumption. Therefore, CA IOUs suggested either incorporating spray force into the metric, or alternatively, using spray force to establish product classes as a way to account for differentiating products. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 1)

    In terms of considering cleanability in the metric, the Advocates commented that they opposed using gallons per plate washed as a metric because of concerns about efficacy and replicability of cleanability testing. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 1) CA IOUs also suggested that DOE consider not using the cleanability test given the problems with repeatability and little correlation to user satisfaction. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) Additionally, AWE commented that the cleanability test was an unreliable indicator of top-performing products and was not easily repeatable in laboratories across North America. (AWE, No. 8 at p. 1)

    Although the purpose of the rulemaking is to achieve water savings, DOE recognizes that the utility of commercial prerinse spray valves must also be ensured. DOE agrees with interested parties that there are specific applications for different commercial prerinse spray valves, and to preserve utility, another measure besides flow rate must be considered in the analysis. There was a consensus among interested parties not to include cleanability in the test method metric because of the issues regarding repeatability of test results. Additionally, interested parties stated that cleanability had little correlation to performance and user satisfaction. Therefore, DOE did not use cleanability in the analysis.

    However, a majority of the interested parties supported including spray force in the analysis. Whereas some stakeholders suggested incorporating spray force as part of the water consumption metric, others commented that spray force can also be used as a characteristic to distinguish product classes. Based on the comments received, DOE proposes to retain flow rate (in gpm) as the efficiency metric, and to incorporate spray force as a characteristic to distinguish product classes. Because the industry currently uses flow rate as the efficiency metric, DOE will continue using this industry-accepted metric. However, to ensure that utility of the commercial prerinse spray valves is maintained, DOE proposes to use spray force as a characteristic to establish product classes. The following section provides further discussion on incorporating spray force as a characteristic to differentiate product classes.

    3. Product Classes

    As stated previously, all commercial prerinse spray valves are included in a single product class. In the 2014 Framework document, DOE also considered whether to establish separate product classes based on the statutory criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), and requested comments from interested parties.

    The Advocates stated that separate product classes should be established to distinguish among commercial prerinse spray valves that fit different applications. The Advocates also stated that DOE should consider establishing product classes for commercial prerinse spray valves that would distinguish between valves designed and marketed for light duty, standard duty, and heavy-duty applications. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also suggested that DOE should examine what applications do not require a higher flow rate for establishing product classes. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2)

    NAFEM suggested evaluating the impacts of the rule on other applications where commercial prerinse spray valves are currently used. (NAFEM, No. 9 at p. 2) Similarly, T&S Brass commented that the applications of commercial prerinse spray valves could vary from rinsing to cleaning baked-on food, and that the different applications might require different spray forces. T&S Brass stated that it offers a variety of prerinse spray valves that have different design features based on end users' applications. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 40) T&S Brass also commented that nozzle design and spray pattern provide specific CPSV applications and performance and that consumers choose a commercial prerinse spray valve based on application by trying various designs and determining which commercial prerinse spray valve works best for their specified application. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 4) Additionally, T&S Brass commented that CPSV efficiency depends on water pressure, water temperature, duration, flow rate, spray patterns, and other factors, and that the end-user application will dictate several of these variables. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 6)

    DOE agrees with interested parties that there are different applications of commercial prerinse spray valves, such as cleaning baked-on food and light rinsing. Therefore, commercial prerinse spray valves designed for heavy duty cleaning require a higher flow rate in order to achieve satisfactory cleaning performance compared to products designed for light rinsing. Therefore, to preserve consumer utility for all CPSV applications, DOE proposes to establish separate product classes for commercial prerinse spray valves.

    To determine what criteria to use to establish the product classes, DOE presented several different CPSV characteristics in the 2014 Framework document and requested input from interested parties. DOE received input on whether cleanability, flow rate, and spray force are criteria that should be used to establish product classes.

    a. Cleanability

    T&S Brass stated that because cleanability depends on subjective features such as spray pattern, end-user's application, and duration, this characteristic should not be used to establish product classes. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 4) AWE suggested that DOE develop a more viable cleanability test method than that in ASTM F2324-2003 if cleanability is to be used as the defining characteristic. (AWE, No. 8 at p. 2) CA IOUs suggested that DOE consider not using the cleanability test given the problems with repeatability and little correlation to user satisfaction. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) T&S Brass commented that ultra-low-flow commercial prerinse spray valves are designed for applications that allow for minimum water consumption, and that cleanability using an ultra-low-flow commercial prerinse spray valve is not applicable to every CPSV application in the foodservice environment. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 4)

    Based on these comments, as well as ASTM's update of the F2324 standard (ASTM Standard F2324-13), which replaces the cleanability test with a spray force test, DOE is not considering using cleanability as a characteristic to define product classes.

    b. Flow Rate

    T&S Brass stated that flow rate is a useful characteristic to define product classes and that spray force is a related parameter that can be altered with the nozzle design. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 39) T&S Brass commented that the data for flow rates for commercial prerinse spray valves are available and verifiable because they are based upon consistent test methods of a national test standard. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) T&S Brass suggested using three product classes: (1) An ultra low-flow commercial prerinse spray valve with a maximum flow rate of 0.8 gpm; (2) a low-flow commercial prerinse spray valve with flow rates of 0.8 to 1.28 gpm; and (3) a standard commercial prerinse spray valve with flow rates of 1.28 to 1.6 gpm. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) T&S Brass stated that the 1.6 gpm class is currently called the EPAct 2005 class. The 1.28 gpm class is based on the WaterSense voluntary standard. The 0.80 gpm class represents a 50 percent reduction of the current DOE standard. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 54) However, the Advocates commented that if the metric is not changed from the current gpm, then including flow rate as a differentiator for product class would be inconsistent. (Advocates, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 38)

    Additionally, T&S Brass commented that the performance of the maximum technologically feasible model (max-tech model) should not be evaluated solely based on flow rate. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 52) Also, as described in section IV.A.1, interested parties commented that for DOE to maintain the utility of the commercial prerinse spray valves, another measure besides flow rate must be considered in the analysis.

    In the 2014 Framework document, DOE noted that it would be difficult to establish product classes based on flow rate if the flow rate efficiency metric was retained. For this rulemaking, DOE proposes to retain flow rate as the efficiency metric for commercial prerinse spray valves. Therefore, DOE is not considering flow rate as a characteristic to establish product classes.

    c. Spray Force

    As described in section IV.A.1, interested parties recommended that DOE incorporate spray force in the analysis. Additionally, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) recommended that DOE investigate whether spray force and flow rate are directly proportional, and to investigate whether spray force is a good characteristic to predict the performance of a commercial prerinse spray valve. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 2)

    DOE investigated whether any relationship exists between spray force and flow rate. DOE tested multiple spray valves for both flow rate and spray force using the ASTM Standard F2324-13 test procedure. The test results showed a direct linear relationship between flow rate and spray force, such that higher flow rate corresponds to higher spray force. Additionally, DOE found literature online that supported the linear relationship between spray force and flow rate.24 Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD provides further discussion on this relationship.

    24 Spraying Systems Co., “Optimizing Your Spray System” (2009) (Available at: www.spray.com/Literature_PDFs/TM410A_Optimizing_Your_Spray_System.pdf ); PNR America, “Some Uses of Spray Nozzles” (Available at: http://www.pnramerica.com/pdfs/p2_6.pdf).

    Multiple interested parties also recommended the use of spray force to establish product classes. The Advocates suggested that spray force might be a suitable criterion to create product classes. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 2) T&S Brass commented that there are several applications of commercial prerinse spray valves, and all might require different spray forces. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 39) AWE stated that spray force is a useful characteristic that could be used to define product classes. (AWE, No. 8 at p. 2) CA IOUs suggested using spray force to establish product classes as a way to account for differentiating products.

    However, NEEA stated that establishing product classes based on spray force could overlook cleaning effectiveness. It stated that a solid water jet and pattern jet could have the same flow rate and spray force, but that the pattern jet would clean better than a solid jet, despite both having the same spray force. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 2)

    A WaterSense field study found that low water pressure, or spray force, is a source of user dissatisfaction. WaterSense evaluated 14 commercial prerinse spray valve models and collected 56 consumer satisfaction reviews, of which 9 were unsatisfactory. Seven of the nine unsatisfactory scores were attributed, among other factors, to the water pressure, or the user-perceived force of the spray.25

    25 EPA WaterSense, Prerinse Spray Valves Field Study Report, at 24-25 (Mar. 31, 2011) (Available at: www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_study_report_033111v2_508.pdf).

    Based on all comments from interested parties, DOE recognizes that spray force is an important criterion for characterizing consumer utility and is directly correlated with flow rate. Therefore, DOE is proposing to use spray force as the criterion to establish product classes. The 2015 CPSV test procedure NOPR proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM Standard F2324-13, which includes a test method for measuring spray force.

    DOE is proposing three product classes based on ranges of spray force: (1) light-duty (less than or equal to 5 ozf), (2) standard-duty (greater than 5 ozf but less than or equal to 8 ozf), and (3) heavy-duty (greater than than 8 ozf). The light-duty equipment class would be suitable for light rinsing purposes, the standard-duty product class would be suitable to clean wet foods, and the heavy-duty product class would be suitable to clean baked-on foods. DOE testing of commercial prerinse spray valves provided clear indication of three clusters of commercial prerinse spray valves within these spray force ranges. Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD provides a detailed description of the product classes that DOE is proposing in this rulemaking.

    d. Impact of Product Classes on Compliance, Certification and Enforcement

    The procedures required for certification, determination, and enforcement of compliance of covered products with the applicable conservation standards are set forth in 10 CFR 429. The sampling plan and certification requirements for commercial prerinse spray valves are dictated in 10 CFR 429.51. DOE received comments from interested parties regarding the impact of product classes on product compliance, certification, and enforcement.

    T&S Brass commented that the impact of assigning product classes should be considered with regard to the regulation and certification process. T&S Brass seeks clarification on how commercial prerinse spray valves will be certified (e.g., through accredited third parties) in the future, if product classes will create more burden on manufacturers, and if it will be an additional requirement besides WaterSense certification. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 8) T&S Brass also commented that there is a general lack of enforcement for manufacturers to file with DOE and that many imported products do not follow the federal regulations. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 8)

    As described in this NOPR, DOE proposes to designate product classes based on ranges of spray force. In the concurrent 2015 CPSV test procedure NOPR, DOE is proposing that spray force be tested for each spray pattern. Therefore, DOE proposes to revise the certification reporting requirements under 10 CFR 429.51(b)(2) to include reporting the average spray force in ozf, in addition to reporting the average flow rate. The reported spray force will determine which product class applies to each certified basic model. As DOE understands that spray force is already a widely accepted and measured characteristic of commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE believes that adding the reporting requirement for spray force will not create significant additional burden for CPSV manufacturers.

    DOE further notes that the WaterSense prerinse spray valve program is a voluntary program administered by EPA, and DOE's reporting and certification requirements for commercial prerinse spray valves would be separate from the requirements of the WaterSense program.

    The Advocates noted that ASTM Standard F2324-13, which is being incorporated by reference in the concurrent 2015 CPSV test procedure NOPR (80 FR 35874), already incorporates spray force measurement, and so accounting for both flow rate and spray force would not cause additional burden to manufacturers listing products to the industry standard. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 1) However, the Advocates also noted that it would be challenging to administer the separate product classes when commercial prerinse spray valves in a commercial kitchen are interchangeable, as many users have both heavy-duty and light-duty cleaning to perform. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 2) The Advocates cautioned that enforcement issues should also be considered when considering spray force. (Advocates, No. 11 at p. 2)

    While DOE administers the certification, determination, and enforcement of compliance of covered products, DOE does not administer the end-use of the covered products by the consumers. Under DOE enforcement activities, conservation standards cases deal with manufacturers that have distributed products in the U.S. that DOE has found do not meet the required energy standards. Compliance certification cases deal with manufacturers that either have not certified that the products that they manufacture and distribute in the U.S. have been tested and meet the applicable energy conservation standards or have submitted invalid compliance certifications. With respect to products certified to EPA's ENERGY STAR program, DOE refers to the EPA any products that DOE tests that do not meet the ENERGY STAR specification. Any complaints regarding non-compliant products can be sent to: [email protected].

    4. Technology Assessment

    In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options that may decrease CPSV water consumption. This assessment provides the technical background and structure on which DOE bases its screening and engineering analyses. In the 2014 Framework Document, DOE suggested an initial list of technology options that it would consider, which included the following:

    • Addition of a flow control insert;

    • Smaller nozzle tip openings to increase pressure;

    • Incorporation of additional components including, but not limited to backflow preventers, additional valves, or hoses; and

    • Specially designed spray patterns, such as the following: fan spray pattern (single nozzle with a hollow cone stream); solid stream pattern (single nozzle with single solid jet stream); triple-action spray pattern (three nozzles with solid jet streams); knife-like spray pattern (single nozzle with a flat stream); and rose spray pattern (multiple nozzles resembling a common showerhead).

    DOE received several comments regarding the feasibility and impact of the technology options identified in the 2014 Framework document, which are discussed in the screening and engineering analyses in section IV.B and section IV.C, respectively. T&S Brass commented that there should not be too many design restrictions, as commercial prerinse spray valves are used in different applications, and, based on the application, the incorporation of certain design options might be required. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 44) T&S Brass also commented that the rulemaking should not stifle innovation. Id. AWE recommended that DOE not be design-restrictive, but focus on cleaning performance, water consumption, and durability of commercial prerinse spray valves for the rulemaking. (AWE, No. 8 at p. 2)

    DOE notes that the proposed standard is a performance-based standard, not a design-based standard.

    After further research regarding the potential technology options identified in the 2014 Framework document, DOE determined that several of them do not affect CPSV efficiency and thus are not considered to be technology options. The following subsections provide background on these product features that DOE determined had no impact on CPSV efficiency. The technology options that do affect CPSV efficiency are discussed further in section IV.B.

    1. Backflow Preventers

    Backflow preventers prevent reverse flow of water. They are mainly used in plumbing devices to protect water supplies from contamination or pollution. DOE did not identify any means by which incorporating a backflow preventers into a commercial prerinse spray valve could improve its efficiency by limiting the water flow rate.

    2. Specially Designed Spray Patterns

    In the 2014 Framework document, DOE identified five different spray patterns that are incorporated in commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE performed several tests on various CPSV units with different spray patterns using the ASTM Standard F2324-13 test procedure. While the units provided different flow rate and spray force results, DOE research showed no direct correlation between the type of spray pattern and flow rate. Hence, DOE found no indication that a different spray pattern can be used to reduce water consumption. Additionally, T&S Brass commented that different nozzle designs and spray patterns have been developed to meet the requirements for specific CPSV applications. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 4) Hence, the type of spray pattern is more relevant to a specific CPSV application, rather than being a potential design option to reduce water consumption in commercial prerinse spray valves.

    DOE did, however, identify additional CPSV technology options beyond those in the 2014 Framework document which could improve CPSV efficiency. The additional technology options analyzed include spray hole eccentricity and orifice plate nozzle geometry, and are discussed further in the section IV.B.

    B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further.

    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b)

    In response to the technology options presented in the 2014 Framework document, T&S Brass stated that design and technology aspects to improve CPSV performance are considered proprietary information by manufacturers. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 5) The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asked whether the spray patterns and associated nozzles used in the engineering analysis would be non-proprietary options. (NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 46).

    In the engineering and economic analyses, DOE considered all design options that are commercially available or present in a working prototype, including proprietary designs that meet the screening criteria. DOE will consider a proprietary design, however, only if it does not represent a unique path to a given efficiency level. If the proprietary design is the only approach available to achieve a given efficiency level, then DOE will eliminate that efficiency level from further analysis. However, if a given energy efficiency level can be achieved by a number of design approaches, including a proprietary design, DOE will examine the given efficiency level, despite the proprietary nature of that one design.

    Additionally, NAFEM stated that DOE's suggested design options in the 2014 Framework document fail to satisfy the criteria as specified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii) through (iv). (NAFEM, No. 9 at p. 2) Sections 4(a)4(ii) through (iv) define three of the four screening criteria described previously, which are: Practicability to manufacture, install and service; adverse impacts on product or equipment utility or availability; and adverse impacts on health or safety. The technology options presented in the 2014 Framework document had not been screened using the four factors discussed above. For the analysis in this notice, DOE evaluated the technology options being considered in the engineering analysis based on the four screening criteria. While a majority of the technology options were not considered in the analysis because they failed to satisfy the screening criteria, there are several technology options that DOE believes satisfy the screening criteria, which are discussed in the following sections. Those technology options not screened out by the four criteria are called “design options” and are considered in the engineering analysis as possible methods of improving efficiency. The following sections describe which technology options were screened out, and which were included as design options.

    1. Addition of Flow Control Insert

    A flow control insert is a component that can be installed within certain plumbing products to limit the amount of water that flows out of the product. Several faucets and showerheads on the market use flow control inserts to reduce water consumption. Therefore, a flow control insert could also be used in other water products, like commercial prerinse spray valves, to control flow. However, T&S Brass commented that the addition of a flow control insert should not be considered as a design option. T&S reports that a flow control insert would hinder CPSV performance, and can often be physically removed by the end user. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 5) Additionally, T&S Brass mentioned that the nozzle itself is what regulates the flow rate in commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 5)

    Based on research, DOE did not identify any commercial prerinse spray valves on the market that use flow control inserts to regulate water flow. Therefore, because flow control inserts are not incorporated in commercially available products or working prototypes, DOE has screened out flow control inserts from its analysis because they are not technologically feasible.

    2. Smaller Spray Hole Area

    The spray hole(s) are located at the exterior of the commercial prerinse spray valve and allow water to flow out of the nozzle. The total spray hole area is the sum of all the areas of the individual spray holes. DOE determined that the flow rate and nozzle spray hole area are directly related. Additional technical details regarding this relationship are provided in chapter 5 of the TSD.

    Given its relationship to flow rate, DOE identified nozzle spray hole area as an important factor to consider in the engineering analysis. Additionally, reducing the spray hole area is a relatively simple design change that satisfies the 4 screening criteria discussed above: (1) It is technologically feasible; (2) it would be practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) it would not have adverse impacts on product utility or availability; 26 and (4) it would not have adverse impacts on health and safety. Therefore, DOE will consider smaller nozzle tip openings, or a smaller nozzle spray hole area, as a design option in the engineering analysis.

    26 Although smaller spray hole area would result in lower flow rates and thus a lower amount of force, DOE's proposed revised product class structure would preserve product utility for heavy-duty applications.

    3. Aerators

    An aerator is a device that can be used to mix air with water, to reduce the flow of water from the device without reducing the water pressure. DOE is aware of only one commercial prerinse spray valve that incorporates an aerator. DOE tested this unit to determine how the aerator reduces water consumption. DOE testing indicated that the performance of this aerated unit differed substantially from the more common non-aerated units: It exhibited a very low spray force, and did not demonstrate the same linear relationship between flow rate and spray force that is typical of most other commercial prerinse spray valves that DOE tested. At the present time, DOE does not have enough information to determine (1) whether the addition of an aerator represents a technologically feasible design option for improving CPSV efficiency, or (2) whether aerators can be applied more generally to other CPSV designs. Therefore, DOE is tentatively screening out aerators from the analysis. DOE requests comment about its approach to screen out aerators in section V.E.14.

    4. Additional Valves

    Plumbing fixtures often use globe valves and butterfly valves to regulate water flow. Globe valves are comprised of a movable disk-like element and a stationary ring seated in a generally spherical body. The most common application of a globe valve is in a standard water faucet, such that when the handle is turned, a disc is lowered or raised. Butterfly valves regulate flow by means of a disc that rotates on an axis across the diameter of a pipe. Based on DOE's research to date, however, there are no commercially available products or working prototypes of commercial prerinse spray valves that use these additional valves. Additionally, T&S Brass also commented that the incorporation of additional components, such as backflow preventers, additional valves, or hoses, should not be considered as a design option because they are not necessarily aspects incorporated within the commercial prerinse spray valve itself. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 5). DOE considers any component separate from the commercial prerinse spray valve to not be part of the covered product, and therefore not subject to evaluation as a design option. For these reasons, DOE has screened out the incorporation of additional valves from its analysis.

    5. Changing Spray Hole Shape

    DOE found evidence that spray hole shape affects flow rate. DOE found that commercial prerinse spray valves with circular holes have higher flow rates than commercial prerinse spray valves with oval-shaped spray holes, if all other design elements are identical. Additionally, changing spray hole shape is a design change that satisfies the 4 screening criteria discussed above: (1) It is technologically feasible; (2) it would be practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) it would not have adverse impacts on product utility or availability; 27 and (4) it would not have adverse impacts on health and safety. Therefore, DOE will consider spray hole shape as a design option in the engineering analysis. Chapter 5 of the TSD provides further details on spray hole shape.

    27 Although smaller spray hole area would result in lower flow rates and thus a lower amount of force, DOE's proposed revised product class structure would preserve product utility for heavy-duty applications.

    6. Venturi Meter to Orifice Plate Nozzle Geometries

    DOE has observed that the nozzle geometry affects the flow rate of commercial prerinse spray valves. Based on DOE testing, reverse-engineering teardowns and information available in the literature, DOE has determined that a “venturi meter” geometry allows water to pass through the nozzle more easily than an “orifice plate” geometry. Therefore, if all other design elements are identical, commercial prerinse spray valves with an orifice plate geometry have a lower flow rate than commercial prerinse spray valves with a venture meter geometry. Additionally, changing spray nozzle geometry is a design change that satisfies the 4 screening criteria discussed above: (1) It is technologically feasible; (2) it would be practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) it would not have adverse impacts on product utility or availability; 28 and (4) it would not have adverse impacts on health and safety. Therefore, DOE will consider spray nozzle geometry as a design option in the engineering analysis. Chapter 5 of the TSD provides a more detailed discussion on this topic.

    28 Although an orifice plate geometry would result in lower flow rates and thus a lower amount of force, DOE's proposed revised product class structure would preserve product utility for heavy-duty applications.

    C. Engineering Analysis

    In the engineering analysis, DOE establishes the relationship between the manufacturer production cost (MPC) and improved CPSV efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations for individual consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. DOE typically structures the engineering analysis using one of three approaches: (1) Design option, (2) efficiency level, or (3) reverse engineering (or cost assessment). The design-option approach involves adding the estimated cost and associated efficiency of various efficiency-improving design changes to the baseline to model different levels of efficiency. The efficiency-level approach uses estimates of costs and efficiencies of products available on the market at distinct efficiency levels to develop the cost-efficiency relationship. The reverse-engineering approach involves testing products for efficiency and determining cost from a detailed bill of materials (BOM) derived from reverse engineering representative products.

    For this analysis, DOE structured its engineering analysis for commercial prerinse spray valves using a combination of the design-option approach and the reverse-engineering approach. The analysis is performed in terms of incremental decreases in water consumption due to the implementation of selected design options, while the estimated MPCs for each successive design option are based on product teardowns and a bottom-up manufacturing cost assessment. Using this hybrid approach, DOE developed the relationship between MPC and CPSV efficiency.

    Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD discusses the baseline efficiencies for each product class (in terms of flow rate), the design options DOE considered, the methodology used to develop manufacturing production costs, and the cost-efficiency curves. The LCC and PBP analysis uses the cost-efficiency relationships developed in the engineering analysis.

    1. Engineering Approach

    For each of the three proposed product classes, DOE selected a baseline efficiency (in terms of flow rate) as a reference point from which to measure changes resulting from each design option. DOE then developed separate cost-efficiency relationships for each product class analyzed. The following is a summary of the method DOE used to determine the cost-efficiency relationship for commercial prerinse spray valves:

    (1) Perform flow rate and spray force tests on a representative sample of commercial prerinse spray valves in every product class.

    (2) Develop a detailed BOM for the tested commercial prerinse spray valves through product teardowns, and construct a commercial prerinse spray valve cost model.

    (3) Use the test data and cost model to calculate the incremental increase in efficiency (i.e., decrease in flow rate) and cost increase of adding specific design options to a baseline model.

    In the 2014 Framework document, DOE presented plans for its engineering analysis and sought comment on its approach to calculating the cost-efficiency relationship for commercial prerinse spray valves. T&S Brass stated that the range of efficiency levels should be determined based on the performance of commercial prerinse spray valves evaluated per ASTM Standard F2324-13. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 5) DOE agrees that ASTM Standard F2324-13 reflects the latest changes in the industry and conducted all testing in support of this rulemaking using ASTM Standard F2324-13.

    The CA IOUs recommended that DOE look at DOE's CCMS and the CEC appliance databases for available product data. The CA IOUs also provided separate charts that showed the range of flow rates from these databases; the ranges reported were from 0.65 to 1.48 gpm. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 3) For the analysis, DOE used CCMS and CEC databases to incorporate product data for the analysis. Additionally, DOE looked at the EPA WaterSense database and the Food Service Technology Center (FSTC) commercial prerinse spray valves testing results to determine the flow rates and spray forces.

    2. Product Classes

    DOE is proposing three product classes, defined by spray force ranges, as shown in Table IV.1.

    Table IV.1—Product Classes Definitions Product class Spray force range Light-duty ≤ 5 ozf. Standard-duty > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf. Heavy-duty > 8 ozf.

    Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD includes a detailed discussion regarding how the product classes were determined.

    3. Baseline and Max-Tech Models

    To analyze technology options for energy efficiency improvements, DOE defined a baseline model for each commercial prerinse spray valve product class. Typically, the baseline model is a model that just meets current energy conservation standards.

    For the heavy-duty product class (spray force greater than 8 ozf), DOE determined that the baseline flow rate is the current commercial prerinse spray valve energy conservation standard of 1.6 gpm. For the standard-duty and light-duty product classes, DOE established baseline flow rates that correspond to upper spray force bounds of these two product classes. DOE determined these baseline flow rates using the linear relationship between flow rate and spray force. DOE determined a best-fit linear equation that related flow rate and spray force using the test results for all the commercial prerinse spray valves that DOE tested. DOE then calculated the flow rates that corresponded to the spray force bounds for the standard-duty and light-duty product classes using the best fit linear equation. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides more detail on the flow rate and spray force relationship.

    T&S Brass cautioned against picking the highest efficiency level (max-tech) solely based on flow rate. T&S Brass commented that there are products on the market with a low flow rate that have an unsatisfactory user rating. T&S Brass suggested also looking at spray force when determining the max-tech model. According to T&S Brass, the current definition of the max-tech model solely based on flow rate may work in certain applications, but may work poorly for a standard market application. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 51) Additionally, T&S Brass also noted that the max-tech model in each product class may not adequately perform for all commercial foodservice applications. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 6)

    As described above, DOE proposes three product classes, defined by spray force ranges, which correspond to three major categories of CPSV usage (i.e. light-duty, standard-duty, and heavy-duty). Separating commercial prerinse spray valves into three product classes will ensure that consumer utility is maintained within each product class. DOE believes that the max-tech level selected for each product class would not reduce consumer utility for the applications associated with each spray force range.

    To develop the relationships between flow rate and the design options for commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE used publicly available data, including data from government databases, manufacturer catalogs and Web sites, and selected product testing for commercial prerinse spray valves. The engineering analysis focused on identifying and evaluating commercially available prerinse spray valves that incorporate design options that reduce flow rate. The analysis also identified the lowest flow rate that is commercially available within each product class (i.e., the max-tech model).

    Additionally, DOE found that the spray nozzle geometry is a variable that affects flow rate. The nozzle geometry is expressed in terms of a discharge coefficient. DOE calculated the discharge coefficient for the max-tech model in each product class and assumed a constant discharge coefficient for each efficiency level within that class. DOE requests comments on whether this approach is appropriate.

    Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD includes details on the baseline flow rates and max-tech flow rates considered as part of the engineering analysis.

    4. Manufacturing Cost Analysis

    DOE estimated the manufacturing costs using a reverse-engineering approach, which involves a bottom-up manufacturing cost assessment based on a detailed BOM derived from teardowns of the product being analyzed. The detailed BOM includes labor costs, depreciation costs, utilities, maintenance, tax, and insurance costs, in addition to the individual component costs. These manufacturing costs are developed to be an industry average and do not take into account how efficiently a particular manufacturing facility operates.

    To develop the relationship between cost and performance for commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE used a reverse-engineering analysis, or teardown analysis. DOE purchased off-the-shelf commercial prerinse spray valves available on the market and dismantled them component by component to determine what technologies and designs manufacturers use to decrease commercial prerinse spray valve flow rate. DOE then used independent costing methods, along with component-supplier data, to estimate the costs of the components.

    T&S Brass stated that materials and processes for metallic, plastic, and rubber parts should be taken into consideration in the reverse-engineering process. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 5) T&S Brass also commented that the costs for incremental efficiency improvements of existing commercial prerinse spray valve are different among manufacturers, or even among models from the same manufacturer. Therefore, the costs to improve efficiency depend on the design of commercial prerinse spray valve. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 6)

    DOE derived detailed manufacturing cost estimate data based on its reverse engineering analysis, which included the cost of the product components, labor, purchased parts and materials, and investment.

    DOE tested three series of commercial prerinse spray valves from three manufacturers. Through testing, DOE found that the flow rates of the units within each series were different. However, based on the reverse-engineering analysis, the manufacturing costs for the units within each series were the same. Therefore, DOE concluded that there is no manufacturing cost difference for incremental efficiency improvements between models within the same series from the same manufacturer.

    DOE also tested and performed a teardown analysis on commercial prerinse spray valves from additional manufacturers. These commercial prerinse spray valves represented a range of baseline to max-tech units. The testing and teardown results indicated that the manufacturing costs between different units from different manufacturers can vary based on the type of material, amount of material, and/or process used. However, DOE determined that these factors do not affect the efficiency of a commercial prerinse spray valve. Therefore, DOE did not include these cost differences in the engineering analysis. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides further details on the teardown analysis, component costs, and costs that were developed as part of the cost-efficiency curves.

    D. Markups Analysis

    The purpose of the markups analysis is to translate the MPC derived from the engineering analysis into the final consumer purchase price by applying the appropriate markups. The first step in this process is converting the MPC into the MSP by applying the manufacturer markup. The manufacturer markup includes sales, general and administrative, research and development, other corporate expenses, and profit. As described further in chapter 6 of the TSD, the manufacturer markup of 1.30 was calculated as the market share weighted average value for the industry. DOE developed this manufacturer markup by examining several major CPSV manufacturers' gross margin information from annual reports and Securities and Exchange Commission 10-K reports. Because the 10-K reports do not provide gross margin information at the subsidiary level, the estimated markups represent the average markups that the parent company applies over its entire range of equipment offerings, and does not necessarily represent the manufacturer markup of the subsidiary. Both the MPC and the MSP values are used in the MIA.

    Next, DOE uses manufacturer-to-consumer markups to convert the MSP estimates into consumer purchase prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis, as well as the NIA. Consumer purchase prices are necessary for the baseline efficiency level and all other efficiency levels under consideration.

    For the markups analysis, DOE identified the following distribution channels (i.e. how the product is distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer):

    A. Manufacturer → Final Consumer (Direct Sales) B. Manufacturer → Authorized Distributor → Final Consumer C. Manufacturer → Retailer → Final Consumer D. Manufacturer → Service Company → Final Consumer

    During the Framework public meeting and public comment period, three comments were received with regard to distribution channels. T&S Brass commented that the trade associations did not maintain information on the percentage allocations among the various distribution channels. T&S Brass stated that such information was proprietary. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 71-72) T&S Brass also noted that there were numerous combinations of entities making up the potential distribution channels, and the three listed by DOE (A through C, as listed above) are only but a subset of the potential channels. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 70-71) Additionally, AWE commented that the dominant CPSV sales outlet is made up of service companies providing on-demand, on-site maintenance and other services to food service operators. (AWE, No. 8 at p. 2) As such, DOE added a fourth distribution channel (Service Company), in addition to the three discussed in the Framework document (Direct Sales, Authorized Distributor, and Retail Merchant). Beyond this, DOE did not attempt to incorporate additional channels or investigate combinations of the existing channels, because of a lack of specific information on distribution channels.

    In the 2014 Framework document, DOE discussed both baseline and incremental markups. Baseline markups are multipliers that convert the MSP of products at the baseline efficiency level to consumer purchase price. Incremental markups are multipliers that convert the incremental increase in MSP for products at each higher efficiency level (compared to the MSP at the baseline efficiency level) to corresponding incremental increases in the consumer purchase price. In the analysis in this notice, DOE used only baseline markups, as the engineering analysis indicated that there is no price increase with improvements in efficiency for commercial prerinse spray valves. Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides further details on the distribution channels and calculated markups.

    E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy and water use analysis is to establish the annual energy and water consumption used by the product to assess the associated energy and water savings potential of different product efficiencies. To this end, DOE performed an energy and water use analysis that calculated energy and water use of commercial prerinse spray valves for each product class and efficiency level identified in the engineering analysis. The energy and water use analysis provided the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly the LCC and PBP analysis and the NIA.

    In the 2014 Framework document, DOE indicated the analysis conducted for the NOPR is intended to capture and estimate water savings as a result of reduced flow rate and the related energy savings as a result of reduced hot water use. DOE calculated the energy and water use by determining the representative daily operating time of the product by major building types that contain commercial kitchens found in the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS).29 The daily commercial prerinse spray valve operating time was annualized based on operating schedules for each building type. Water use for each product class was determined by multiplying the annual operating time by the flow rate at an operating pressure of 60 pounds per square inch (psi) for each efficiency level.30

    29 Survey data available at www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/index.cfm.

    30 DOE considered a range of operating pressures in the analysis to account for the variations in water pressure supplied to buildings across the country. Through a sensitivity analysis on the impacts of water pressure on the flow rate of the prerinse spray valve, DOE concluded that 60 psi is a representative water pressure for prerinse spray valves. DOE used flow rates at a water pressure of 60 psi for each efficiency level in the energy and water use analysis, which is further discussed in the energy and water use TSD chapter.

    Energy use was calculated by multiplying the annual water use in gallons by the energy required to heat each gallon of water to an end-use temperature of 108 °F.31 Cold water supply temperatures used in this calculation were derived for the nine U.S. census regions based on ambient air temperatures and hot water supply temperature was assumed to be 140 °F based on ASHRAE Standard 12-2000.32 The proportion of buildings which used natural gas or electricity for water heating found in the CBECS database were multiplied by the energy consumption of each kind of water heater, taking into account the efficiency level of the product, to obtain the total energy consumption of each product class and efficiency level of commercial prerinse spray valves.

    31 End-use temperature was determined based on a review of several field studies. See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for a list of the field studies reviewed.

    32ASHRAE Standard 12-2000: Minimizing the Risk of Legionellosis Associated with Building Water Systems, (February 2000).

    In response to the 2014 Framework document, DOE received several comments related to potential data sources for the energy and water use analysis. IAPMO asked whether the rulemaking team had coordinated with DOE's Water, Energy, and Technology team. (IAPMO, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 77-78) WaterSense asked how DOE planned to collect data on CPSV operation. (WaterSense, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 78-79) T&S Brass noted that operation data might be available through NAFEM and FSTC. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 80) Finally, AWE commented that it had data available on operating time and water temperature from California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) studies. (AWE, No. 8 at p.3)

    In response to these comments, and as discussed above, DOE collected data from several end-use studies that measured operating time of commercial prerinse spray valves in field applications, such as restaurants and cafeteria settings. Data on water temperature measured in the field studies were also utilized by DOE to determine the hot water and end-use temperature.

    Additionally, T&S Brass commented that operational patterns varied widely across applications that use CPSV products. The different operational patterns across applications are a result of such factors as the volume of dishwashing or ware washing (i.e., number of pieces) requiring prerinsing, the rate at which dishwashing or ware washing needs to be done in order to return the commercial ware back into service, the difficulty in cleaning debris from the commercial ware, and operational patterns for product classes. T&S Brass added that these operational patterns will vary in duration of usage, as flow rates change within each application. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 6)

    DOE acknowledges comments submitted by T&S Brass regarding varying operational spray patterns and considered the varying operational patterns across applications of commercial prerinse spray valves in the analysis for this notice. As described in further detail in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD, DOE determined operational time for the product based on operational patterns of distinct building types that house commercial prerinse spray valves, including educational facilities, food retail, healthcare, lodging, and restaurants. Operational patterns taken into consideration for each building category included operating days per week, operating hours per day, and estimated daily number of meals served. DOE assumed the same operating time for different flow rates based on the conclusion of the EPA WaterSense field study that determined the flow rate of a CPSV did not significantly impact the operating time of the unit.33

    33 EPA WaterSense, Prerinse Spray Valves Field Study Report, (March 2011) (Available at: www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_study_report_033111v2_508.pdf.).

    T&S Brass also commented that potential energy savings due to a lower flow rate might be offset by using a higher water temperature that would create water savings, but not energy savings due to the increase in water temperature. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 8)

    In regards to the comment submitted by T&S Brass, DOE assumed an end-use temperature of 108 °F based on measured temperatures in field studies for commercial prerinse spray valves of varying flow rates. The field studies demonstrated that the end-use temperature did not significantly vary with flow rate. Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes this temperature is a reasonable representation of the temperature used by the majority of CPSV consumers, regardless of the flow rate of the unit.

    In response to the 2014 Framework document, NEEA commented that it had access to the data for utility programs in the Northwest. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 2)

    DOE appreciates the comment from NEEA regarding their access to regional utility program data. In the analysis for this NOPR, DOE utilized field studies and data that approximated national potable water supply temperatures and operational water temperatures.

    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of the product, consisting of purchase and installation costs plus operating costs (expenses for energy and water use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the potential increased purchase cost (including installation) of more efficient products through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that new standards are assumed to take effect.

    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to an estimate of the no-new-standards case product efficiency distribution. The no-new-standards case estimate reflects the market in the absence of amended energy conservation standards, including the market for products that exceeds the current energy conservation standard. In contrast, the PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—which includes MSPs, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy and water consumption, energy prices and price projections, combined water prices (which include water and wastewater prices) and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, energy and combined water prices, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value to account for their uncertainty and variability.

    The computer model DOE used to calculate the LCC and PBP, which incorporates Crystal BallTM (a commercially available software program), relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and CPSV user samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each efficiency level for 10,000 CPSV users per simulation run.

    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers as if each were to purchase a new commercial prerinse spray valve in the first year of the analysis period. For this rulemaking, DOE anticipates any amended standards would apply to commercial prerinse spray valves manufactured 3 years after the date on which any final amended standard is published. For this rulemaking, DOE anticipates publication of any final standards in late 2015 and compliance in late 2018. However, for the purposes of this analysis, DOE used 2019 instead of 2018 as the beginning of the analysis period for the LCC and PBP analysis, due to the anticipated compliance date being late in the year 2018.

    Table IV.2 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 and its appendices of the NOPR TSD.

    Table IV.2—Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis * Inputs Source/method Product Cost Derived by multiplying MSPs by distribution channel markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Installation Costs Baseline installation cost determined with data from U.S. Department of Labor. Assumed no change with efficiency level. Annual Energy and Water Use Determined from the energy required to heat a gallon of water used at the prerinse spray valve multiplied by the average annual operating time and flow rate of each product class.
  • Variability: By census region
  • Energy, Water and Wastewater Prices Energy: Based on EIA's Form 826 data for 2013. Variability: By State
  • Water: Based on 2012 AWWA Survey.
  • Variability: By State
  • Energy and Water Price Trends Energy: Forecasted using AEO2014 price forecasts.
  • Water: Forecasted using BLS historic water price index information.
  • Maintenance and Repair Costs Assumed no change with efficiency level. Product Lifetime DOE assumed an average lifetime of 5 years.
  • Variability: Characterized using modified Weibull probability distributions.
  • Discount Rates Estimated using the average cost of capital to commercial prerinse spray valve consumers. Cost of capital was found using information from the federal reserve and from Damodaran online data. First Year of Analysis Period 2019 * References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.
    1. Product Cost

    To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel markups described in section IV.D (along with sales taxes). As stated earlier in this notice, DOE used baseline markups, but did not apply incremental markups, because the engineering analysis indicated that there is no price increase with improvements in efficiency for commercial prerinse spray valves. Product costs are assumed to remain constant over the analysis period.

    2. Installation Cost

    Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE received the following comments to the 2014 Framework document regarding installation costs of commercial prerinse spray valves.

    T&S Brass commented that installation costs typically did not increase with higher-efficiency prerinse spray valves due to this process being a simple swap out. Under certain circumstances, depending on the manufacturer, additional materials may be necessary. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 83-85) T&S Brass also commented that depending upon the manufacturer, dealer, or installer, the initial installation costs of new products may or may not change for higher-efficiency models. The valve is typically a pre-assembled component of a prerinse unit installed into new facilities, but is usually provided separately for pre-existing installations. For retrofit applications where an existing valve is replaced with a higher-efficiency valve, the cost may increase depending upon the degree of design change required to manufacture the commercial valve to the higher-efficiency requirement. This may require additional components, or revised upstream components, that are needed for proper installation and/or performance. This again is dependent upon the various manufacturers, dealers, or installers. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 7)

    DOE has not received any specific data or other comments regarding installation cost as a function of product efficiency. Given the relatively simple nature of installing spray valves, and because there are no substantial differences in size, shape, or function of more efficient units relative to baseline efficiency units, DOE assumes that installation costs for more efficient units are the same as the costs for baseline products.

    3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption

    Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD details DOE's analysis of CPSV annual energy and water use at various efficiency levels. For each sampled building type, DOE determined the energy and water consumption for a commercial prerinse spray valve at different efficiency levels using the approach described in section IV.E of this notice.

    4. Energy Prices

    DOE derived energy prices from the EIA regional average energy price data for the commercial sectors. DOE used projections of these energy prices for commercial consumers to estimate future energy prices in the LCC and PBP analysis. EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2014) was used as the default source of projections for future energy prices.

    DOE developed estimates of commercial electricity and natural gas prices for each state and the District of Columbia (DC). DOE derived average regional energy prices from data that are published annually based on EIA Form 826. DOE then used EIA's AEO2014 price projections to estimate commercial electricity and natural gas prices in future years. EIA's AEO2014 price projections have an end year of 2040. To estimate price trends after 2040, DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2030 to 2040. DOE assumed that 100 percent of installations were in commercial locations. DOE did not receive any comments to the 2014 Framework document regarding its method for determining energy prices.

    5. Water and Wastewater Prices

    In the 2014 Framework document, DOE indicated that it would determine marginal water and wastewater rates in the U.S. that would be used in the LCC and PBP analysis, as well as the NIA. It further stated that it would investigate American Water Works Association's (AWWA's) biannual water and wastewater rate survey when modeling water and wastewater marginal pricing and projected future rate escalations. DOE received the following comments regarding the determination of the appropriate water prices for applicable analyses.

    T&S Brass recommended using AWWA as a source for water prices. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 88) T&S Brass also commented that it recognized the relationship between wastewater discharge and water usage. The impact of wastewater discharge is dependent upon municipal wastewater charges, such as sewer rate. Therefore, similar to the costs of municipal water, wastewater charges are based upon the location across the nation. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 7) T&S Brass suggested that DOE should contact AWWA to determine marginal water and wastewater rates and methods to break out water and wastewater rates across different pricing segments, such as regionally or by state, as well as future trends in water and wastewater rate escalations. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 94-96)

    In response to T&S Brass's comments, and consistent with the 2014 Framework document, DOE obtained data on water and wastewater prices from the 2012 AWWA surveys for this notice. For each state and DC, DOE combined all individual utility observations within the state to develop one value for water and wastewater service. Because water and wastewater charges are frequently tied to the same metered commodity values, DOE combined the prices for water and wastewater into one total dollar per thousand gallons figure. This figure is referred to as the combined water price. DOE used the consumer price index (CPI) data for water related consumption (1970-2013) in developing a real growth rate for combined water price forecasts.

    Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides more detail about DOE's approach to developing water and wastewater prices.

    6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed in the product; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically, small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no changes, or only minor changes, in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline efficiency product.

    In the 2014 Framework document, DOE requested information as to whether maintenance and repair costs are a function of efficiency level and product class. T&S Brass commented that determining whether repair costs may change for more efficient products, or whether commercial prerinse spray valves were typically replaced upon failure or repaired, depends on how the manufacturer markets their products. Some manufacturers and distributors place a premium on their more efficient products. Others view it as doing a service to the environment and to consumers by offering the same price. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 94-96). T&S Brass also commented that some manufacturers offer repair kits. Some manufacturers view commercial prerinse spray valves as “throwaway” items, but T&S Brass does not, and stated that it could document that some of its original spray valves had been in use for over 60 years. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 86) Additionally T&S Brass commented that although its products can last longer than 5 years, end users decide whether to replace the entire unit or repair the unit in the field. (T&S Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at pp. 96-97) T&S Brass also stated that it offers an array of repair kits for commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at pp. 7-8)

    DOE acknowledges T&S Brass's comments. But, based on the lack of data regarding repair rates in the industry, DOE assumed that consumers would replace the commercial prerinse spray valve upon failure rather than repairing the product. DOE assumed that there are no changes in maintenance or repair costs between different efficiency levels.

    7. Product Lifetime

    Because product lifetime varies depending on utilization and other factors, DOE developed a distribution of product lifetimes. In the 2014 Framework document, DOE assumed an average CPSV lifetime of 5 years.

    T&S Brass commented that water temperature and pressure, as well as frequency and duration of usage, were key considerations when determining the life expectancy of a unit. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) T&S Brass also commented that they do not know of a correlation between spray valve usage and life expectancy. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) T&S Brass pointed out that life-cycle testing for mechanical endurance is a prerequisite for third-party certification of commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3)

    DOE did not find sufficient data to support the use of factors such as usage, or water temperature and pressure, as a way to determine the distribution of lifetimes of commercial prerinse spray valves in the analysis for this notice.

    T&S Brass commented that lifetime values cannot be accurately quantified because of the range and number of variables, as well as the various end-user applications that must be considered. (T&S, No. 12 at p. 3)

    DOE developed a Weibull distribution with an average lifetime of 5 years and a maximum lifetime of 10 years. The use of a lifetime distribution for this analysis helps account for the variability of product lifetimes.

    However, NEEA commented that it expected the actual lifetime to be reduced due to an observed 10 percent attrition after 1 year because of events such as businesses closing, the unit being replaced, or rinsing stations being removed in Northwest utility programs. Additionally, NEEA pointed out that SBW Consulting's evaluation report estimated that CPSV lifetimes might be as low as 2 years based on reported sales volume and the estimated population of commercial prerinse spray valves. (NEEA, No. 13 at pp. 1-2)

    In consideration of NEEA's comment regarding the lifetime distributions used for commercial prerinse spray valves, in the NOPR analysis DOE modified the Weibull distribution to reflect 10 percent of commercial prerinse spray valves failing within the first year after installation. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the method and sources DOE used to develop CPSV lifetimes.

    8. Discount Rates

    In the calculation of LCC, DOE developed discount rates by estimating the average cost of capital to commercial prerinse spray valve consumers. DOE applies discount rates to commercial consumers to estimate the present value of future cash flows derived from a project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the weighted-average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. See chapter 8 in the NOPR TSD for further details on the development of consumer discount rates.

    9. No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution

    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE's LCC and PBP analysis considered the projected distribution of product efficiencies that consumers purchase under the no-new-standards case. DOE refers to this distribution of product efficiencies as a no-new-standards case efficiency distribution.

    To estimate the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution of commercial prerinse spray valves in 2019 (the first year of the analysis period), DOE relied on data from the Food Service Technology Center and DOE's CCMS Database for commercial prerinse spray valves.34 Additionally, DOE conducted general internet searches and examined manufacturer literature to understand the characteristics of the spray valves currently offered on the market. DOE assumed that the no-standards case percentages in 2019 would stay the same through the analysis period. The no-standards case efficiency distribution is described in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

    34 The Food Service Technology Center test data for prerinse spray valves is available at www.fishnick.com/equipment/sprayvalves/. The DOE compliance certification data for commercial prerinse spray valves is available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.

    The estimated shares for the no-standards case efficiency distribution for commercial prerinse spray valves are shown in Table IV.3.

    Table IV.3—Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve No-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution by Product Class in 2019 Efficiency level Light duty
  • (% of shipments)
  • Standard duty
  • (% of shipments)
  • Heavy duty
  • (% of shipments)
  • Baseline 15 40 40 1 35 50 50 2 0 0 5 3 50 10 5
    10. Payback Period Analysis

    The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more efficient products, compared to baseline product, through energy and water cost savings. Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not completely recovered in reduced operating expenses.

    The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that discount rates are not needed. As explained in the engineering analysis of this notice (IV.C) there are no additional installed costs for more efficient commercial prerinse spray valves, making the PBP zero.

    11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

    EPCA, as amended, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if DOE finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the first year's energy (and, as applicable, water) savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the test procedure in place for that standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the value of the first year's energy and water savings by calculating the quantity of those savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying that amount by the average energy and combined water price forecast for the year in which compliance with the amended standard would be required. The results are summarized in section V.B.1.c of this notice.

    G. Shipments

    DOE uses projections of product shipments to calculate the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy and water use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE develops shipment projections based on historic economic figures and an analysis of key market drivers for commercial prerinse spray valves. In DOE's shipments model, CPSV shipments are driven by both new construction and stock replacements. The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the existing stock. Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age distribution in-service product is a key input to calculations of both the national energy savings (NES), national water savings, and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age distribution of the stock. DOE also considers the impacts on shipments from changes in product purchase price and operating cost associated with higher efficiency levels.

    In the 2014 Framework document, DOE stated its intention to use historical shipment data for commercial prerinse spray valves obtained from trade organization surveys and commercial floor space growth data to characterize CPSV shipments. In response, NEEA recommended including a broader mix of building types beyond just restaurants, such as grocery stores and institutional facilities, to estimate total shipments. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 1)

    In the shipments analysis for this notice, DOE gathered information pertaining to commercial prerinse spray valves for many building types besides just restaurants from the National Restaurant Association, Puget Sound Energy Program, EPA WaterSense Field Study, and other industry reports.

    DOE did not receive any shipments data from interested parties in response to the 2014 Framework document. DOE based the retirement function (the time at which the product fails and is replaced) on the probability distribution for product lifetime that was developed in the LCC and PBP analysis. The shipments model assumes that no units are retired below a minimum product lifetime (one year of service) and that all units are retired before exceeding a maximum product lifetime (ten years of service).

    In the 2014 Framework document, DOE indicated that it intended to derive standards case shipments projections using the same data used in the development of the base case projections. DOE assumed that any potential amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves would not impact the total volume of shipments over the analysis period. Rather, in response to the proposed standards, product shipments may move from one efficiency level to another, but the total number of units shipped remains the same between the base and standards cases.

    DOE determined that a roll-up scenario is most appropriate to establish the distribution of efficiencies for the year that compliance with amended CPSV standards would be required. Under the “roll-up” scenario, DOE assumes: (1) Product efficiencies in the no-standards case that do not meet the standard level under consideration would “roll-up” to meet the new standard level; and (2) product efficiencies above the standard level under consideration would not be affected. The details of DOE's approach to forecast efficiency trends are described in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

    The nature of the market for commercial prerinse spray valves makes it possible that consumers may, under examined TSLs and product classes, opt to switch product classes to a commercial prerinse spray valve that consumes more water and energy than their current product. In particular, if current choices of product correspond to consumers' optimal product under the current regulatory environment, it is probable that some consumers would switch from the standard-duty product class to the heavy-duty product class in response to proposed standards, given the lack of restrictions on doing so. DOE implemented a mechanism in the shipments model to estimate such consumer choices. The economics resulting from product-class switching may result in lower optimal efficiency levels and reduced estimates of water and energy savings, as compared to the case without class switching. A detailed description of DOE's method to model product-class switching is contained in chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.

    H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the NES, national water savings, and NPV of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from amended standards at specific efficiency levels. DOE calculates the NES, national water savings, and NPV based on projections of annual CPSV shipments, along with the annual energy and water consumption and total installed cost data from the energy and water use analysis, as well as the LCC and PBP analysis. DOE forecasted the energy and water savings, operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of products sold from 2019 through 2048.

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing a base-case projection with standards-case projections. The base-case projection characterizes energy and water use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. For the base-case projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the base-case projection with projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard.

    DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy and water savings, and the national consumer costs and savings for each TSL. Chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD describes the models and how to use them; interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical or weighted-average mean values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.

    DOE used projections of energy and combined water prices as described in section IV.F.4 and IV.F.5, as well as chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. As part of the NIA, DOE analyzed scenarios that used inputs from the AEO2014 Low Economic Growth and High Economic Growth cases. Those cases have higher and lower energy price trends compared to the reference case. NIA results based on these cases are presented in appendix 10A of the NOPR TSD.

    Table IV.4 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA analysis. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows the table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for further details.

    Table IV.4—Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact Analysis Inputs Method Shipments Annual shipments from shipments model. First Year of Analysis Period 2019 No-Standards Case Forecasted Efficiencies Efficiency distributions are forecasted based on historical efficiency data. Standards Case Forecasted Efficiencies Used a “roll-up” scenario. Annual Energy and Water Consumption per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy and water use at each TSL. Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each TSL.
  • Incorporates forecast of future product prices based on historical data.
  • Annual Energy and Combined Water Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy and water consumption per unit, and energy, and combined water treatment prices. Energy Prices AEO2014 forecasts (to 2040) and extrapolation through 2058. Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Factors Varies yearly and is generated by NEMS-BT. Discount Rate 3 and 7 percent real. Present Year Future expenses discounted to 2015, when the NOPR will be published.
    1. National Energy and Water Savings

    The national energy and water savings analysis involves a comparison of national energy and water consumption of the considered product in each potential standards case (TSL) with consumption in the no-standards case with no amended energy and water conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy and water consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product unit (by vintage or age) by the unit energy and water consumption (also by vintage). Then, DOE calculated annual NES and national water savings based on the difference in national energy and water consumption for the no-standards case (without amended efficiency standards) and for each higher efficiency standard. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy, and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy using annual conversion factors derived from the AEO2014 version of NEMS. Cumulative energy and water savings are the sum of the annual NES and national water savings for each year over the timeframe of the analysis. DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy savings. In the case of electricity use and savings, this quantity includes the energy consumed by power plants to generate delivered (site) electricity.

    In response to the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 proposed statement of policy, DOE published a statement of amended policy in the Federal Register in which DOE explained its determination that NEMS is the most appropriate tool for its FFC analysis, as well as its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).

    2. Forecasted Efficiency in the No-Standards Case and Standards Cases

    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency projected for the no-standards case (without new or amended standards) and the standards case. Section IV.F.9 of this notice describes how DOE developed a no-standards case energy efficiency distribution (which yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the considered product classes for the first year of the forecast period.

    3. Net Present Value Analysis

    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers are: (1) Total annual installed cost, (2) total annual savings in operating costs, and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between the no-standards case and each standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product unit shipped during the forecast period. The operating cost savings are energy and combined water cost savings.

    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.35 The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC and PBP analysis, which are designed to reflect an individual consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the “social rate of time preference,” which is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value.

    35 OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003) (Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.).

    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately affected by an amended national standard. DOE evaluated impacts on particular subgroups of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular consumers from alternative standard levels. For this rulemaking, DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on single entities and limited service establishment end users.

    In general, the higher the cost of capital and the lower the cost of energy and water, the more likely it is that an entity would be disproportionately affected by the requirement to purchase higher efficiency product. In this analysis, a single entity would be a small, independent, or family-owned business that operates in a single location. Compared to large corporations and franchises, these single entities might be subjected to higher costs of capital. For the purpose of the subgroup analysis, a limited service establishment is a consumer that is likely to have a significantly lower operating time than the average consumer. A lower operating time would lead to lower operating cost savings over the lifetime of the product, making this subgroup of consumers disproportionately affected by amended efficiency standards. Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis in greater detail.

    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview

    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves and to estimate the potential impacts of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects and includes analyses of forecasted industry cash flows, the INPV, investments in research and development (R&D) and manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how amended energy conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity, and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small business manufacturers.

    The quantitative elements of the MIA rely on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow model customized for this rulemaking. See section IV.J.2 for details on the GRIM. The qualitative parts of the MIA address factors such as product characteristics, characteristics of particular firms, and market trends. The complete MIA is discussed in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE conducted the MIA in the three phases.

    In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the commercial prerinse spray valve manufacturing industry based on the market and technology assessment, information on the present and past market structure and characteristics of the industry, product attributes, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and the cost structure for various manufacturers.

    The profile also included an analysis of manufacturers in the industry using Security and Exchange Commission 10-K filings, Standard & Poor's stock reports, and corporate annual reports released by publicly held companies.36 DOE used this and other publicly available information to derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM, including an industry discount rate, manufacturer markup, cost of goods sold and depreciation, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and research and development (R&D) expenses.

    36 SEC Form 10-K filings are available at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. Stock reports are available at www.standardandpoors.com.

    Phase 2 focused on the financial impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on the industry as a whole. Amended energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash flows in three distinct ways: (1) Create a need for increased investment, (2) raise per-unit production costs, and (3) alter manufacturer revenue due to possible changes in sales volumes and/or manufacturer's per-unit gross margins. DOE used the GRIM to model these effects in a cash-flow analysis of the commercial prerinse spray valve manufacturing industry. In performing this analysis, DOE used the financial parameters developed in Phase 1, the cost-efficiency curves from the engineering analysis, and the shipment assumptions from the NIA.

    In phase 3, DOE evaluated subgroups of manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash-flow analysis. For example, small businesses, manufacturers of niche products, or companies exhibiting a cost structure that differs significantly from the industry average could be more negatively affected. While DOE did not identify any other subgroup of manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves that would warrant a separate analysis, DOE specifically investigated impacts on small business manufacturers. See section V.B.2.d and section VI.B of this notice for more information.

    The MIA also addresses the direct impact on employment tied to the manufacturing of commercial prerinse spray valves. Using the GRIM and census data, DOE estimated the domestic labor expenditures and number of domestic production workers in the no-standards case and at each TSL from 2015 to 2048. See section V.B.2.b of this notice and chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for more information on direct employment impacts.

    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model

    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow that result in a higher or lower industry value due to energy conservation standards. The GRIM is a standard, discounted cash-flow model that incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs, and models changes in manufacturing costs, shipments, investments, and margins that may result from amended energy conservation standards. The GRIM uses these inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning with the base year of the analysis, 2015, and continuing to 2048. DOE uses the industry-average weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 6.9 percent, as this represents the minimum rate of return necessary to cover the debt and equity obligations manufacturers use to finance operations.

    DOE used the GRIM to compare INPV in the no-standards case with INPV at each TSL (the standards case). The difference in INPV between the base and standards cases represents the financial impact of the amended standard on manufacturers. Additional details about the GRIM can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

    a. GRIM Key Inputs Manufacturer Production Costs

    Manufacturer production costs are the costs to the manufacturer to produce a commercial prerinse spray valve. These costs include materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation. Changes in the MPCs of commercial prerinse spray valves can affect revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the industry, making product cost data key inputs for DOE's analysis. DOE estimated the MPCs for the three commercial prerinse spray valve product classes at the baseline and higher efficiency levels, as described in section IV.C of this notice. The cost model also disaggregated the MPCs into the cost of materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation. DOE used the MPCs and cost breakdowns as described in section IV.C of this notice, and further detailed in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, for each efficiency level analyzed in the GRIM.

    No-Standards Case Shipments Forecast

    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues in each year of the forecast based in part on total unit shipments and the distribution of these values by efficiency level and product class. Generally, changes in the efficiency mix and total shipments at each standard level affect manufacturer finances. The GRIM uses the NIA shipments forecasts from 2015 to 2048, the end of the analysis period.

    To calculate shipments, DOE developed a shipments model for each product class based on an analysis of key market drivers for commercial prerinse spray valves. For greater detail on the shipments analysis, see section IV.G of this notice and chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.

    Product and Capital Conversion Costs

    Amended energy conservation standards may cause manufacturers to incur conversion costs to make necessary changes to their production facilities and bring product designs into compliance. For the MIA, DOE classified these costs into two major groups: (1) Product conversion costs and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are investments in R&D, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs focused on making product designs comply with the amended energy conservation standard. Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment to adapt or change existing production facilities so that new product designs can be fabricated and assembled.

    DOE contacted manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves for the purpose of conducting interviews. However, no manufacturer agreed to participate in an interview. In the absence of information from manufacturers, DOE created estimates of capital and product conversion costs using the engineering cost model and information gained during product teardowns. DOE's estimates of the product and capital conversion costs for the CPSV manufacturing industry can be found in section IV.J.2 of this notice and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE seeks information on capital and product conversion costs associated with amended standards for commercial prerinse spray valves.

    b. GRIM Scenarios Standards Case Shipments Forecasts

    The MIA results presented in section V.B.2 of this notice use shipments from the NIA. For standards case shipments, DOE assumed that commercial prerinse spray valve consumers would choose to buy the commercial prerinse spray valve that has the flow rate that is closest to the flow rate of the product they currently use and that complies with the new standard (and, accordingly, manufacturers would choose to produce products with the closest flow rate to those they currently produce). Due to the structure of the product classes and efficiency levels for this rule, in certain instances, product class switching is predicted to occur, wherein consumers choose to buy the product with the flow rate that is closest to their current product's flow rate even if it has a higher spray force (putting those products into a different product class). Where product class switching does not occur, no-standards case shipments of products that did not meet the new standard would roll up to meet the standard starting in the compliance year. See section IV.G of this notice for a description of the standards case efficiency distributions.

    The NIA also used historical data to derive a price scaling index to forecast product costs. The MPCs and MSPs in the GRIM use the default price forecast for all scenarios, which assumes constant pricing. See section IV.F.1 of this notice for a discussion of DOE's price forecasting methodology.

    Markup Scenarios

    MSP is equal to MPC times a manufacturer markup. The MSP includes direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, material, depreciation, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit.

    DOE used the baseline manufacturer markup of 1.30, developed during Phase 1 and subsequently revised, for all products when modeling the no-standards case in the GRIM. DOE requests comment on the use of 1.30 as an appropriate baseline markup for all commercial prerinse spray valves.

    For the standards case in the GRIM, DOE modeled two markup scenarios to represent the uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards. For both GRIM markup scenarios, DOE placed no premium on higher efficiency products. This is based on the assumption that efficiency is not the primary factor influencing purchasing decisions for commercial prerinse spray valve consumers. The two standards case markup scenarios are (1) a preservation of gross margin as a percentage of revenues markup scenario, and (2) a preservation of per-unit earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) markup scenario.

    The preservation of gross margin as a percentage of revenues markup scenario assumes that the baseline markup of 1.30 is maintained for all products in the standards case. Typically, this scenario represents the upper bound of industry profitability, as manufacturers are able to fully pass through additional costs due to amended standards to their consumers under this scenario.

    The preservation of per-unit EBIT markup scenario is similar to the preservation of gross margin as a percentage of revenues markup scenario, with the exception that in the standards case minimally compliant products lose a fraction of the baseline markup. Typically, this scenario represents the lower bound for profitability and a more substantial impact on the industry as manufacturers accept a lower margin in an attempt to offer price competitive entry level products while maintaining the same level of EBIT, on a per-unit basis, that they saw prior to amended standards.

    For the commercial prerinse spray valve industry, there is no difference between the preservation of gross margin as a percentage of revenues and the preservation of per-unit EBIT markup scenarios described previously. This is explained by the fact that manufacturing production costs are estimated to be constant across all standard efficiency levels (i.e., baseline, EL 1, EL 2, EL 3), total shipments are constant across standards efficiency levels, and changes in standard case shipments for certain product classes as a result of product class switching (e.g., a decrease in Standard Duty commercial prerinse spray valve shipments and an equivalent increase in Heavy Duty commercial prerinse spray valve shipments at all TSLs) are controlled for by using the per-unit EBIT in modeling the lower bound of industry profitability. Because the preservation of gross margin as a percentage of revenues and the preservation of per-unit EBIT markup scenarios produce the same results in the GRIM, DOE does not break out the results of each in the presentation of INPV impacts in section V.B.2.a of this notice. DOE requests comment on the appropriateness of assuming a constant manufacturer markup across all product classes and efficiency levels.

    Capital Conversion Cost Scenarios

    In order to estimate an upper and lower bound of industry profitability as a result of amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE developed two model scenarios for the capital conversion costs required to meet each TSL. The assumption underlying both scenarios is that capital conversion costs associated with increasing the efficiency of commercial prerinse spray valves are exclusively related to the fabrication of plastic nozzles, as manufacturers would have to redesign nozzle molds to produce a nozzle with fewer or smaller spray holes. DOE does not believe there would be capital conversion costs associated with the in-house fabrication of metal nozzles. A more detailed discussion of capital conversion cost assumptions is provided in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

    One capital conversion cost scenario, representing the upper bound of industry profitability, assumes that the majority of commercial prerinse spray valve manufacturers source components (including the nozzle) from component suppliers and simply assemble the commercial prerinse spray valves (i.e., Sourced Components Scenario). The second scenario, representing the lower bound of industry profitability, assumes that a